Page images
PDF
EPUB

and certainly that would be so in the case of the common carrier railroad company.

In view of that situation it seems to us that it is entirely reasonable and appropriate that an exemption provision similar to that contained in the further proviso in section 10 of S. 3588 as introduced should be continued in the bill. However, as indicated earlier in this letter, it is believed that it would be appropriate to include the word "poultry" as well as the words "poultry products" in this proviso. Section 10 would seem to be an appropriate place for the inclusion of this proviso and would have the effect of leaving the requirement with respect to maintenance of records and granting of access to representatives of the Secretary of Agriculture applicable to carriers.

We have noted that under section 12 the only person who would be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine and imprisonment would be one who willfully violates the provisions of this act. This probably provides reasonable protection for carriers acting in good faith, but in our view does not render unnecessary and inappropriate the suggested proviso. Apparently this also was the view of the authors of S. 3588 in its original form. In this connection the committee's attention is directed to one more point. Frequently in statutes of this character the penalty provision is made applicable to persons who knowingly and willfully violate its provisions. It is noted that the word "knowingly" is employed in describing prohibited acts in subparagraph (c) and (d) of section 8 but not in certain of other subparagraphs, such as (a) and (i) with which carriers are concerned. It would seem appropriate to add the words "knowingly and" before the word "willfully" in section 12 or to employ the word "knowingly" in subparagraphs (a) and (i) and perhaps in other subparagraphs of section 8 in describing the prohibited acts.

We appreciate the opportunity afforded us to express our view with regard to S. 3588 and respectfully urge your careful consideration of the above suggestions.

Very truly yours,

GREGORY S. PRINCE,

General Solicitor, Association of American Railroads.

TRENTON, N. J., June 26, 1956.

Senator EARL C. CLEMENTS,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Poultry Inspection Legislatiton,
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

Hon. Senator CLEMENTS: As per your request, I have reviewed the committee print of Senate 3588 and, with the approval of the executive board of the Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, wish to state that we are still firmly convinced that Senate 3588 is a very poor substitute, even as amended, for the very fine type of food regulatory bill as presented in the form of Senate 3983. It is quite interesting to our group to note the tremendous number of changes that are suggested by the Department of Agriculture in a rather weak attempt to make a weak, ineffectual bill somewhat more palatable to those interested in the public's health.

Section 4: Specifically, we feel that section 4 should be deleted. No reference to designated cities or areas should be allowed in any legislation which comes out. The Federal Government should control strictly interstate business and should leave local intrastate business to the jurisdiction of and control of local and State health authorities. The committee should note that it was due to the request by State authorities for Federal control on interstate business that there has been any form of bill presented to you. Initiation for compulsory interstate inspection of poultry did not arise with the United States Department of Agriculture but with local-State health authorities. We therefore feel that our desires in this respect should be thought of and perhaps adhered to.

Section 5: This new section with the addition of adulteration and the suggested changes at lines 8, 9, and 10 of the committee print, on page 4, changes nothing at all. It attempts to bring in the word "adulterated" but it does not provide for compulsory post mortem inspection of each individual carcass and most certainly does not provide for even a compulsory form of ante mortem inspection. It merely provides that the Secretary may make or cause to make an examination as he determines necessary. It is our feeling that any bill reported out should say specifically that suitable ante mortem of poultry about to be slaugh

tered and a post mortem inspection of each carcass and its viscera at the time of evisceration shall be inade by an inspector employed by the Meat Inspection Branch and to specify as obtained in Senate 3983 and 3176, namely, that the Secretary must cause to be made post mortem examination of each careass. While this does not obtain in the red-meat inspection action, administration has provided for it. Our feeling is, however, and particularly since the hearing and hearing the words of the Department of Agriculture spokesman that administration in the Secretary's hands at this time and with the personnel that are presently available to do so may result in a very weak, unscientific, illogical, and ethereal type of sampling basis inspection, the factual nature of which is open to question and the advisability of which is not presently warranted nor is it desired by the consuming public or public health authorities.

Section 6: Section 6 should be deleted in line with the comment with regard to section 4.

Section 7: Section 7 is not in accord with long-established State food and drug regulations on labeling. The revision offered by USDA, on page 6, lines 18 to 24, appears to be another loophole to allow the Secretary to approve of the industry calling a product by a misleading name. In this connection, the feeling of our organization is that poultry should be considered as any other food and that therefore it should be subject to any and all restrictions applying to labeling, misleading adulteration, and deception which applies to any other food products. To allow a chicken breast to be sold which includes the backbone and upper legs and to have same labeled as chicken breast when more than half of the weight in some instances may actually be backbone and legs is certainly a fraud and deception on the consuming public even though it may not have a public-health hazard attached to it.

Sections 8 and 9: These sections should be corrected to eliminate any reference to a designated city or area.

