COMPULSORY INSPECTION OF POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1956 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 324, Senator CLEMENTS. The committee will come to order. The first witness the committee will hear this morning is Congressman Lester Johnson, from the Ninth Congressional District of Wisconsin. You may proceed, Mr. Congressman. STATEMENT OF HON. LESTER JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE NINTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, my testimony this morning will be mainly two statements by turkey growers and dressers in my district, and I would like them to appear in the record and I intend to read them to the committee. The Ninth District of Wisconsin has a very large industry of turkey growing. My home county of Jackson County raises from 50,000 to 100,000; Barron County north of the district raises a great many turkeys, and other counties, but not as large as the 2 mentioned. I am first going to read the statement sent me by B. L. Murch, Chippewa Turkey Farm, New Auburn, Wis. That is located in Chippewa County. May I say for the record that these statements were prepared prior to the time that the two bills which are up at this time were introduced, but I think they apply. Following is the statement of B. L. Murch: As a turkey raiser and dresser for the past 30 years some things are clear to me that would not be clear to one without this experience. Antemortem examination of each bird at the plant could only be suggested by some novice. It would be good on the farm where the bird is growing unmolested. There, if he is not feeling good, he shows it. Scare him, haul him, and handle him, he could be nine-tenths dead, and he would not show sickness, except by a fever thermometer. Getting a thermometer reading on 10,000 birds a day is as practical as the whole idea of antemortem examination at the plant. The dressed bird with a fever is easily detected by the flesh color. 63 The idea that a veterinarian is the only one capable of detecting diseased fowl is also wrong. All the work done by the veterinarians could be done by any man or woman given sufficient training by the inspection department, the same way they made graders and sanitary inspectors for New York dressed birds. The only examination that would require a veterinarian would be taking cultures and laboratory examination. Just visualize a bird every second passing before a man and you get a practical idea of the way this veterinarian is operating. Anyone trained for the work can inspect the flesh color, the finish, and examine the entrails of each bird as it passes by. The important thing is that someone under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture be held responsible that no diseased birds are packed. He should be licensed and bonded and well paid for his work. I do not know of any advantage to be gained by either the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Pure Foods and Drugs being responsible for this work, but certainly only one of the two departments is necessary. The other statement is by the Badger Turkey Industries, of which Wallace H. Jerome is general manager and Orvin W. Hanson is secretary-treasurer. This is a small, independent business firm located at Barron, Wis., and Wallace H. Jerome started out raising turkeys as a 4-H Club member when he was a lad on the farm, and he has developed it until it is quite an industry. His statement reads as follows: We have been operating a turkey processing plant here in Barron for many years and we were one of the very first plants in Wisconsin to enter into Federal grading and Federal inspection programs on a voluntary basis with the United States Department of Agriculture. The cost of these programs is quite high but we have been fortunate in having quite a large volume to support these costs and we feel that the consumer is entitled to the protection afforded to them by such programs. We know that it will be difficult for small plants to have mandatory inspection unless the major cost of such a program is borne by the Government through taxation. We are definitely in favor of mandatory inspection to protect all consumers and the fact that we have been under voluntary programs all these years should prove that point. We do feel, however, that mandatory inspection should definitely be kept under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture rather than the Pure Food and Drug Administration because we feel that the United States Department of Agriculture has had the training to administer such a program better and that they have a much better understanding of the problems of the industry through long association with it in the past. The present legislation which has been introduced into both Houses (commonly referred to as the Priest bill) calls for mandatory inspection to become effective January 1, 1957, and also calls for antemortem as well as postmortem inspection. This would not give plants which have not been operating under the voluntary programs now in effect sufficient time to remodel their plants and make other necessary changes by that date. The United States Department of Agriculture has not been able to secure enough veterinarians to perform only postmortem inspection in the past and they say that it would be impossible to secure veterinarians to perform both antemortem and postmortem inspection for the great number of additional plants that would be affected by such an early date. We in industry are of the opinion that antemortem inspection should be performed only when an outbreak of disease is present and that it would be very difficult to perform satisfactorily even under normal conditions, especially in plants which process chicken broilers. We have been informed that the American Farm Bureau Federation has prepared a new bill for introduction into both Houses of Congress which also provides for mandatory inspection of all poultry and poultry products. The effective date would not be until July 1, 1958, and would provide for postmortem only except in cases of outbreaks of disease. This bill would place the administration of the program under the United States Department of Agriculture and bas several other good features too numerous to mention here. That finishes my statement. I also wish to state for the record that I received a telegram from the Trask Turkey Farm, located at Black River Falls, Wis. They take the same position as that of Mr. Murch and Mr. Jerome. Mr. JOHNSON. That is all. Senator CLEMENTS. Any questions, Senator Williams? Senator CLEMENTS. We appreciate your coming before the committee and bringing us the viewpoints expressed by the two groups from your State, from your district. And I take it that you would want to say for the record here this morning that you, too, are in favor of compulsory inspection. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I am submitting the statements for these two men. I know these men are out in the field, and they are actually acquainted with the facts and you are getting practical advice from people who are actually doing the work, and I am submitting as their Congressman, for them their views to the committee for their consideration. Senator CLEMENTS. You know these people? Mr. JOHNSON. I know them personally. Senator CLEMENTS. You have confidence in their judgment? Mr. JOHNSON. I have confidence in their judgment, especially in this field, and I know also they are men who have made a success of the industry. Senator CLEMENTS. And they have used the voluntary inspection system, and from that they base their conclusions? Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Senator CLEMENTS. They have had a wealth of experience upon which to base it; is that correct? