spection. All of us must be cognizant of these limitations since compulsory inspection of processing plants is not a cure-all.

For example, compulsory inspection will not eliminate the possibility that exists with all foods, of people becoming ill after eating a meal either at home or in a restaurant.

No inspection program, no matter how rigid, could completely eliminate the occurrence of human sickness resulting from the consumption of any food product that may later become contaminated from mishandling after it leaves the processing plant.

Also, seizures of poultry in marketing channels will not be completely eliminated through the imposition of compulsory inspection. Most food seizures result from improper handling or damage during marketing—that is, after the product leaves the processing plant.

Therefore, compulsory inspection at the processing plant would not eliminate those types of seizures.

There is also some misconception about the extent of coverage that would be provided through a compulsory poultry inspection program under Federal law.

We should like to point out that such a Federal law would primarily control poultry moving in interstate commerce.

The elimination of unwholesome poultry produced for sales in interstate commerce could only be brought about by an active program on the part of State and local authorities.

We in the Department would, of course, want to assist these authorities in every way possible as we are now doing.

Now, if the committee desires, I would like to have Mr. Hermon I. Miller discuss the Department's suggestions with respect to this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. As you say, the matter can be handled by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. BUTZ. You are right.

The CHAIRMAN. If he sees fit to establish a special department, I guess he could do that.

Mr. BUTZ. You are right.

The CHAIRMAN. That is why you believe it ought to be left to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, without any further ado. Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir.

If the committee would like to have Hermon Miller discuss some of the specific changes to make the legislation more workable he will be glad to do so.:

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say this to Mr. Miller, make it short, Mr. Miller, because when the committee proceeds to draft the bill, to write it up, we will have you here.

I am going to ask you to be here to answer questions. And at this time you might file your statement in full, and give a few highlights, if you desire to.

STATEMENT OF HERMON I. MILLER, DIRECTOR, POULTRY DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will give a copy of the bill, S. 313, with certain changes or modifications, and so on. One of those,

just to point up, I believe the word "promises" was used instead of "premises."

The CHAIRMAN. That is clerical. We can do that ourselves in the committee.

Mr. MILLER. I don't believe it is necessary to go into my statement. I might just make 1 or 2 comments.

One is that we like the timing provisions contained in S. 313, which would give the Department the maximum time for planning.

The CHAIRMAN. How does that compare with S. 645?

Mr. MILLER. S. 645 gives 6 months beginning January 1 for plants to come under the act. The feature we are interested in is to have the maximum amount of time to plan, and to carry out the job of recruiting and training personnel, assisting plants to get ready, and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the difference as to timing between S. 645 and S. 313?

Mr. MILLER. If there is authority under the act as written in S. 645 for the Department to secure appropriations and carry out the functions of planning, et cetra, prior to January 1, 1958, there would be no preference so far as the Department is concerned-if that was in there.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you in favor of the time provision in S. 645? Mr. MILLER. Both of them have the same terminal points. We would like to suggest that that be changed to July 1, 1959, to provide more time, in that the scope of this job is quite large. But we would like

The CHAIRMAN. But in the meantime under both bills, as I understand it, those who desire to come under it could, if you have the facilities.

Mr. MILLER. S. 645 would not permit them to come under until January 1, 1959. S. 313 would permit them to come under upon enact

ment.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, if you have the capabilities?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. But we are suggesting in this statement an extension of time.

Another point I would like to make is that we feel that the relationship between Food and Drug and the Department under this act is the same as under the Red Meat Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

We are suggesting an exemption which would be added to the two that are included in all of the acts. An exemption for such time as the Secretary determines it would be impracticable to provide inspection, and would aid in the effective administration of this act.

In other words, if it is impossible to get inspectors, the Secretary could issue exemptions and those exemptions would terminate on July 1, 1960.

Then we are suggesting one other change in the wording in the cost of inspection, to make it clear that the Department has authority to pay overtime from appropriated funds. And we are also suggesting some changes to simplify the requirements for labeling.

The CHAIRMAN. Speaking of the exemptions, as the witness testified yesterday, he thought that quail and other forms of wildlife should be exempted from this act. I will have the Clerk give you a copy of

If so,

his statement, and I wish you would be prepared when we go to write this bill to determine whether or not that should be done. up if it should be modified, I wish you would let us know. It is a little different from homegrown chickens and things like that.

Mr. MILLER. I know about that.

