Page images
PDF
EPUB

KOSHER EMPIRE POULTRY,
Mifflintown, Pa.

Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I should like to give your committee the information requested of me at the hearing, when I testified Feb. 21st. regarding the costs involved in eviscerating kosher poultry under Federal and Rabbinical inspection. This amounts to 3¢ per lb. more than a plant operating under not any inspection, processing uneviscerated poultry.

These added costs have made our product very uncompetitive in the Metropolitan New York area.

We hope you will take this into consideration in our stand at the hearing, favoring very strongly the extension of the law to have all processsing plants, intra as well as inter state, process only eviscerated poultry under Federal inspection.

Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before your committee.

LEE KATZ.

Mr. KATZ. May I just point out one thing: We are trying to conform to Federal regulations; we do not want to be penalized for post-mortem examination which would reveal whatever percentages of poultry are being eviscerated, if the protection of the consumer is not important in the cost, and the only thing that I would say is that maybe your thinking would coincide with mine. I merely am saying that we are adhering to this inspection service strictly because we feel that it is a protection to the consumer as the result of this; and, therefore, whatever our costs may be in competing against poultry that has not been inspected, it would be there.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you.

Just one more question, I think from Mr. Kleppe.
Mr. KLEPPE. One question, Mr. Katz.

In your statement you say that in spite of the fact that per capita consumption of poultry has greatly increased in the last decade, you find that your sales of federally inspected eviscerated poultry today is less today in Metropolitan New York than it was in 1951.

Mr. KATZ. Yes.

Mr. KLEPPE. My question to you is: Do you believe that is because there are fewer orthodox Jews in New York or is it because they are buying nonfederally inspected poultry, or just what do you recite as the reason for it?

Mr. KATZ. The biggest percentage of the poultry that is being kosher-sold today in Metropolitan New York is New York-dressed or uneviscerated poultry. That is the main reason why our particular business has dropped.

Mr. KLEPE. Thank you.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Foley?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Katz, I think you have added to our knowledge about the problems in this bill. I would like to follow up briefly some of the things you have said.

It is not true that in any case where you have sufficient inspection— that is Federal inspection-that there are going to be instances of condemnation, as opposed to situations where you do not have inspection? Mr. KATZ. I would agree with you.

Mr. FOLEY. And the occurence of condemnation adds to the cost of doing business?

Mr. KATZ. Yes.

Mr. FOLEY. Is it not also true that where there is a rabbinic and/or Federal inspector, that the operator tries to minimize this condemnation cost by buying good birds birds that are not likely to be condemned and are likely to be wholesome and without blemish?

Mr. KATZ. Yes, sir; I am glad, in a sense, that you referred to that, because, in our own program as well as in outside purchases that we make, we are forced to pay a premium for birds that will have as little condemnation as possible.

Mr. FOLEY. Is it not in the interest of the responsible businessman that his poultry product be kosher inspected or federally inspected? And-whether it is one or the other-is it not also in his interest that he buy a premium bird in order to avoid the more expensive cost of condemnation?

Mr. KATZ. Yes, sir; we try to do that.

Mr. FOLEY. I am not suggesting by this question that those who are not inspected are irresponsible; I want to make that clear. But in situations not covered by Federal or rabbinic inspection, is it not possible for the unscrupulous to buy potentially less healthy birds and at a significant savings?

Mr. KATZ. I would say completely "Yes."

Mr. FOLEY. That is a possibility?

Mr. KATZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. FOLEY. And that would result in a further spread between the cost of the responsible inspected operator and the noninspected operator who is irresponsible?

Mr. KATZ. Very definitely so.

Mr. FOLEY. And that constitutes the unfair competition in your business?

Mr. KATZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. FOLEY. And because of this, the wide variance in those pricings because of this it is rather difficult to give a precise estimate of what the dollar-and-cents cost would be; is that not true?