Section 10: This section should likewise eliminate any reference to a designated area. It should be noted that our association is happy to see that the Department of Agriculture feels, in line with our previous testimony, that the evidence obtained from a party by means of his books should not be excluded in the criminal trial prosecution.

Section 13: This section is superfluous and is not needed considering the Administrative Procedures Act which covers all such likelihoods and, further, the presentation by oral means rather than written would leave the Department of Agriculture open to tremendous pressures that could result in a failure to ever prosecute.

Section 16: This section refers to designated cities or areas and should be deleted.

Section 18 (a): Legislation on poultry inspection should leave intact the responsibility and authority of Food and Drug Administration and Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Also, State and local agencies should retain authority as now exists with respect to red meat. Section 18 (b): This entire section is superfluous and objectionable. The idea of cooperation with States should be expected without mention of it in law unless the USDA intends to have a United States inspected legend placed on birds which have not in fact been inspected by Federal employees. It would appear that the USDA is trying to undermine the entire object of the legislation, namely, to require compulsory inspection of poultry in interstate commerce by qualified Federal employees. It is interesting in this connection to note that State publichealth veterinarians employed by State governments are those which are strongly objecting to suggestions to allow State inspections to be approved by the Federal Government. The Senate committee should realize that this must be some form of desire on the part of industry or the Department of Agriculture which is not substantiated by those who are most earnestly and intimately connected with the administration of State health programs and meat and poultry inspection programs on a State level.

I should like to call to your attention that our stand is also approved by the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States, who are those officials that work in food and drug work in the United States exclusive of the Federal employees in this field.

Section 21 (i): The term "inspector" should be amended as indicated in the testimony presented before your group to read as follows:

"The term 'inspector' means an employee of the Meat Inspection Branch who is duly authorized to inspect live poultry or poultry products and perform other official duties relating to the carrying out of the provisions of this chapter."

We appreciate this opportunity to submit these remarks to you and hope that they may be of some value.

Respectfully submitted.

ASSOCIATION OF STATE PUBLIC HEALTH VETERINARIANS,
OSCAR SUSSMAN, D. V. M., Secretary-Treasurer.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE SOUTHEASTERN POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION

We wish to give the Senate subcommittee on mandatory poultry inspection our additional views and reaction to the testimony given during the two hearings which have been held.

We are still firmly of the opinion that no legislation should be passed at this session of Congress for the following reasons:

1. The testimony has not been sufficiently adequate to justify Congress in taking the momentous step of incurring millions of dollars in expense to the Government and many more millions of dollars in added cost to be absorbed by a lower price to the farmer for his product or a higher price to the consumer. So serious and far-reaching a matter as the legislation proposed should not be taken lightly because of the general idea that it is a good thing to have this type of mandatory inspection of poultry.

2. Very little, if any, testimony was given which pointed out the actual value of post mortem and ante mortem examination to protect the public, and no testimony has been given to point out how ante mortem inspection would be handled.

3. No testimony was given which proved that the present sale of poultry in the United States to the consumer is in any degree a menace to the public. No incidents of damage were proven other than in the case of ornithosis in turkeys, where the hazard is in the handling and not in the eating.

4. No testimony was given of the effect of mandatory inspection upon the small-business man.

5. It is strange that two Government witnesses have testifiel that mandatory inspection is needed, but they did in no wise demonstrate to the subcommittee how and why individual bird inspection is necessary. What we are trying to say is that from information we have, the present post mortem examination under the voluntary plan is largely a mechanical operation which results in putting the Government stamp of approval on the product. The question is, Are we endeavoring to protect the public health, or are we applying a sales label to the product?

6. Public Health Service has given no scientific testimony on the necessity of post mortem and ante mortem inspection.

Now in view of the purposes of the witnesses which have been before you, we find one group in industry who operate under the voluntary plan. It is only natural that they would like to have the remaining 75 percent of the industry incur the same equipment and extra labor costs of slow operation in order to force this type of poultry to sell at higher prices. They were unable, however, to prove that poultry sold which is not processed under the voluntary plan is a hazard to the public. We find the Amalgamated Meat Cutter Union group encouraging mandatory inspection, basing their claim largely upon ornithosis in turkeys. They probably now recognize that this sourge comes in the handling and not in the eating, and must be controlled on the farms. We would respectfully urge this group to join with us in urging farm control and field inspection. We further feel this matter so important as to justify the subcommittee in having a technical investigation regarding the actual amount of inspection needed to guard the public health. Most all testimony seems to have had its foundation upon the personal desires for the poultry industry and not upon the practical side of inspection. All were ready to impose a huge expense upon the Government for policy reasons only.

We appeal to you and the members of the subcommittee to disregard all but the facts, and to demand proof of the necessity of each step in this proposed legislation.

