We further state that we are definitely in favor of legislation to bring about compulsory sanitation standards in poultry plants. We favor inspection to insure that these standards are adhered to.

When we come to the matter of bird by bird inspection, both ante mortem and post mortem, then we believe that these phases of poultry inspection should be given careful consideration before action is taken. During the hearing before the Senate Labor Committee on May 8 and 9, testimony was given to the effect that to protect the public health there must be both ante mortem and post mortem inspection. There was no testimony given, however, on the mechanics of this type of inspection, nor upon the magnitude of the task involved. We, therefore, wish to furnish information on this subject.

There are approximately 22 billion chickens of all kinds produced and sold annually in the United States at the present rate of production, and production is still growing by leaps and bounds. Post mortem and ante mortem inspection will require individual inspection of each chicken twice. It it is necessary, therefore, to inspect twice each and every chicken sold in the channels of trade throughout the Nation, then we must approach the problem from this premise. We are assuming here, of course, for the sake of argument, that this type of inspection is necessary for 100 percent protection to the consumer. Please let us, therefore, visualize the magnitude of this task. Now it might be argued here that we are dealing only with interstate commerce and that there is a large amount of poultry sold in intrastate commerce. But let us remind you that if we propose to protect the health of our people, it is inconceivable that part of the Nation would receive this protection and part go unprotected. We must, therefore, assume that each State, county, and city would adopt a similar program, for undoubtedly officials would not be so cold as to knowingly endanger the health of people buying poultry sold in intrastate commerce. So let us look at the problem as a whole and visualize what inspecting 22 billion chickens-not once, but twice-means in money. At the present rate of speed, as allowed by the Poultry Branch of the USDA voluntary inspection program, an inspector is able to examine around 2,500 birds per hour on post mortem inspection. This being the criterion, then we must assume that inspection of poultry in the United States would require 2 million hours of work yearly for post mortem inspection and double that amount for the inclusion of ante mortem inspection. To put it in dollars and cents, assuming that an inspector worked 2,000 hours per year, we would need 2,000 inspectors. This would not include supervisory and other administrative officials. The cost, therefore, involved would run from 15 to 20 million dollars annually to the Government for poultry inspection.

There is, however, an even greater cost involved. Please also visualize the slowing down in the mechanical operation of processing chickens by making birds individually available for inspectors to examine. The loss of speed in a processing plant, the extra amount of labor, and the huge cost in buildings and equipment to prepare for this type of inspection must be borne either by the farmer and/or the consumer. Processing plants could not absorb any part of this cost because of the very small margin upon which they are operating. It would, therefore, be borne by the producers or consumers of poultry. It would lengthen the spread between the farmer and the consumera problem which is very much paramount in the Nation today.

Even now in post mortem inspection only, under the USDA voluntary plan, poultry must sell for from 1 to 2 cents per pound more than poultry processed in uninspected plants. In any event, one would not need to know too much about the poultry business to realize that the mechanics of individually inspecting 22 billion chickens twice would make for huge increased costs. We would estimate the cost to producers and/or consumers to be from $60 to $100 million annually. Yearly poultry production is running at the rate of well over 6 billion pounds per year and the figure of $60 to $100 million is not exaggerated.

Now our association makes this point-we want to be doubly sure that the proposed functions of inspection are absolutely necessary to protect the public health before we could endorse any such suggested procedure.

It is our considered opinion, also, that a decision made on this matter now, aside from mandatory sanitation practices, is premature.

In the territory covering our association is located the most concentrated broiler production area in the United States and, as we have said, most of the plants within this area are uninspected. To solve the current problem it is our purpose to seek the truth, and so far we have developed the following information:

1. There is only one poultry infection which we know about up to this time which has caused deaths. This is ornithosis (psittacosis) in turkeys and death occurred not through the eating of turkeys but through the handling of turkeys. No amount of post mortem inspection would have protected the worker from this infection.

I have, Mr. Chairman, a copy of a letter sent me by the meatcutters union to the Members of Congress urging legislation for mandatory inspection and the basis of this letter is principally upon this ornithosis, or psittacosis, problem, and that seems to be their main reason for wanting to have a mandatory inspection bill introduced.

Senator WILLIAMS. Do you wish to incorporate that letter in the record?