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; and I hope that legislation is not passed which will put these people and like people out of business. They are smallbusiness men, which we are all trying to help, and I think that should be considered when the legislation is considered. Senator CLEMENTS. Congressman, you may be certain that neither this committee nor the Committee on Agriculture in the House would be interested in bringing out legislation which was to the detriment of, or would hurt, the poultry growers of this country. If they made errors in it, it would be errors of the head and not of the heart. Senator WILLIAMS. And promptly change. Senator CLEMENTS. And each succeeding Congress can correct such errors if any are made by the preceding Congress. Mr. JOHNSON. I might say for the record that in my earlier years, I had quite a little experience with poultry myself, and I know a little about the trials and tribulations of the people who are in the industry. Senator CLEMENTS. You recognize, then, that the only way the small handler is going to get compulsory inspection is by the Government assuming the costs for it. Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. And I would hate to see legislation passed so that all the dressing had to be done by the big packers down at Chicago and places like that, so that these little industries which are situated all over the country would be unable to carry on because of the cost of the operation. But I know we have got to consider the health angle, too. I do not want to have anything—and these gentlemen here, both of them, in the statements they made, are willing to do anything to improve the quality of the poultry that is going out to the consumers all over the country. Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Congressman, they made it quite clear in their statements. Senator WILLIAMS. I think both of the bills before this committee for consideration at this time carry the provision that the Government would underwrite the cost of this inspection service. Senator CLEMENTS. Both of them recommend that it be under the Department of Agriculture. Senator WILLIAMS. They do now, yes; both of them recommend that. Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank the Senate Agriculture Committee for the privilege of coming over and testifying, and I am always glad to see your chairman here when he comes over to our House Committee on Agriculture to testify on the needs of the tobacco farmer of Kentucky. Senator CLEMENTS. Thank you very much, and we are delighted to have had you. The next witness will be Dr. H. E. Kingman, assistant executive secretary of the American Veterinary Medical Association of Chicago. You may proceed, Doctor. STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY E. KINGMAN, JR., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL. Dr. KINGMAN. I am Harry E. Kingman, Jr., a doctor of veterinary medicine. I am appearing on behalf of the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA, representing the profession of veterinary medicine in the United States, appreciates being afforded the opportunity to have a representative appear before this committee concerning S. 3983 and S. 3588, 84th Congress. The American Veterinary Medical Association favors and endorses legislation which would prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome, or adulterated poultry or poultry products. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Federal Meat Inspection Service. It has been repeatedly stated and is undoubtedly a fact that the United States has the finest and safest meat supply in the world. This service since its inception has been administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. This Department, through its Bureau of Animal Industry in the early years, and more recently through the Meat Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Research Service, has developed a program that is now used in this country and throughout the world as the foundation for food-inspection systems. Those who have had opportunity to observe closely the work of the Federal Meat Inspection Service are immediately impressed with the close adherence to the basic criteria necessary for an adequately safeguarded inspection system. These are: 1. The inspectors must be qualified and competent. In the case of products of animal origin, there must be a sufficient number of professional (venterinary) workers available to assure scientifically accurate disposition of products. 2. The inspectors and supervisory personnel must have tenure of office so long as they competently perform their work. 3. The service must be responsible to the consumer. 4. The system should be financed by public funds. At the time of the establishment of the Federal Meat Inspection Service, poultry meat was marketed largely in the live state. At that time, there were no large poultry slaughtering operations where the viscera were removed from the carcasses and no provision for poultry inspection was made. Conditions today are quite different. The need for an inspection program for poultry products became apparent many years ago and the American Veterinary Medical Association, through its members and committees, has in many ways called attention to this problem and made recommendations designed to correct some of the deficiencies. A complete documentation of AVMA activities in this area would be voluminous and of little value to the committee. We would, however, like to submit for the committee's consideration two documents, included as appendix A and B to this statement. Senator CLEMENT:. They will appear at this point in the record. (The documents referred to are as follows:) EXHIBIT A OUTLINE FOR THE PREPARATION OF GOVERNING LEGISLATION AND A PROPOSED CODE This reprint is the Appendix to the Report of the Committee on APPENDIX OUTLINE FOR THE PREPARATION OF GOVERNING LEGISLATION The outline here presented is suitable for use by States, counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions. It provides for the protection of the public health by preventing the use in trade channels of food that is diseased, unsound, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human consumption and is designed also to prevent the misbranding and adulteration of foods. It provides further for the proper disposal of unfit and misbranded foods. It provides for establishing local agencies that can act in cooperation with livestock and public health organizations in the control of diseases of animals and man, thus safeguarding the livestock industry and promoting the public welfare. The Special Committee on Food Hygiene of the American Veterinary Medical Association has concluded that these purposes can best be accomplished by the organization of a coordinated food-control program under veterinary planning and direction. An outline of the salient features that should be included in proposed legislation follows. To effect this purpose the legislation should include: INSPECTION OF HUMAN FOOD (1) Title.-A statement of the purpose of the enactment. (2) Definitions.-Definitions clearly setting out: (a) The office responsible for the inspection; (b) definition of the term "meat" (to include, with proper designation, the flesh of all food animals, including poultry; (c) definitions of other foods; (d) definitions of other special terms used in the enactment. (3) Administration. Provision for the appointment of a qualified veterinarian-in-charge to enforce this enactment, with authority to appoint such assistants as he may deem necessary. (4) Licenses.—A clear statement of the signficance of licensing provisions and a statement of the procedures involved in granting licenses upon application and the circumstances under which licenses may be revoked. |