The CHAIRMAN. You might look into that and be prepared to advise us on that.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Mr. Miller, we hope that when we write up this bill that you will be able to be with us, and together with any others of your staff, so that we can know whether we are doing that which is feasible.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, we have our veterinary staff and will be glad to cooperate with you.

(The statement of Mr. Miller and the suggested bill are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HERMON I. MILLER, DIRECTOR, POULTRY DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I am here, as Secretary Butz has indicated, to discuss some modifications which we suggest should be made in S. 313 so as to provide for a more effective compulsory poultry inspection law, and also clarify particular language. We have prepared a mimeographed draft of S. 313 showing the ways in which the Department would amend or clarify the bill. Sufficient copies of this mimeographed draft are available for use here. At this time I will mention the more important changes which the Department suggests and also indicate the differences between S. 313 and S. 645.

First, the differences between S. 313 and S. 645 are as follows:

1. The term "poultry" as defined in section 4 of S. 645 means "any live or slaughtered domesticated bird." The term "poultry" as defined in section 4 of S. 313 means "any live or slaughtered domesticated bird or commercially produced game bird." Although these two bills define poultry differently, we would interpret either definition to include commercially produced game birds. 2. Section 5 provides authority for the Secretary to designate certain areas wherein poultry or poultry products moving intrastate would be required to be inspected. There are two major differences in this section.

(a) S. 645 clearly indicates that such action would be initiated "upon application of any appropriate State or local official or of any appropriate poultry industry group." S. 313 does not contain this language in section 5, but it is implied to be the policy of this bill through wording contained in the section entitled "Legislative Finding" on page 2, lines 23 and 24.

(b) S. 645 clearly indicates that this authority is limited to "major consuming areas."

3. Section 6 of these two bills differs in that S. 313 covers inspection activities in four different subsections, that is, ante mortem inspection, post mortem examination, reinspection, and quarantine and segregation. S. 645 combines the requirements for ante mortem and post mortem inspection into one paragraph of this section. The Department is already on record that it desires clear authority for requiring both ante mortem and post mortem inspections. The language of either bill, we feel, provides the Department with this authority. Section 6 of these two bills also differs in that S. 313 provides on page 8 in the sentence beginning on line 16 that "Poultry products and parts thereof thus inspected and found to be unfit for human consumption shall be condemned ***" while S. 645 provides on page 8 in the sentence beginning on line 8 that "All carcasses and parts thereof and poultry products found to be unwholesome or adulterated shall be condemned ***." This language relating to condemnation should be modified to read: "All poultry carcasses and parts thereof and poultry products found to be unfit for human consumption shall be condemned * * * 99

The reasons for this suggested change, which is different from the language in either bill, are as follows: With respect to S. 313 the term "poultry product" as defined means poultry from which the viscera has been removed. At the time of post mortem examination the viscera will not have been separated from the

carcass. With respect to S. 645, there may be instances where a poultry product which is adulterated but fit for human consumption may be salvaged or reprocessed.

4. The principal difference in section 23 of the two bills is that S. 645 indicates the act will take effect January 1, 1958, with all-inclusive coverage effective July 1, 1958; while S. 313 would become effective upon enactment and provide for the same all-inclusive coverage date as S. 645. Thus, if S. 313 were enacted into law prior to January 1, 1958, the Department would have the additional time intervening between the date of enactment and January 1, 1958, to provide for the transition from the voluntary program to the compulsory program and to render inspection service in such a manner so as to assure a more orderly transition than under the shorter period of time. For this reason we would prefer the language contained in section 23 of S. 313. However, the Department urges that consideration be given to extending the final effective date for all-inclusive coverage to July 1, 1959, instead of the July 1, 1958, date contained in S. 313. The Department believes that the time schedule now provided in the bill is not sufficient to permit the industry and the Department of Agriculture to make the preparations and adjustments necessary to meet the mandatory requirements that would be imposed by this legislation.

Now I want to discuss some of the modifications in language to strengthen or clarify specific sections in S. 313. Many of the suggestions would apply to comparable sections of S. 645.

1. In section 6 (c) entitled "Reinspection" it is suggested that the words "carcasses and parts thereof" in line 5, page 9, be changed to "poultry and poultry products." Our reason for suggesting this change is to clearly provide the authority for reinspection of all poultry products, including but not being limited to carcasses and parts thereof, at official establishments as often as may be deemed necessary.

