Mr. PURCELL. I would like also to have permission at this time, without objection, to insert the statement of Mr. Stanley I. Trenhaile, president of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, in the record. I think we have been furnished a copy of it. It is a single statement in that regard. And, without objection, that statement will be allowed to go into the record at this point. (The prepared satement of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, above referred to, follows:) STATEMENT OF STANLEY I. TRENHAILE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Board of Directors of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture on February 6, 1968 unanimously approved the following statement: "We recognize the need to update present poultry inspection laws, both state and national, to keep pace with the nation's rapidly growing population and the ever increasing efficiency of poultry production and marketing. The nation's agribusiness complex has developed poultry production and marketing to where it is a marvel of the world, making it possible for the nation's consumers to enjoy an abundance of wholesome poultry. We shall be glad to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and others in the development of federal-state poultry legislation and program that best meets the needs and interest of consumers, industry, and farmers, and continues to assure consumers the most complete protection possible in light of today's scientific knowledge." Copies were sent to President Lyndon B. Johnson, Secretary Orville Freeman, Senator Allen Ellender, Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Congressman W. R. Poage, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture. The National Association of the State Departments of Agriculture feels that the best interests of the consuming public and the poultry industry should be vested in a strong joint state-federal coordinated inspection system and pledges and seeks a united effort with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Congress, the poultry industry, and all consumers toward establishment of the most effective state and federal meat inspection program possible. (The following statements and letters were also submitted to the subcommittee:) REPRESENTATIVE MORRIS K. UDALL, H. FIRPO POULTRY, PHOENIX, ARIZ., February 12, 1968. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE UDALL: The proposed legislation for USDA inspection of processed poultry is highly commendable but serious consideration should be given for the survival of the small operator in the makeup of the inspection bill. Our plant has been in existance for forty-eight years and not once during this period of time have we ever been cited by city, county or other health officials for any infraction of health standards associated with poultry processing plants. We have always maintained exacting standards of cleanliness and our workers are carefully instructed in rejecting any chicken whose internal organs or external parts show any symptoms of disease. This rigid inspection is selfevident in that none of our chickens have ever been returned by our customers for an infraction of the disease inspection. Our plant is a family operation and we are thoroughly versed in poultry diseases through our association with the Purina Ralston Company who supply our feed and medicinal supplies for our broiler ranch located in Phoenix. We have no objections to the inspection program if we are not forced to install the assembly line chain system used by large companies. Our volume is small compared to large processors and it is not economically feasible to install such a system in our plant due to low volume and space of our plant. I sincerely hope you will use your influence to safeguard the interest of the small operator and permit us to survive with a modified system of inspection. Sincerely yours, ADOLPH FIRPO. Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, GREENBELT CONSUMER SERVICES, Chairman, Livestock and Grains Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PURCELL: Last July it was my privilege to testify before your Subcommittee on behalf of Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc., in support of the meat inspection legislation. We are grateful to you, Representatives Foley and Neal Smith, and the many others who helped to secure final passage of the Wholesome Meat Act. It is our understanding that your Subcommittee is now considering similar legislation to amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act. We would like to register our strong support of H.R. 15146 and H.R. 15149, virtually identical bills, that would extend to poultry inspection essentially the same provisions now applicable to meat inspection. Our reasons for supporting this legislation are the same as those we cited in supporting the meat inspection bill. Consumers are entitled to the assurance that all poultry products are wholesome and safe to eat, regardless of where they originate. As you well know, about 13 percent of the commercially produced poultry does not receive Federal inspection because it does not move in interstate commerce. In fact, most of this poultry receives no inspection, since very few states have active, mandatory inspection programs. This must be corrected as soon as possible. We do not believe it is necessary or constructive, at this time, to initiate a public controversy over the abuses that can and do occur in the absence of effective inspection of all poultry products. The experience of last year with respect to meat inspection should be sufficient to impress all persons that equivalent poultry inspection legislation is both desired and needed, and should be enacted without delay. We urge you and your Subcommittee to resist strongly any efforts to weaken H.R. 15146/15149. There can be no responsible justification for a double standard of wholesomeness between meat and poultry products. We are hopeful that Congress will act favorably upon this legislation as rapidly as possible. Your continued support will be greatly appreciated by all consumers. Sincerely yours, (Mrs.) DOROTHY WHEELER, Secretary, Board of Directors. INDIANA STATE POULTRY ASSOCIATION, INC., PURDUE UNIVERSITY, Lafayette Ind., February 20, 1968. Representative GRAHAM PURCELL, Chairman, Subcommittee, Livestock and Grains, DEAR CONGRESSMAN PURCELL: The Indiana State Poultry Association, Inc., and its various departments, including broiler, turkey and processing will favor the Bill-HR 15146. At the present time, the state of Indiana has passed a mandatory Meat Inspection Act, which covers poultry and poultry products. We feel that programs of this type have great merit in bringing the