Mr. CARBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. That will be incorporated at this time. (The letter, dated May 25, 1956, is as follows:)

MAY 25, 1956.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN : Diseased poultry has probably caused the second epidemic in 3 months in Oregon. Sixteen men and women are currently extremely ill with suspected psittacosis. Previously, two persons died and 61 became ill as a result of the poultry-caused disease.

The epidemic has consequences that reach beyond Oregon, according to scientists. The International News Service reported on April 2:

"Agriculture Department scientists have warned that the Nation's turkey industry is now threatened by an epidemic that has already led to 2 human deaths and sickness to 62 poultry workers *** according to one official, 'there is no doubt as to the potential danger to other turkey-producing States.' He emphasized that the deadly virus could now erupt in any State 'anywhere at any time.'"

Excellent legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives to minimize, if not prevent, such outbreaks in the future. These bills are H. R. 8599 by Representative J. Percy Priest and H. R. 9006 by Representative Don Hayworth.

A Senate subcommittee held hearings on a companion bill to these measures, S. 3176 or the Murray bill, on May 9-10. About two dozen major national consumer, women, health, labor, and farm organizations testified or presented statements in favor of the Murray bill. These groups included the General Federation of Women's Clubs, National Farmers Union, American Association of University

Women, AFL-CIO, Association of State and Territorial Health Offices, Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States, American Nurses Association, National Board YWCA, Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, etc.

Other bills, purporting to be mandatory poultry inspection legislation, have been introduced in the form of H. R. 10514, H. R. 10527, H. R. 10807, and H. R. 11245. We should like to call to your attention the testimony of health officers and other experts during the Senate hearings that these measures (1) do not provide compulsory inspection, since inspection will only be as the Secretary of Agriculture "determines necessary"; (2) make prosecutions for violations virtually impossible because of the wording of the "prohibited acts" section; (3) arrogate to the United States Department of Agriculture a great deal of the jurisdiction of State health authorities and Food and Drug Administration concerning poultry.

We are enclosing an on-the-spot account of the first Oregon psittacosis outbreak. We hope you give the article careful consideration because it provides a dramatic example of the extreme urgency to enact true and effective mandatory poultry inspection legislation. And that is H. R. 8599 and H. R. 9006.

Very truly yours,

AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF AMERICA,
EARL W. JIMERSON,
PATRICK E. GORMAN,
Secretary-Treasurer.

President.

Mr. CARBAUGH. Now, sir, we can realize the interest of the meatcutters union in protecting the health of their workers, and we fully understand that, so we hope that when this matter is clarified, it is one that has to be solved on the farm and not in the processing plant; that they will endorse a proposal which I will make later on in this testimony, because certainly this problem is one for the farm and not for the processing plant and a means to detect it on the farm must be found.

2. Qualified authorities have told us that there is only slight protection for the public in post mortem inspection. It has been specifically stated that if 100,000 birds were sold from an inspected line as against 100,000 birds being sold from an uninspected line, that the difference would be very little so far as protection of the public health is concerned. We are told that the average condemnation in plants now having the voluntary inspection plan is one-half of 1 percent. Of this small percentage, we could assume that any plant would throw out at least one-half of this amount because of visible evidence of ́emaciation and deformity. In other words, the housewife would not take this type of bird, even if the processors wanted to put them off on her. This would leave, therefore, about one-fourth of 1 percent which could be detected only by an inspector. Now add to this the fact that a high percentage of germs are killed in cooking, you wind up with only a minute risk to the public, indeed, if there is a risk at all. 3. No scientific testimony has yet been submitted to Congress by competent scientists as to what poultry diseases can be actually transmitted to humans. If this proposition has been contended by others at these hearings, then it is their duty to submit scientific proof.

I would like to call attention to some part of Dr. Carpenter's testimony, in which he mentioned the fact that Congressman Fogarty, of Rhode Island, asked Mr. Larrick, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, about this talk of outbreaks of disease in people from eating chicken, in which Mr. Larrick replied, "We have not been able to

establish any firm cases where a person contracted a contagious disease from the consumption of poultry."

4. Most cases of food poisoning from poultry stems from insanitary equipment, either in plants, retail stores, or kitchens, rather than from any poultry diseases. We gained this information from an interview with the United States Public Health Service. In fact, we wish to submit a copy of a letter as evidence, which we have received from W. N. Gilbertson, Assistant Chief, Division of Sanitary Engineering Services, United States Department of Health. Specifically, we quote this excerpt:

Obviously, more specific information is needed on the role of poultry as a source or vehicle of infection to man, and such information can be obtained only through continuing research and investigation.