The Department suggests rather detailed changes involving the labeling requirements which also necessitates conforming changes in the sections on “Definitions" and "Prohibited Acts." These changes define the terms "immediate container" and "shipping container" and simplify the labeling required on shipping containers. If these suggested changes are made it will, in our opinion, simplify and reduce the amount of labeling that would be required and at the same time would be in complete compliance with the labeling requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The Department suggests adding the words "official establishment" to section 9 (i) of the section entitled "Prohibited Acts," so as to make clear the intent of the paragraph which appears to be that of providing the authority to prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of any slaughtered poultry or uninspected poultry carcasses except for the purpose of further processing in an official establishment.

The Department would also like to comment on section 19 (a) of S. 313 titled "General Provisions." Under this subsection the provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act would not apply to poultry and poultry products to the extent of the application of this Poultry Inspection Act under the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The purpose of this is to avoid overlapping jurisdiction of the two acts and therefore prevent needless duplication of effort. At the same time the provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act would apply to any circumstances beyond the application of this Poultry Inspection Act, and also prevent any gaps in the application of these two laws. Under this provision we feel that the same relationships would exist between the poultry inspection program and the Food and Drug Administration as now exist between the red meat inspection program and the Food and Drug Administration. The Department believes that this subsection (a) is appropriate in that it assures complete coverage without duplication.

The Department believes that this poultry inspection law should become effective upon enactment, with all-inclusive coverage as provided in S. 313 to become effective July 1, 1959. In order to implement this principle of gradual application, the Department believes it is also necessary to provide for a limited exemption authority. The Department suggests the addition of such exemption authority to section 16, which would read as follows:

"(3) For such period of time as the Secretary determines that it would be impracticable to provide inspection and the exemption will aid in the effective administration of this act, any person engaged in the processing of poultry or poultry products for commerce and the poultry or poultry products processed

by such person: Provided, however, That no such exemption shall continue in effect on and after July 1, 1960."

We emphasize that this exemption is for a limited period after the effective date of the act and is recommended only in the interests of an orderly and smooth phasing in of the provisions of the law.

The Department suggests that section 20 entitled "Cost of Inspection" be amended to make it clear that the Department could pay employees for premium pay or overtime work from appropriated funds and subsequently reimburse the appropriated accounts through collections from the poultry-processing plants. Unless such clarification is made it is not certain that appropriated funds could be used to make the initial payments for overtime, until reimbursement is received.

COMPARATIVE PRINT OF S. 313 SHOWING AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Omit the part in black brackets and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL To provide for the compulsory inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture of poultry and poultry products

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Poultry Products Inspection Act."

LEGISLATIVE FINDING

SEC. 2. Wholesome poultry products are an important source of the Nation's total supply of food. Such products are consumed throughout the Nation and substantial quantities thereof move in interstate and foreign commerce. Unwholesome and adulterated poultry products in the channels of interstate or foreign commerce are injurious to the public welfare, adversely affect the marketing of wholesome poultry products, result in sundry losses to producers, and destroy markets for wholesome poultry products. The marketing of wholesome poultry products is affected with the public interest and directly affects the welfare of the people. All poultry and poultry products which have or are required to have inspection under this Act are either in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly affect such commerce. That part that enters directly into the current of interstate or foreign commerce cannot be effectively inspected and regulated without also inspecting and regulating all poultry and poultry products processed or handled in the same establishment.

The great volume of poultry products required as an article of food for the inhabitants of large centers of population may directly affect the movement of poultry and poultry products in interstate commerce. To protect interstate commerce in poultry and poultry products inspected for wholesomeness, from being adversely burdened, obstructed, or affected by uninspected poultry or poultry products, the Secretary of Agriculture upon request of the appropriate authority is authorized after public hearing to ascertain from time to time and to designate cities or areas where poultry or poultry products are handled or consumed in such volume as to affect the movement of inspected poultry or poultry products in interstate commerce.

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 3. It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to provide for the inspection of poultry and poultry products by the inspection service as herein provided to prevent the movement in interstate or foreign commerce or in a designated city or area of poultry products which are unwholesome, adulterated, or otherwise unfit for human food.

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 4. For purposes of this Act

(a) The term "commerce" means commerce between any point in any State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; or between points within the same State or the District of Columbia, but through any place outside thereof; or within the District of Columbia.

89520-57-8