We do not welcome tampering with an industry "on the march" simply because of its increased importance and size. Let Congress examine the facts and not give us unnecessary legislation, but give us only legislation that the public welfare requires.

This committee, Mr. Chairman, has had very little concrete or practical evidence submitted. There has been no survey as to the actual number of plants involved; what effect it would have upon the little fellow in the poultry business, or whether or not it would put him out of business. No realistic figures have been submitted by the proponents of these bills. It has all been talked of in the most general terms, but more important than money, no scientists have testified on the effect of poultry diseases on humans or the scientific value of antemortem and post-mortem inspection. There is much talk about who shall do the inspecting, but very little evidence of what conditions exist that make it necessary.

No one from the Public Health Service has given details of scientific findings on these matters. So, therefore, in order that factual witnesses and scientific experts can be called before this committee, we concur in the testimony given by the American Farm Bureau Federation, to the effect that legislation on this matter should be delayed until the January session of Congress and in the meantime, let us come to a conclusion as to what-just what-we need and what we can safely do without.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WILLIAMS. Do you wish to incorporate this letter to Mr. J. Paul Williams, executive secretary of the Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, from Wesley E. Gilbertson, dated May 3, 1956, in the record?

Mr. CARBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. It will be incorporated at this point. (The letter is as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND Welfare,

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, Washington, D. C., May 3, 1956.

Mr. J. PAUL WILLIAMS,
Executive Secretary, Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association,

Richmond, Va.

DEAR MR. WILLIAMS: This refers to your letter of April 19, 1956, requesting information regarding the studies of poultry problems contemplated by the Public Health Service in fiscal year 1958, and on the areas of danger to human health originating with poultry.

As we explained to you and Mr. Carbaugh during our conversation on April 18, our plans for studies on poultry problems are tentative, and the nature of studies conducted will depend on the availability of funds and the nature of findings as work progresses. The concurrent research and findings of other agencies, of educational institutions, and of the poultry industry will, undoubtedly, affect the course of our activities.

Broadly stated, the Division of Sanitary Engineering Services contemplates the initiation in fiscal year 1958 of a study of microbiological and chemical changes associated with the commercial processing of poultry. The goal of such a study would be (1) to develop and evaluate microbiological and chemical test procedures for determining the sanitary quality of poultry and poultry products, (2) to ascertain the effect of certain commercial practices on the sanitary quality of poultry and poultry products by correlating field observations with the results obtained from laboratory examinations of suitable samples, and (3) to obtain information which may serve as a basis for developing recommended standards of sanitary quality based on bacteriological and chemical analyses of processed poultry and poultry products.

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 investigations. Reports of food-borne outbreaks frequently involve poultry or various poultry dishes. In some outbreaks poultry is a source of the causative organisms, while in other outbreaks the food has most probably been contaminated as a result of inadequate sanitary precautions during or after processing. Infection introduced into the kitchen on diseased or contaminated poultry may result in contamination of equipment surfaces, utensils and employees' hands, and ultimately of prepared poultry dishes or of other foods. Heating of poultry or of foods such as dressings, croquettes, gravies, piles, etc. during cooking maye be insufficient to destroy organisms or bacterial toxins present. Processed, cooked, or prepared foods (i. e. salads), even though contaminated with relatively few organisms, may be held at temperatures favoring bacterial growth and cause food-borne illness. Aside from infected birds, there are various sources of contamination from which the product should be protected through good sanitary practice and environment: Body discharges and dust from live poultry, rodents, insects, sewage, processing wastes, unsafe water or ice, infected or careless employees, contaminated equipment or utensils, pesticides, dust, and other extraneous materials.

Employees in poultry-processing plants may contract infections such as psittacosis, Newcastle disease, and various dermatoses. We are forwarding your letter to the Communicable Disease Center, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Ga., for further reply with regard to the problems posed by these and other diseases of poultry transmissible to man, and the field studies are epidemiological investigations which are contemplated by the Service. Enclosed are four papers which may be of interest to you, and which list a number of references on various aspects of the poultry disease public health subject: (1) Poultry Sanitation Standards, (2) The United States Public Health Service Model Poultry Ordinance and Code," (3) Poultry Inspection and Sanitation, and (4) Discussion of the New Poultry Ordinance.

We certainly appreciate your offer to work with the Service in solving these problems of mutual concern. Undoubtedly, we will be calling on your association and its members for cooperation and assistance as our field studies get under way. We would be pleased to receive from you, or from others within the poultry industry, any information on research or observations which will broaden our understanding of these problems and contribute to the solutions which we all desire.

It was a pleasure meeting with you and Mr. Carlbaugh on your recent visit to Washington, and we are looking forward to seeing you again in the near future. In the meantime, we hope that the above information will be helpful to you. Sincerely yours,

WESTLEY E. GILBERTSON, Assistant Chief Division of Sanitary Engineering Services. Senator WILLIAMS. Our next witness is Mr. Quillin.

STATEMENT OF E. BOWEN QUILLIN, PRESIDENT, EASTERN SHORE POULTRY GROWERS' EXCHANGE, SELBYVILLE, DEL., ALSO REPRESENTING THE MARYLAND STATE POULTRY COUNCIL, THE DELAWARE POULTRY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, THE DELAWARE POULTRY INDUSTRY, INC., THE DELAWARE STATE POULTRY COMMISSION, AND THE EASTERN SHORE GRAIN & FEED DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Quillin, Senator Butler and Senator Beall asked me to express their regrets that they have been unable to be at the committee meeting. However, they want to assure all the gentlement that they will read with interest the statements in support of the objectives upon which you are testifying to this morning. Mr. QUILLIN. Thank you, sir.

I am E. Bowen Quillin, president of the Eastern Shore Poultry Growers' Exchange, Selbyville, Del. The organization which I represent has joined with the following other organizations in the preparation of this statement-they are: The Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc., the Delaware State Poultry Commission, the Maryland State Poultry Council, the Eastern Shore Grain & Feed Dealers' Association, and the Delaware Poultry Improvement Association. Each of these organizations is represented here today, and these representatives will be glad to state their views in person, if the committee requests.

I want to point out that this statement represents the broiler production and marketing area popularly known as Delmarva. Delmarva is a peninsula consisting of the State of Delaware, 9 Maryland counties, and 2 counties of Virginia, located on the Eastern Shore.

The combined membership of these organizations represents more than 75 percent of the poultry producers on Delmarva; also represented by these organizations are the various feed dealers and manufacturers, poultry processors, hatcheries, allied poultry industries, and business organizations whose prosperity is closely asociated with the welfare of the Delmarva Peninula.

Statements presented at earlier hearings have emphasized the importance of poultry and poultry products in the agricultural economy. On a national basis, poultry is the third most important farm commodity, accounting for 11 percent of the total farm income. With your permission, I would like to say a few words about the Delmarva poultry industry. Delmarva is usually credited with being the birthplace of the commercial broiler industry. In a short period of 20 years broilers have become the lifeblood of the agricultural economy and the bellwether of the entire Delmarva area. Broilers account for 50 percent of the agricultural income of Delaware and almost 70 percent of the farm income of Sussex County.

In Maryland broilers account for slightly over 20 percent of the total farm income in the State; but in the Eastern Shore counties close to one-half of the farm income is from broiler production.

In 1955, total broiler production for the peninsula was close to 500 million pounds, returning growers approximately $125 million in terms of gross income. To us, poultry is important, and we are always interested in those conditions which will assure the public a wholesome product at a reasonable cost and at the same time serve the interest of this important industry.

The phenomenal growth of the broiler industry in Delmarva and other production areas is the result of several factors:

1. The production and marketing of a product that enjoys remarkable consumer acceptance.

2. The tremendous advancement in efficiency of all phases of the entire broiler industry. The public has been the benefactor of this efficiency by receiving an improved quality product at low relative prices.

3. The determination on the part of the industry to solve its own problem without the aid of Government subsidies.

We are in agreement with the objectives of both of the Senate bills under consideration, that of providing compulsory Federal inspection for poultry and poultry products. Such a program we believe would

be beneficial to all. Consumers would have the added assurance of a wholesome product. Poultry producers and those engaged in processing and marketing would benefit from increased confidence and acceptance of the inspected product. Also, such a program would put poultry on equal basis with red meats which have enjoyed the benefits of compulsory Federal inspection for many years.

