view of the fact that the United States Department of Agriculture has been providing a similar service for meat products for over 50 years, and for poultry, on a voluntary basis, for over 28 years. Furthermore, we feel that the Food and Drug Administration should serve as a check and balance-a police officer, if you will-and as such, has no place in the service angle of inspection.

5. Provision for participation of State authorities in the service should be made in order that more complete and uniform service can be rendered to all in the industry.

We favor S. 3588 with some possible modifications. This bill covers most of the points that have been made. I shall take them up section by section.

Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 are policy matters with which we agree.

We favor the inspection section-section 5-since it leaves to the Secretary of Agriculture's discretion the actual techniques and application of inspection. We believe this is good and desirable since there is constant new knowledges and new developments which should be placed into practice as soon as possible. To rigidly incorporate in law the techniques involved makes such changes, however desirable, slow and cumbersome to accomplish.

Ïations.

Section 6: Sanitation, Facilities, and Practices, meets with our approval. We definitely are in favor of compulsory sanitation reguSections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are technical sections providing for penalties, records, labeling, and so forth, which are necessary for the adequate enforcement of such a law. Our only plea is that they be kept as simple and understandable as possible, with no unnecessary requirements. If practical, we would favor inclusion of these under the regulations promulgated by the Secrtary so that they, too, may be subject to reasonably prompt change to meet new circumstances of the future.

Section 14 provides for regulations and we favor this section for the same reasons as above described.

Section 15 provides for certain exemptions, particularly of the producer, and for other special circumstances to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to provide this service effectively. This seems desirable. Section 16 is a penalty clause. We make no comment.

Section 17, with reference to imports, is definitely needed and we strongly favor the requirement that any imported poultry must be subject to the same provisions as is domestic poultry.

Section 19, providing for authority for appropriations is, we feel, an essential part of this act.

We have no quarrel with section 21: Definitions.

Section 22, providing the effective date of July 1, 1958, and permitting the Secretary to provide service in advance of that date, is desirable, and we favor it.

The adequate inspection of poultry will be a big job. Over 212 billion chickens are slaughtered anually. There are many problems to be worked out in adapting processing techniques and procedures and the time allowed is not too much to accomplish the smooth operation of the service. While we favor S. 3588 we stress this to point out the importance of having this service provided by an organization that is familiar with the industry and familiar with the service which is needed to give the consumer a wholesome product.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Danish. Have you reviewed the recommendations of the Department of Agriculture as to the series of amendments to S. 3588?

Mr. DANISH. I don't believe I have.

Senator WILLIAMS. The committee wishes that you would take a copy of these proposed amendments, which are in the committee print, and if you have any further comments on those, furnish them to us in a supplementary statement for our record. Some of them are technical amendments, and some are just proposed changes which they pointed out later, after the original bill was introduced.

Mr. DANISH. Very well. Thank you.

Senator WILLIAMS. Our next witness will be Chester C. Housh.

STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. HOUSH, NATIONAL TURKEY
FEDERATION, ELKTON, VA.

Mr. HOUSH. This is the statement of the National Turkey Federation, before the Senate Committee on Agriculture.

My name is Chester C. Housh. I am a farmer and poultry producer from Elkton, Va. As immediate past president of the National Turkey Federation and a current member of the board of directors of this organization, I am authorized to speak for the 10,000 turkey growers who live with their families on farms in the 48 States of the United States.

Our organization recognizes the importance of the subject upon which this committee is deliberating. We believe it is just as important to the poultry producer as to the consumer that the health and welfare of the consuming public be protected. It is for this reason that the National Turkey Federation has given the utmost support to the voluntary poultry inspection program and will give the same support to a mandatory inspection program.

The committee has before it two bills, S. 3588 and S. 3983. Both of these bills provide for compulsory inspection. Of these two bills, we oppose S. 3983 and favor S. 3588.

The National Turkey Federation has welcomed the aid and innovations that have been developed by the Department of Agriculture. We have taken great pride in the achievements of this Department. We have enthusiastically applauded the great discoveries in the experimental and research field which have so successfully safeguarded our people and conserved to our economy uncounted billions of dollars.