We do not feel entitled to object in this matter without a proposal ourselves. In making this proposal, we do not ask that it be accepted upon the face of it, but we do ask that before action is taken, it be given full investigation as to its

feasibility. If it protects the public health sufficiently, the producer and the consumer will be millions and millions of dollars ahead in the end. Attached hereto you will find your plan.

PROPOSAL BY THE SOUTHEASTERN POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION FOR MANDATORY POULTRY INSPECTION

1. A compulsory provision for plant sanitation according to the rules and regulations to be set up by the Department of Agriculture.

2. Provision for inspectors in larger plants to supervise general operations, sanitation requirements, and spot checking both ante mortem and post mortem as poultry is processed. Inspection by traveling inspectors of plans too small to justify full-time inspectors.

3. Field inspection offices established particularly in areas of concentrated production. Provide for veterinarians to inspect poultry and turkey flocks, with the power to quarantine when necessary. Make it mandatory for flock owners to report to said field offices any outbreaks of contagious disease. Rules and regulations to be set up making this type of inspection practical.

4. Provide research to develop the effect of poultry diseases upon humans. Until it is proven that bird-by-bird inspection ante mortem and/or post mortem is required to maintain health standards, same should not be imposed upon the industry because of costs involved. Congress cannot ignore infections taking place on the farm, particularly in turkeys, without actually endangering the public health. We believe these regulations sound and sufficient as an initial step for mandatory inspection.

Senator EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 9, 1956.

Chairman, Agriculture Research and General Legislative Subcommittee,
Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: We submitted a statement on behalf of the social studies and legislative program committees of the American Association of University Women on May 10, 1956, in support of S. 3176.

We want you to know that the position of AAUW continues in support of compulsory inspection of poultry moving in interstate commerce. We strongly urge passage of S. 3983 and request that you make this statement a part of the official record of hearings on S. 3983.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. JANET L. MACDONALD,

Chairman, Social Studies Committee.
ISABEL H. KIDENEY,

Mrs. James W. Kideney,

Chairman, Legislative Program Committee, American Association of University Women.

Re S. 3983 and S. 3588, poultry inspection bills.

CHICAGO, ILL., July 10, 1956.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: At the conclusion of our presentation concerning the above bills on June 15, 1956, we were invited to submit a supplemental statement discussing the amendments proposed by the Department of Agriculture to S. 3588 and the testimony of industry representatives scheduled to be presented on June 26, 1956. This letter constitutes our supplementary statement.

The Department of Agriculture amendments actually change the original S. 3588 so that is more nearly in keeping with the provisions of S. 3983. We have no criticism of these amendments but still feel that the framework for effective poultry legislation is to be found only in S. 3983.

On the matter of ante mortem and post mortem inspection, plant sanitation, and sanitary practices, we believe that the provisions of S. 3983 are more definite and better calculated to protect the public health than are the loosely drawn discretionary provisions of S. 3588.

In our original presentation we pointed out some deficiencies of S. 3983 and necessity for amendment thereto. We think an additional amendment is required to provide for exemptions to poultry slaughtered for consumption by

members of established religious groups which follow certain slaughtering and dietary practices.

S. 3983 has no labeling provisions. We agree that proposed section 7 of S. 3588 contains worthwhile legislative suggestions. We would, however, advocate that both the name, address, and approved plant number of establishment should be spelled out in the label. We also agree with the representative of the Campbell Soup Co. that the provisions for appeal from the Secretary's determination concerning label usage is cumbersome and unnecessary.

Of greatest interest to us in the session of June 26 was the statement made in behalf of the Institute of American Poultry Industries. What was omitted in the statement was an explanation of why, in view of all the experience and know-how of the association, it required the expenditure of the resources of a labor union to smoke out the poultry industry to a point where it now makes public confession that it needs regulation under a mandatory inspection program. We think that the industry seeks too much credit for research in the prevention of occupational diseases among the workers we represent. It is our own experience that these programs would never have been undertaken but for the strong outcry raised by our union against industry indifference toward ornithosis (psittacosis) and similar occupational diseases.

The institute spokesman also says: "We know of no instance where poultry has ever been seized because it was not wholesome at the time the United States Department of Agriculture inspection legend was placed on it."

This only indicates that he has not read the docket of the Federal Food and Drug Administration.

We wish to express our appreciation and thanks to the committee for their interest in the bills before them, as well as to thank them for their courtesy in permitting us to express our views on this subject.

If we may be of any service to the committee, we shall feel honored if the committee will so advise us.

Respectfully yours,

S. W. BARKER,

Director, Poultry Department, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America.

TRENTON, N. J., July 14, 1956.

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

United States Senate,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: With respect to the testimony which I presented on June 26, 1956, before the committee, approving in general S. 3588, I would like to add the following: At the suggestion of the committee, we have reviewed carefully the amendments suggested by the Department of Agriculture and we are in approval of these recommendations.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »