AMEND THE POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND GRAINS OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1301, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank A. Stubblefield presiding. Present: Representatives Stubblefield, Poage, Foley, Mrs. May, Dole, Zwach, Kleppe, and Price. Also present: Christine S. Gallagher, clerk; William C. Black, general counsel; Hyde H. Murray, assistant counsel; L. T. Easley, staff consultant, and Fowler C. West, assistant staff consultant. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. The subcommittee will please come to order. We are met this morning to hear witnesses on the subject of amending the poultry inspection law by bills introduced by various Members. (The texts of the various bills, H.R. 14594 by Mr. Bennett; similar bills, H.R. 14741 by Mr. Morton and H.R. 14782 by Mr. Roth; similar bills, H.R. 15146 by Mr. Purcell, Mr. Dow, Mr. Smith of Iowa, and Mr. Foley; H.R. 15149 by Mrs. Sullivan; H.R 15361 by Mr Vigorito; H.R. 15484 by Mr. Corman; and H.R. 15504 by Mr Kupferman; and H.R. 15154 by Mr. Poage, may be found in the appendix.) The first witness this morning will be on the administration bill introduced by Congressman Neal Smith of Iowa and Leonor K. Sullivan of Missouri and Congressman Vigorito of Pennsylvania. We will be glad to hear from you now Congressman Smith. STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to testify on behalf of legislation to improve the Federal poultry inspection program. Last year Congress passed legislation to strengthen the Federal meat inspection program and I am pleased that hearings have been scheduled promptly on bills introduced this year dealing with poultry inspection. While the volume of poultry products slaughtered, processed, and consumed in the United States is much less than for red meat, in many respects I believe the situation relative to inspection is similar. About the same percentage of both is adequately inspected, and in both industries there are competitive advantages for the uninspected processor. In the poultry industry, these advantages tempt the uninspected sions patterned after the 1967 Red Meat Act which provides extensive and badly needed additional protection against misbranding, deceitful packaging, colored and labeling, and the use of inferior 4-D and other materials. New trends in the industry, such as promotion of prepackaged foods and new chemicals and ways of handling inferior products, name these provisions very important. While a mere extension of existing law would provide great protection in some cases during the next 2 years, the provisions of H.R. 15146, amended as I have suggested, would provide a broader and clearer protection after the 2-year implementation period has expired. I strongly urge that H.R. 15146 be strengthened as outlined and passed. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you, Congressman Smith. Are there any questions? Mr. FOLEY. I should like to reserve my questions for the moment, but I wish to compliment the gentleman from Iowa on his fine testimony. I will say that I agree with you in your recommendations for amendments as being sound. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Dole? Mr. DOLE. No questions. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Zwach? Mr. ZWACH. No questions. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Kleppe? Mr. KLEPPE. No questions. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you, again, Congressman Smith. We will be glad to hear your statement now. STATEMENT OF HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mrs. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, and in order to save the time of the subcommittee, I would like to have made a part of the record a copy of a letter I wrote to Secretary Freeman last December and his reply to me, showing the origin of the administration bill which I have introduced and which several other members have introduced. In addition, I would like to have included a document which establishes the danger to humans from diseased poultry. This was part of the voluminous documentation I submitted to the House on June 18, 1956, which led to the enactment of the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957. For those members interested in the full background, I refer them to the Congressional Record of June 18, 1956, which contains 18 pages of material and background data spelling out the need for Federal inspection of poultry. I am not offering that vast amount of detail here but, as I said, I would like to insert one part of it onlya report from the Public Health Service which discussed the diseases transmissible to humans from poultry. It is certainly relevant to this bill today. I am not including the three solid pages of references and tables which appeared in the Congressional Record as part of this report-just the discussion section summarizing the information on poultry diseases transmissible to humans. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record at this point. (The documents referred to follow :) Hon. ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., December 11, 1967. DEAR ORVILLE: Can I involve you in another issue? I need your help. If you have had a chance to read the debate in the House on the Meat Inspection bill, you probably noticed my references to the need for getting at the problem of bad poultry processed and sold in intrastate commerce. I am enclosing a copy of my remarks in case you missed them. Please look them over. And, if you have the hearings of the House Agriculture Committee on the Meat Inspection bill, I hope you will turn to my testimony beginning on page 41 through page 63. It deals more with poultry than with meat. I am writing to you rather than to the Consumer and Marketing Service people because they know all about this issue already and what I need is some guidance or assistance from you. I have never been able to understand the need for separate Poultry and Meat Inspection laws. When I started on the poultry problem 11 years ago, my inclination was merely to amend the Meat Inspection law to include poultry. But I was talked out of that by some of the strategists who felt that we could have a better chance of getting help from Members of the Agriculture Committee from poultry-raising areas if they thought that whatever distinctive or unique aspects of poultry, compared to meat, could be taken care of in the legislation. So for 10 years we have had two separate laws, even though now both are under the same administrative direction. I pleaded with the Agriculture Committee to handle the problem of intrastate inspection for both meat and poultry in the same way—either by adopting the “major consuming area” machinery of the Poultry Act for Meat Inspection or else amending the Poultry Act to conform to whatever setup was devised for Meat Inspection. As you know, the idea did not get very far in this session. It is my intention to offer new legislation in the second session to provide authority for coverage of poultry in intrastate commerce. I would appreciate help from you on this, specifically: (1) A draft of a suitable bill which I could introduce; (2) The initiation by your Department of the kind of study into conditions in the non-inspected poultry plants similar to the surveys made by your meat inspectors into conditions in the uninspected meat packing plants. The information developed by the meat inspectors was a prime factor in getting Congress to pass H.R. 12144. In asking for this assistance, I perhaps should point out that I was the first Member of Congress to call for compulsory Federal inspection of poultry and, although it was not a bill with my name on it which become law, I feel I am justified in claiming the credit for its enactment in 1957. So I am not trying to jump on someone else's project. As a matter of fact, some of those who were most active in the fight for the Meat Inspection bill have indicated their desire to join me now in bringing the Poultry Act up to date and meeting the problems of intrastate poultry fitness. We have failed in implementing the machinery of the 1957 Act for intrastate use. If that Act is not practical, then I want something which I could introduce which would solve this problem. I am sure there must be millions of pounds of poultry sold only in intrastate commerce and I would suspect that most of this comes from plants which could not possibly meet the requirements for Federal inspection. Sincerely yours, LEONOR K. (Mrs. JOHN B.) SULLIVAN, /s/ Leonor K. Sullivan, Member of Congress, 3rd District, Missouri. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., December 21, 1967. Hon. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, DEAR MRS. SULLIVAN: I am glad to get your letter of December 11 requesting assistance in developing amendments which would strengthen the Poultry Products Inspection Act. We have been studying this problem for several months and we are concerned that substantial quantities of commercially produced poultry products do not receive adequate inspection to assure wholesomeness. We have made a careful reexamination of Section 5 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act and efforts have been made several times to use this provision to extend the Federal inspection program where consumers were not receiving adequate protection. We do not believe that this Section of the Act as presently written will produce the desired results. We are in the process of developing amendments that would provide adequate inspection using provisions similar to those contained in the new Wholesome Meat Act. Just as soon as we have the language available, we will call you. We appreciate your continued interest and look forward to working with you on this matter. Sincerely yours, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary. [From the Congressional Record, June 18, 1956] EXHIBIT A POULTRY DISEASES TRANSMISSIBLE TO MAN, INCLUDING SUMMARY REPORT OF OUTBREAKS (By Mildred M. Galton, bacteriologist, Communicable Disease Center, Public Health Service, Federal Security Agency, Atlanta, Ga., assigned to Bureau of Laboratories, Florida State Board of Health, Jacksonville, Fla., prepared for the Chief Veterinary Public Health) The diseases of poultry to which man is also susceptible comprise a rather large group. In his excellent review Ingalls (1) lists 26 such diseases including those caused by bacteria viruses, fungi, and protozoa. It is apparent that some of these diseases constitute a considerable hazard to public health. In a more recent discussion of this subject, Brandly, C. A. B. (2) pointed out that interspecies infection cycles usually favor similar hosts, thus, a disease in animals generally would have a greater chance of thriving if transmitted to related species than to avian hosts. He emphasized, however, that this may not always be true and discussed the nature of the host-parasite relationship of certain diseases common to man and fowl. Earlier, these infections were discussed by Brandly, P. J., (3) from the standpoint of poultry inspection and public health. In the present report the current status as public health hazards of the following diseases common to man and fowl will be reviewed: Bacterial: Salmonellosis, paracolon infections, erysipelas, staphylococcosis, streptococcosis, tuberculosis, brucellosis, listeriosis, tularemia, pseudotuberculosis, and diphtheria. Viral: Equine