The successful development of rust- and wilt-resistent varieties of grain, the control of hoof-and-mouth disease, tuberculosis, and Bang's disease in cattle, the fight against the many diseases of sheep and swine, the fight for human survival against the hordes of insects and pests which could easily destroy the human race if permitted to run rampant, the improvement in the status of the farmer by encouraging better farming methods, the conserving of the soil by strip and contour farming. Progress in these fields of combat did not just happen. They were the result of organized effort by a great Agricultural Department which has justified the faith we had in it.

The development of standards for inspections, grading, and classification of cotton, tobacco, hay and grains, meat and meat food products, poultry and poultry products, fresh and frozen fruits and vegeta

bles have rendered inestimable service to producers and consumers alike. Here is an agency which may draw fire in the maelstrom of its current and present activities, but no one in sober reflection can question USDA's service to the American people.

The National Turkey Federation in convention in January of this year passed a resolution recommending that poultry inspection be administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service which is now administering the voluntary poultry-inspection program. We realize that there has been criticism of this service. Voluntary inspection is not like mandatory inspection. In the voluntary program an individual or processing company can be in today and out tomorrow. In mandatory inspection the poultry industry is committed to a continuous program with mandates and power to enforce the program. And this is the way it should be. We should expect for certainly it will be true that there will be no perfection. We only approximate perfection. In the human medical field we do not have perfection. Human diseases now and then get out of hand-and plagues come to us. The Salk vaccine episode is an example.

What we need is faith and a determination to go forward. The Red Meat Inspection Service is now celebrating its 50th anniversary of inspection service. We congratulate the Red Meat Service. A wonderful job has been done-but it has not always been a bed of roses.

I was a young man when the red meat inspection program started. I can recall the criticism and coals of fire that were thrown at this service. The independence of the producer was being threatened. The small meat slaughtering plants would go out of existence. There would be no hope for individual advancement and ownership of slaughtering plants.

These objections were overcome-but not before the same type of accusation and slander was hurled at the service as has been heaped upon the voluntary inspection service. Human problems will always be with us. Some individuals or companies will try to pan off a poor product for a good product. Some day we hope to have better marketing and prevent the spoilage which accounts for much of the condemned product rather than the processing.

The National Turkey Federation believes that chickens, turkeys, and all poultry products compete with red meats. We believe that competitive products should not be thrown in one heap for supervision. Surely an industry which accounts for such a large percent of the farm income and is the third most important producer of farm income should stand on its own feet and have its own inspection service. We are opposed to S. 3983 which in our opinion would subordinate the mandatory poultry-inspection program to the red meat inspection

program.

Bill S. 3588 places the responsibility in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture. The mandate is clear and enforceable. He is given full authority to conduct a poultry-inspection service and to delegate its guidance and direction to whomsoever he might appoint.

We place our faith in the present Secretary of Agriculture and any future Secretaries that might hereinafter be appointed.

The National Turkey Federation and National Poultry Producers' Association recommend to you the enactment of bill S. 3588.

As a representative of these two national organizations, I thank you for the privilege of presenting our views on this subject.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Housh. I would ask you, too, if you have not already reviewed the amendments which are suggested.

Mr. HOUSH. I reviewed the amendments, but it has not been passed on by the executive committee. However, we will get in touch with them and give you our comments.

Senator WILLIAMS. We would appreciate having that, and thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Carl E. Nall.

STATEMENT OF CARL E. NALL, SECRETARY, PACIFIC DAIRY & POULTRY ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. NALL. My name is Carl E. Nall, and I am secretary of the Pacific Dairy & Poultry Association, a nonprofit trade association representing the dairy and poultry industries throughout the nine Western States. Our membership processes and distributes approximately 80 percent of all poultry in this area.

By a majority vote of our members at our 32d annual meeting, the following resolution was adopted and is submitted for your consideration.

Be it resolved, That the Pacific Dairy and Poultry Association go on record favoring the administration of a compulsory wholesomeness inspection program for poultry moving interstate by the United States Department of Agriculture, Poultry Inspection Division, and that the costs for administering the program be by appropriation from public funds.

Further consideration of pending proposals to regulate poultry inspection has led to an endorsement of S. 3588, a bill which we believe is designed to give the consumer a maximum of protection for wholesome poultry.