Mr. KATZ. I would say for New York; I would try to get as close to what our actual condemnation losses are. I do not know what the next man pays for his poultry. It depends upon the quality of the flock that he buys. It is possible that we are higher in that area, having to purchase a premium bird in order to eliminate as much of the condemnation cost as we possibly can, in our opinion?

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you.

Mr. PURCELL. If there are no other questions, we will be very glad to hear from Rabbi Greenberg at this time.

Rabbi Greenberg.

STATEMENT OF MEYER GREENBERG, CHIEF ORTHODOX RABBI OF PATERSON, PATERSON, N.J.

Rabbi GREENBERG. Thank you, gentlemen, for allowing me to present my views favoring the proposed legislation extending the Poultry Inspection Act of 1957.

My name is Meyer Greenberg. I am chief orthodox rabbi of Paterson, N.J.; former dean of the Rabbinical College of New Jersey, and former president of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. As a conse

quence of my rabbinical supervisory function in my community, I have gained a close acquaintance with the kosher poultry processing industry, and its development during the past 14 years. It is with such a background that I offer my views.

May I call your attention to a certain weakness in the present application of an exemption in the Poultry Inspection Act of 1957, section 15(a) subparagraph 4. May I respectfully suggest that you eliminate this weakness and loophole with appropriate legislation included in your amendment, or proposed bill?

To be specific, the act includes an exemption for the processing of poultry in accordance with religious dietary law. This provision has been applied to allow kosher poultry to be sold uneviscerated, and without Federal inspection. This laxity was necessitated by a religious principle, which requires the preservation of the consumers privilege to personally examine the viscera, in order to determine the kosher or nonkosher status of a carcass. Today, however, consumers willing and qualified to exercise this inspection prerogative, are very rare. Fortunately, the poultry industry has developed several kosher processing plants that have engaged trained and competent kosher inspectors called mashgihim who perform the prescribed kosher post mortem examination during the eviscerating process at the plant. These mashgihim stand side by side with the USDA Federal health inspector.

It is thus evident, that if we are to continue to allow plants today to operate without evisceration, this laxity will not only be unnecessary for religious requirements but would constitute a disservice to the religious cause proper. The reason for this is that the uneviscerated, hence uninspected-for kosher requirements-product would eventually find its way into the consumer's pot, since neither the retail butcher nor consumer are competent in the kosher inspection field.

May I then offer my suggestion that for the purpose of eliminating loopholes in the exemption of subparagraph 4, section 15 (a) of the Poultry Inspection Act of 1957, there be included in the proposed legislation, a provision which would explicitly prohibit the sale of uneviscerated poultry, subparagrpah 4 notwithstanding?

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Rabbi.

Are there any question?

Mr. Jones?

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I want to clear up one point. I understood Mr. Katz a moment ago to say that there was not a uniform agreement among all of the rabbis, and I understand that this recommendation that Rabbi Greenberg has made would prohibit the sale of uneviscerated poultry and that there might be some rabbis who would not agree with that statement.

Mr. KATZ. I did not make that statement. The other gentleman made that statement. I would say, though, that there are possibilities that some rabbis individually might make this statement.

The rabbis that I have introduced as evidence with respect to their feelings the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of Americaare not merely those of a rabbi who is individually giving his version. This is a group that represents the largest or one of the largest orthodox segments of the Hebrew religion, nationally and internationally, as well as the rabbi I have here who has been the past president of a

group known as the Rabbinical Alliance of America, who is here individually. So it is not the question of an opinion of a rabbi. I believe that the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America represents a group that is, generally accepted as a very, very strong segment of the Jewish population.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I dislike to burden the record with a lot of questions like this, but I would say that many years ago the Jewish religion provided that you would not buy a bird that was eviscerated; is that correct?

Rabbi GREENBERG. Well

Mr. KATZ. Well, I might say

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I am questioning the rabbi.

Rabbi GREENBERG. In the past, this provision and this exemption was used to allow noneviscerated poultry to be sold.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Because there was a demand for it.

Rabbi GREENBERG. At that time.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. At that time?