meat and poultry inspection in order, throughout the nation. We are certain, that by working through our state official programs, the smaller plants can be more economically serviced and still leave the semblance of independence that we need in the country. We have many turkey producers which do an excellent job in processing their own birds and supplying them to local markets. In most cases, these birds have been bringing a premium over the normal processed birds, which are processed in large plants. Extra care is taken in securing premium finish and also, special care is taken in processing, so that these birds reach the consumer in the very best of condition. The state of Indiana passed this mandatory inspection act at their last state legislature and is now setting up the details for implementing this program. The I.S.P.A. Board of Directors met in Kansas City during the Fact Finding Conference and again expressed the unity of working with a national program. The majority of the directors felt that they must consider the overall cost and that a program, as outlined in the above bill, would tend to meet these requirements. If we can be of assistance, we will be glad to cooperate. ROBERT L. HOGUE, Executive Secretary, MASSACHUSETTS TURKEY GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, U. S. House of Representatives, Dear Mr. MCCORMACK: At a recent conference of turkey producers from the northeastern states, pending legislation relating to the extension of regulations covering the processing of poultry was discussed. The legislation has, as we understand it, primary goals of consumer protection through greater assurance of proper sanitation and general product wholesomeness. There can be no disagreement in principle with such goals. We are in accord with them, and if there are among our group any individuals with questionable performance in these respects, we want them corrected. At the same time, however, we are very much concerned with potential details of legislation or regulations which could very likely eliminate a major portion of the turkey production in the northeast. Our farm operations differ in essential respects from the national turkey industry. Compared to the integrated giants in other areas we are very small operators. Individually our investments are high in real estate and producton and processing facilities. Our production costs also tend to be higher. Feed, labor, taxes and other costs are higher in the northeast and because of our necessary small unit size we cannot utilize maximum cost control. An impartial, indifferent advisor might suggest that if we cannot compete we should give way to our more efficient competitors from other areas. We submit, however, that such an attitude overlooks our situation. To a large extent we are not competing with turkeys from other areas. We are rather serving a market which would go unserved if we could not exist, and which in fact is not fully served now. Most of our livelihood is dependent upon a premium market for fresh-killed, unfrozen turkey and for a product with a relatively high amount of service provided by the producer-marketer. Consumers do not pay good premium prices for our product because they feel sorry for us and want to support our inefficiencies, nor even because they understand our higher costs and are willing to support them. They do it because, while they could buy specials on turkey for substantially less, they want what we have to offer and know it is not available otherwise. Mostly we are farmers who grow and market a few hundred to a few thousand turkeys each year. The family operation is typical. We are close to our customers. Many of them see our facilities personally when they come to make their purchases. In a sense we are well-inspected already. We are willing, however, to comply with further practical restraints which will allow us to continue. Our fear is that regulations designed for the mass production poultry processor could eliminate us. If in order to remain in business we were required to meet specifications which were withheld not because of the quality of our facilities or of our product, but because of our size, we would be forced out of business. The cost of applying some specifications, on an individual bird basis, would be prohibitive. We believe that practical regulations can be arranged which, while not exempting us from proper supervision to assure consumer protection, need not at the same time eliminate an economic section of agriculture in the northeast. We are a very small part of the national turkey industry but a major portion in the northeast. We hope that we will not be overlooked and solicit your consideration for reasonable concern for our welfare. Very truly yours, RAYMOND L. RISCHER, President. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE The National Consumers League has since 1899 been in the forefront of the many campaigns to assure sanitary and wholesome food supplies for the American consumers. At the turn of the century our involvement was in the campaign to establish the Pure Food and Drug Administration, and since that time we have continued to campaign for consumer protecton at both the State and Federal level. Ten years ago we worked for enactment of the original Poultry Inspection Program, and recently we testified in favor of a strengthened meat inspection program, which Congress enacted last year. Continuing in this tradition, the National Consumers League wishes to be recorded in support of Chairman Purcell's Bill, H.R. 15146, which follows the course of the Wholesome Meat Act, and would assure the American consumers of clean, wholesome, disease-free, honestly labeled poultry products. Poultry is a healthy food and a fine source of protein. It has gained in popularity over the years because it is high in protein, low in calories, adaptable to many different recipes, and is usually economical when compared to other meats. In fact, it is a popular staple in the American diet. Therefore, the testimony before your committee by Dr. George L. Mehren, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, which disclosed some shocking facts, causes great uneasiness and concern among American consumers. Dr. Mehren declared that a survey by his department in January of this year, which covered 16 States, showed that one out of five non-federally inspected chickens was unfit for human consumption. This survey revealed that of 316 non-federally inspected chickens only 18 percent "appeared satisfactory." He pointed out that 20 percent would have been considered unwholesome, and although the remaining 62 percent would have passed federal inspection, they had some shortcomings. His testimony which declared that "laboratory analyses. revealed a higher level of contamination in nonfederally inspected products" makes it plain to us that legislation strengthening the poultry inspection program is long overdue. More than one billion pounds of poultry processed and sold to consumers each year, or 13%, is still outside this inspection program. Much of this supply is not inspected at all. President Johnson's Consumer Message to this Congress raised an interesting question. He said, "The housewife received protection for the poultry that comes from a neighboring state. Why should she not receive the same protection when the poultry is processed and sold in the state where she lives?" We urge the Congress to provide this protection promptly. Today, in buying poultry products, whether in the store or in eating establishments, the consumer cannot be sure that her purchase will be a safe and wholesome product. In such a chaotic situation, where safe, wholesome poultry which has been properly inspected may be lying side by side with non-federally inspected products, the consumer is at a great disadvantage. One more chore which could be eliminated at very little cost is added to the burden of making a wise choice in the marketplace. In the ten years since the original poultry inspection legislation was originally passed, the states, unfortunately, have not stepped in to fill this breach. Today, only four states have programs which the Department of Agriculture describes as adequate. Thirty-one states have no programs at all. Until the inspection program covers all poultry, the consumer will not be able to be sure of the quality of the product he buys. Yet, the confidence of the consumer in the safety of her food is a vital factor in the success of the industry. The presence of unwholesome, adulterated, or mislabeled poultry or poultry products in competition with wholesome properly inspected products creates unfair competition for those in the industry who deserve the confidence of consumers. Your committee is to be commended on the complete hearings and speedy consideration afforded this legislation. Producers have testified in favor of strong, uniform inspection. Farmers organizations have testified in favor of this bill. Labor has testified that a stringent poultry inspection program is necessary to protect the workers. And now, representing the consumers point of view, the National Consumers League strongly endorses H.R. 15146 and urges its speedy enactment. Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PURCELL: We are writing about H.R. 15146, "The Wholesome Poultry Products Act" and other bills proposing similar legislation now under consideration by your subcommittee. Unfortunately, we were unable to send a witness to participate in the hearings, but we hope that this letter expressing the views of our Association may be placed in the record. As we understand the provisions of H.R. 15146, the proposed legislation, if passed, would place poultry meat in both interstate and intrastate commerce under the same inspection and other requirements as are now applicable to red meat under the recently passed Wholesome Meat Act, and would provide the same authorities with respect to assistance to the states in the inspection of products for intrastate commerce. It is important that the requirements and authorizations be the same in both cases, not only to give equal assurance as to the wholesomeness of the products, but also to provide equal freedom of movement of such products in commerce. Meat-red meat and poultry meat-is in many ways the most important item of the American diet. It contains most of the nutrients important to health. It is the principal item of most meals. It is high on the palatability preference list of most people. With all its superior qualities, meat as a food is subject to two critical problems-it is highly susceptible to spoilage during processing and handling, and the animals and birds from which it is derived are subject to a wide variety of disease processes which render the meat unwholesome for food and may be directly transmissible to man. These unwholesome conditions must be kept out of the food supply by a thorough veterinary inspection, as provided in the Wholesome Meat Act and in the proposed legislation. Since the model H.R. 15146 is already contained in the recently enacted Wholesome Meat Act, and since it is important that the Wholesome Poultry Products Act contain similar provisions, we are not offering suggestions for changes in the bill. However, we do have some suggestions for consideration when the committee writes its report. The Congress in its wisdom has insisted that in administering both acts that the Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with and cooperate with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, since the secretary of HEW has responsibility for the wholesomeness of other foods in commerce through the administration of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In providing for such consultation and cooperation, it is essential that the Congress make it clear that final responsibility for decisions under both the Wholesome Meat Act and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act rests exclusively with the Secretary of Agriculture. This is necessary for orderly administration of the Acts. It is also necessary from the standpoint of uniform coordination of the enforcement of these Acts with the actions of state officials responsible for the inspection of products in intrastate commerce. A clear statement of such congressional intent in the committee's report would go far to avoid confusion in the administration of these vital functions. The Wholesome Meat Act and H.R. 15146 contain broad authorities for the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with and to assist state officials in the inspection work within the states. These provisions should be most helpful in improving the inspection programs in many states. However, there is also authority for the Secretary to take over inspection activities when he finds that the inspection carried out by the state authority is not in conformity with federal requirements. There is much anxiety as to the implementation of this provision. It seems clear that it is the congressional intent that these provisions of the two Acts be administered primarily to assist the states to improve their services and only secondarily, as a last resort, to push the state authority aside with a federal takeover. If the states are to work wholeheartedly to build up intrastate inspection systems, they should be reassured that it is the intent of the Congress to support them in these efforts rather than to stultify their position |