After careful study of these two bills, S. 3588 and S. 3983, we believe that the Aiken bill, S. 3588, very definitely provides the best framework for developing a compulsory Federal inspection program for poultry. We recommend and urge its enactment for these reasons:

1. It establishes a practical timetable for the application of compulsory inspection of all plants, permitting those plants that are now under the voluntary plan to shift to the new plan as soon as the administrative machinery can be established. On the other hand, those plants that must make changes in their operation would have sufficient time to make these changes without disrupting the orderly movement of poultry from farm to market.

2. We question the advisability of designating by law a specific agency to carry out the inspection program. Senate bill 3588 leaves this decision to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Senate bill 3983 would place poultry inspection in the hands of Federal Meat Inspection Service. We question the logic of this because poultry and read meats are two distinctly different products with different growers and growing conditions, processors, and pathology; and furthermore, poultry and red meats compete for the same "meat" dollar.

3. The voluntary inspection program now operated by the Agricultural Marketing Service has received wide acceptance. This program is used much more in Delmarva than in other areas. It is estimated that between 60 and 65 percent of the poultry processed on Delmarva now is inspected for wholesomeness. We feel it has been very helpful in raising to very high levels the processing and marketing standards now used by the processors on Delmarva. It seems logical that this experience and know-how should not be overlooked in selecting an agency to administer the compulsory program.

4. We feel that the provisions for ante mortem inspection as stated in S. 3983 is impractical and unworkable in an area such as Delmarva, where the free movement of live poultry across State boundaries is a necessity for orderly marketing and competitive selling.

We have buyers in the Eastern Shore Poultry, Inc., from four different States. They have been approved as buyers. I think it is safe to say about 50 percent of the poultry moved from the house to the plant would move across State borders. This, obviously, would make it very impractical to have inspection in the field.

5. To make a compulsory inspection program fully effective and equally applicable to all processors, some means of regulating intrastate movement of poultry is needed. Senate bill S. 3588 provides for this by giving the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with local health authorities, the power to establish such a program in a designated city or area, thereby coordinating all poultry inspection. It seems only fair to point out that no other phase of the poultry and livestock industries has made greater increases in efficiency during the past 25 years than has the broiler-fryer business. During 1930,

only 20 pounds of poultry meat could be realized from each 100 pounds of feed; today, an equal amount of feed will produce 38 pounds of chicken meat, an increase of 90 percent.

Such progress in the poultry industry results in reasonable consumer prices, giving Mrs. Housewife a decided advantage as she selects broilers and fryers for her family's meat. And she is choosing chicken often. During the past quarter of a century, broiler growing has increased from less than a million a year to more than 1 billion. Think of it-from one-quarter pound broiler meat annually, to 18 pounds per person in 1955. During the same period, all chicken-meat consumption increased from about 10 pounds per person to about 29 pounds.

Such a record as that just reviewed has been no accident. This progress could have been made only through fair dealings with consumers, giving them a wholesome, economical meat buy as they have continued to purchase poultry at a rapidly increasing rate.

In closing, let me say again we are in favor of compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products. We believe the inspection program should be one that provides sufficient safeguards to the consuming public without adding unnecessarily to the cost of marketing. In our humble opinion, we believe Senate bill S. 3588 provides the necessary framework for establishing a workable compulsory Federal inspection program. We hope the subcommittee will give it favorable consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to present this statement.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Quillin.

The committee is to understand that you feel that the adoption of some form of compulsory inspection for poultry would be a benefit, not only to the consumer, but also to the farmer and all segments of the industry involved. Is that right?

Mr. QUILLIN. That is right, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you.

I am wondering if you would not, for the record, identify the men that you have with you and the organization which they represent, or perhaps we can go down the line, and each one of you identify yourselves.

Mr. QUILLIN. Dr. John Hammond, Delaware State Poultry Commission. Next is Sterling White, of the Delmarva Poultry Industry. Next is Mr. Phillips, representing the Maryland State Poultry Council. Next is Mr. Gordon, representing the Delaware Poultry Improvement Association.

Senator WILLIAMS. Do any of you gentlemen have an additional statement that you wish to submit for the record? ·

Thank you, Mr. Quillin.

Our next witness is Mr. Herbert Beyers.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT BEYERS, SECRETARY, NORBEST TURKEY GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. BEYERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I represent the Norbest Turkey Growers' Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, which is a cooperative marketing association, with cooperative