encephalomyelitis, newcastle disease, psittacosis, and rabies. Fungal: Favus, thrush, and aspergillosis. Parasitic Dermanyssus gallinae, Toxoplasmosis. SALMONELLOSIS The role of fowl, swine, cattle and many other animals as a source of outbreaks of salmonellosis in man has been established but only during the past decade has great emphasis been placed upon the public health significance of these reservoirs in the epidemiology of Salmonella infections. There have been numerous reports incriminating poultry or poultry products in outbreaks of the disease in man. The studies of Edwards, Bruner, and Moran (4) indicate that fowls are the largest single reservoir of Salmonella in this country. While S. pullorum and S. typhimurium are the most common types, these authors found a great number of Salmonella types (60) in fowl than any other species except man. Of these at least 56 have been found in humans. As pointed out by Hinshaw and McNeil (5, 6) "there may well be no truly avian nor truly human types; in fact fact such a description frequently means only priority in isolation." They observed 7 cases of gastroenteritis among attendants on poultry farms caused by contact with acute outbreaks in poultry. Further evidence indicated the transmission of Salmonella to fowl by human carrier attendants on the ranch. All types are potentially pathogenic for man, animals, and fowls. In poultry as in man (8, 9) and other animals (4) Salmonella infection depends largely upon age and general resistance rather than upon the type of Salmonella, the young appearing most susceptible. S. pullorum until recently considered relatively nonpathogenic for man has been incriminated as the cause of one large outbreak of food poisoning (10) and several sporadic cases (11, 12). In Florida, S. pullorum has been isolated from cases of mild enteric fever and gastroenteritis in three individuals. Considerable evidence is accumulating concerning the presence of Salmonella in poultry meat. Cherry, Barnes, and Edwards (13) report the recovery of a nonmotile salmonella from the skin of frozen turkeys. Galton, Mackel, and Haire (14) isolated anatum, from material appearing to be encysted egg yolk in a frozen chicken. Schneider and Gunderson (15) found 4 Salmonella types on the skin of 4.4 percent of 1,014 eviscerated chickens. They concluded that the customary methods of sanitation in the plant did not eliminate Salmonella. Most of these birds had been frozen and stored for some time. Browne (16) found that S. typhimurium survived for at least 13 months on the skin of frozen turkeys. It is thus apparent that freezing does not kill all of the Salmonella. More recently, attention has been given to the study of Salmonella in the environment of poultry processing plants. Browne (16) studied a turkey processing plant and isolated S. typhimurium from trays on which viscera were placed, pans in which cleaned giblets were stored, waste buckets and hands of eviscerators, trimmers, and inspectors. These organisms were also obtained from the loading platform, scalder chute, and floor, from the final wash trough, and even from dust on the rafters. During an extensive study of the bacteriology of commercial poultry processing, Kyle, McFadden, and Gunderson (17) isolated Salmonella from the hands of workers on the evisceration line, from the skin of birds ready for storage, from organs of the chickens, and other items on the evisceration line. Reports of outbreaks of food poisoning following the consumption of poultry meat are numerous as evidenced by the weekly reports of the National Office of Vital Statistics (see table 1). Reports implicating raw, frozen, or dried eggs as sources of Salmonella outbreaks appear frequently. Watt (18) reported such an outbreak attributed to raw eggs which contained S. montevideo. S. tennessee was isolated from frozen whole eggs and from powdered eggs by Schneider (19), Extensive studies on the occurrence of Salmonella types in dried egg powder have been reported by Schneider (20). Solowey (21) and associates, and the British investigators (22). Further studies on heat resistance and destruction by pasteurization of Salmonella organisms isolated from spray dried or liquid whole egg have been reported by Solowey et al, (23), Winter et al. (24, 25), and Goresline (26 et al.). The investigation carried out by Goresline et al. revealed that pasteurization can be used successfully, under processing-plant conditions, to produce liquid, frozen, and dried whole eggs free of Salmonella. They recommend flash heating the liquid whole egg to 140° F. and holding at that temperature for 3 minutes to kill any Salmonella present. That breaks in the pasteurization procedure do occur in large processing plants is indicated by a recent announcement in the Associated Press (November 28, 1952) in which the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to the public to discontinue use of Swift & Co.'s canned dried egg yolk due to the presence of Salmonella organisms. This product had been pasteurized. McCullough and Eisele (27) were able to produce clinical salmonellosis in 32 human volunteers by experimental infection with strains of Salmonella meleagridis and Salmonella anatum derived from spray dried whole egg. Similar studies (28) with S. newport, S. derby and S. bareilly resulted in clinical illness in 15 subjects, and with 4 strains of S. pullorum (29) there were 27 cases of human illness. It is thus obvious, as emphasized by Hinshaw and McNeil (5) that "both from a poultry economic and public health standpoint, Salmonellosis is a hazard which should be eliminated." These investigators present the following essentials for prevention of the disease in poultry: (1) "elimination of known infected flocks as |