A mandatory wholesomeness inspection law has been enacted by the State of California to become effective July 1, 1956. Although plants operating under the voluntary inspection program of the Poultry Inspection Service as set up under the Agricultural Marketing Service are exempt under this law, the peculiar requirements of the California law have caused great concern to processors from other States, and it would, indeed, be unfortunate if this should cause a chain reaction of dissimilar and trade-stifling inspection laws in other local jurisdictions. It would appear to us that S. 3588 would provide a sound basis for eliminating the possibility of extending multiple conflicting inspection requirements among the various States of

the Union.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.

Mr. NALL. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing here.
Thank you, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. We are not going to be able to complete all the witnesses this morning. Some of them, I understand, may have to leave early this afternoon; therefore, we are going to skip around. We will call Mr. Philip Palmer at this time. I might say that if any of those who are scheduled to testify here wishes to file his statement before we recess, we shall be glad to incorporate it in the record.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP PALMER, VICE PRESIDENT, SHERMAN WHITE & CO., FORT WAYNE, IND.

Mr. PALMER. I am submitting my statement as vice president of the Sherman White & Co., of Fort Wayne, Ind.

(The statement of Mr. Palmer is as follows:)

We are opposed to these two bills or any attempt at the Federal level to impose mandatory inspection of poultry and poultry products because it will drive us out of business and we do not want to be driven out of business.

We do believe in inspection of poultry, as vital to the very nature of the product itself and its use by the consuming public. We do not want to be drawn into any controversy as to the relative merits of any of various bills which show "legislative findings" and other premises advocating Federal mandatory inspection with which we cannot agree.

Fort Wayne is in the northeast corner of Indiana, and we do business principally in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. In order to hold our Indiana business, we would have to run under only local and State inspection, without Federal inspection. In our opinion live poultry would move from Indiana into Ohio and Michigan and be dressed there by State inspected houses. We doubt that setting up market areas for interstate shipments under Federal inspection would be constitutional.

We believe the scope of legislation involved in either of these two bills is too complex and that ultimate cost of any Federal program is too large for the Congress to pass on at this time, pending further study, discussion, and debate. We do recommend that the Congress make a complete and thorough independent investigation and pledge our sincere cooperation should we be called upon. We do not believe that the poultry industry in the United States could have grown to its present size and become the third largest source of income for the farmer if it had not had the advantage of working in a free economy, supplying a need to the consuming public. An industry which has had this phenomenal growth quite naturally has also had its problems, but the problems have been met and the industry has forged ahead.

We are committed, by our very existence and our own financial investment, to the growth of this poultry industry. We believe that anything that is good for any part or phase of our business is axiomatically good for the industry as a whole. The farmer, operating independently, with the information available today, both from public and private sources, should be encouraged to grow healthy birds as economically as possible. It is one of the facts of life that unhealthy poultry is not profitable. The public does need protection on this score also, we agree. There is much merit in the independent function of the Pure Food and Drug Administration. They have a right to condemn and prosecute anyone that ships product in interstate commerce that is not fit for food.

Let us also admit that any law in itself will not eliminate the natural hazards and dangers involved in eating food. Let us hope that civilization has progressed beyond the point where a sultan must have a personal taster to sample his food Any 100 percent effective inspection program would have to do just that. Without deprecating the seriousness of the situation regarding dangerous or unfit food in trade channels, it is our observation that the vast majority of our food is well handled and that a large share of contamination is at the retail level and beyond, to the finished preparations and to leftovers of the meal. We also believe that we have the finest retail establishments and the finest cooks in our homes today that the world has ever known. Certainly continued common sense and broad educational programs toward food handling are more likely to minimize the dangers.

While we have no figures to substantiate it, we believe the incidence of food poisoning in meat and poultry is much less than in some other perishable foods, and we suggest a comparison with other products, some of which are eaten raw, and wonder why our industry should have been singled out for Federal control without regulation of the entire food business. For instance, there is no Federal mandatory control of milk.

Under the present voluntary Federal Government inspection of poultry, paid for by the processor by the way, the poultry industry does have an opportunity to discard it if and when it becomes a restraint of trade or an uneconomical 80695-56-13