Rabbi GREENBERG. But it changed.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. There has been a change in the religious belief?

Rabbi GREENBERG. No, in the practice.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. In the practice?

Rabbi GREENBERG. With the changes in the practice of a woman using her own prerogative in examing the birds. In fact, they began to have greater confidence in the plant that they were exercising a real good judgment in getting the mashgihim to supervise the kosher problem in the plant. And since they began to have more confidence in the processing at the plant they ceased to ask to demand their own examination of the poultry.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Do you foresee the time when the Jewish religion will provide that it is not necessary for rabbinical inspection, and just leave it all up to the Federal inspection?

Rabbi GREENBERG. I would like to make this observation, and I think this would answer your question: I have not asked for a complete elimination of that paragraph, and that exemption, for religious reasons. I have only asked to avoid-to eliminate the present application of that exemption in one area, in the area of allowing noneviscerated poultry to enter into commerce. I am definitely in favor of maintaining that exemption as the present bill retains it. It is paragraph 3 in most of the bills, because not one has been deleted, but that paragraph of the present bill is absolutely necessary to protect, to safeguard, any religious belief that might be imperiled in the future by the directives, and I feel that clause actually is necessary. But the present application, allowing in one field the uneviscerated, uninspected poultry to be sold in commerce, that one on the application I feel should be eliminated.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I get right back to my original question. You say you are recommending that there be included in the proposed legislation a provision which would explicitly prohibit the sale of uneviscerated poultry?

Rabbi GREENBERG. Subparagraph (4) notwithstanding.

In other words, subparagraph (4) remains, the actual exemption to remain, to safeguard any future dangers that might imperil the

causes of religion. That should always be there. Today, there is no imperiling of religion. I think that the present exemption, allowing uneviscerated poultry to go into commerce is not serving the cause of religion, in fact.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. That is the point I am trying to get at, because a minute ago-you did not say it, but it was said here, and I thought Mr. Katz said that there was a difference of opinion, and you were telling me that the representation that you were making here was one that would be concurred in by all rabbis?

Rabbi GREENBERG. By all rabbis-by all rabbinical authorities, I would say.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Recognized by whom? By your association or who?

Rabbi GREENBERG. No, no, I would say by the various organizations, the orthodox rabbinical organizations in this country, these national organizations.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Wait a minute. The national organizations. How could that be a national organization?

Does not the local organization have the same right?

Rabbi GREENBERG. I wanted to differentiate between the organizations and the individuals. There might be individual rabbis who might differ. I do not know of any-I have not heard of any differences up to this date, but I just say that if, as Mr. Ferster mentioned before, there were one rabbi who would say differently, then it would not be in conjunction with the organization of rabbis-with the unbiased view of a general organization.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Congress, throughout the years, has always taken cognizance of, and has recognized, that, and has been sympathetic to that and have protected religious views of everyone in this legislation. We have written it into every law, exemptions. In other words, trying to do that and yet I am surprised to find that some member of a religious organization would now come and say, because it might be a small group, that they should not be given the same consideration that Congress has always in the past given to religious organizations. That is what I am trying to determine, as to this statement that you made here.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PURCELL. Do you have some comments to make?

Mr. KATZ. May I have one moment?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes.

Mr. KATZ. Congressman Jones, I just want to answer that in this sense: I do not want to leave this go unclarified. There are differences of opinion in every religion, and I am sure that this difference of opinion exists. We are not trying to take away the right of the woman who wants to go to buy a live chicken and have it slaughtered under the ritual of the Jewish law and then have it eviscerated before her; in other words, to take that right away. We are merely saying that when the rest of the Hebrew public is subject to poultry of this sort coming into the cities which has not been federally inspected and has not had a rabbinic alongside inspecting it, too, that the plant that is presently involved in intrastate as well as interstate poultry trade should not be permitted to do it willy-nilly. This is not a question of taking anybody's rights away. If a woman wants to buy her own

« PreviousContinue »