Here is proof that we do not yet know the scientific answers to poultry disease problems. Now, we admit that post mortem and ante mortem inspection is desirable as a general principle; but in view of the immense cost, such a burden should not be placed upon the Government, public, and industry, without scientific information as to what is necessary for the protection of the public health.

We also know-if we may testify categorically-that "murder" is just as evil or worse than an illness or death from poultry, but the Government and the public could in nowise inspect all individuals for firearms or put a continuous watch upon them. The use of narcotics is probably the most vicious evil we have in the Nation, but it would not be feasible for the Government to furnish sufficient personnel to continuously inspect every known source of its entry, sale or use in the United States. We do have strict laws against crime; and we feel that there should be-if we do not already have them-laws prohibiting the sale of unsound, unhealthy, and unclean poultry, and violators should be subject to prosecution. But to undertake to personally inspect all chickens is indeed quite an undertaking. We must bear in mind that the inspection of cattle and hogs and sheep is an entirely different proposition from the inspection of chickens. There we are dealing with 300 to 1,000 pounds per carcass.

With 180 million head of livestock produced in this Nation, and 212 billion chickens, the enormity of the problem becomes apparent. We therefore, feel that any decision upon mandatory poultry inspection must be determined upon absolute need and we reiterate that the situation must be so bad that this type of inspection is necessary for the protection of public health.

Let us suggest the following:

1. Legislation for compulsory plant sanitation inspection which includes a Government inspector to oversee the operations of a plant including dressing, chilling, packaging, and so on.

2. Legislation requiring an immediate report by producers to field. supervisors of outbreaks of infection upon farms so that veterinarians can then control the movement of such poultry and turkey flocks, and also quarantine when necessary.

3. We further recommend, as an initial step, that scientific studies be carried out regarding poultry diseases and their effect upon humans. Right here, let us urge Congress to see the Public Health Service obtains additional funds with which to carry out the necessary research in order to solve this current problem in our industry.

80695-56-12

We further feel that the subject of mandatory poultry inspection is so huge and so far-reaching that no group of individuals, be it a Department of Government, labor, industry, or other groups, should influence Congress, but that the matter be based upon the findings of the health authorities who will rely upon scientific knowledge. This problem is so large and the cost would be so great that the public welfare requires this procedure.

Listening to the testimony submitted on Senate bill S. 3176 on May 8 and May 9, one would gather that the poultry business is on the verge of collapse, that it is in disfavor with the public, that people by the wholesale are getting sick or dying, and that an emergency exists. The truth is that the poultry industry is more alert and vibrant than any other food industry in our Nation.

More modern and sanitary machinery has been installed in the past 10 years than for the handling of any other food commodity.

The poultry business has been taken out of the realm of the backroom scalding pot to modern and up-to-date streamlined methods of operation.

More progress toward increasing the standard of living for our people has been accomplished by this industry than by any other food commodity because of the reasonable prices at which it sells.

The farmers' percentage out of the consumers' dollar is larger in the poultry business than in any other food commodity.

It is one industry that operates without Government aid or subsidy and is content to do so.

With better machines, modern methods, better breeding, better management, and so on, the poultry industry today is offering the public a wonderful and delicious piece of meat at prices in line with economic conditions which existed 25 years ago. The public is getting the benefit of the progress in the poultry industry both pricewise and qualitywise. The margins of profits are the slimmest of any other food commodity, and yet it is profitable because of the huge volume handled. It is one industry that is doing a real job for the public. Congress cannot afford to tamper with an industry that is moving ever forward and upward for the benefit of both the farmer and consumer unless there is a real cause. Disruption might upset the applecart of progress.

The fact that the consumption of poultry has been growing by leaps and bounds is definite proof that, on the whole, the public is getting wholesome meat. You cannot fool the public long, and that is not to say that we are 100 percent clean of unscrupulous operators; but it is to say that on the whole the poultry business deserves a great vote of commendation from the public. If medals are being passed out, Mr. Chairman, the poultry business should be decorated with the largest one that can be found.

Therefore, in conclusion let us be sure that whatever is done is absolutely necessary for the protection of public health. Merely to have a Government stamp of approval-maybe as a sales gimmick or something like that is not enough. That is not the problem. We should seek to protect the public without fanfare and frills. We should not incur 1 cent of expense, however, that does not actually protect the public health.

We, the members of the Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, welcome study of our industry. We welcome reforms that are neces