Senator HOLLAND. You don't mean that no State has such laws? Mr. BARKER. We are talking about Oregon at this time. At the present time there is no State that requires ante mortem or post mortem inspection of poultry as a medium of determining wholesomeness, with the exception of California. It enacted legislation,. which became effective, I believe, in July of last year.

Senator HOLLAND. There are effective setups in many States whereby State law may be invoked to meet the situation such as the one you mentioned at Portland, are there not?

Mr. BARKER. I am not aware of one. And I have made it my business to study all of the State laws in this connection.

Senator HOLLAND. Now, please state for the record just what it is that is failing or lacking in the case, for instance, of a State like Florida which has an old and long-staiding State poultry inspection.. What is there lacking in the law of that State that would have been needed in the event of a psittacosis outbreak there?

Mr. BARKER. You have no provision for compulsory ante mortem inspection of any poultry or turkeys that are going into poultry processing plants.

Senator WILLIAMS. Are you recommending ante mortem inspection?

Mr. BARKER. Yes. Not being a scientist, not being a veterinarian, I think that we must go to the professional people and the scientific people and ask them how this should be determined.

We say that it can be done by the group, by the battery, by the flock. We will accept whatever a veterinarian determines is the most efficient method of diagnosis and prevention. Even this, we recognize will not completely eliminate the health problem, but we do believe that it will reduce it to a minimum. That is all we can expect of our health laws.

Senator WILLIAMS. Certainly, we all want to prevent this particular disease that you have mentioned. The point I am raising is that these outbreaks, which are rare in occurrence, in this particular typeof disease, usually develop without any warning.

Would it not be almost invariably true, even under S. 1128, that the poultry is in the plant before it is discovered and that there is no possible way to eliminate it completely under any poultry inspection law?

Mr. BARKER. I think this situation in Oregon is a very good example of my original point. The turkeys had been under observation beginning in November.

It was not until March that official designation or diagnosis was made of psittacosis.

Senator WILLIAMS. You mean under observation at the farm? If that be true, why was something not done?

Mr. BARKER. They were under observation at the farm and the culls, those which became the psittacine, were culled from those flocks and sent into the processing plants.

As a matter of fact, when the public health people went in, into this situation, they found turkeys that had come from these ranches that were actually dead, but were being processed and were being offered for sale.

One of these plants is where one of the deaths was.

Senator WILLIAMS. I can't conceive of any State not having adequote laws to prevent such a situation as that.

Senator HOLLAND (presiding). Senator Aiken.
Senator AIKEN. I have a question.

Mr. Barker put stress on the control of psittacosis and also says he would leave the determining of the inspection method to a scientist. I have made some inquiry among scientists with whom I have talked who say there is no positive way of detecting psittacosis during ante mortem inspection, that the laboratory test is the only test which positively detects it.

We must have been talking to different scientists because they say you cannot tell by looking at the bird.

Mr. BARKER. The American Livestock Sanitary Association, the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the U. S., the Conference of Public Health, Veterinarians, the Association of State Public Health Veterinarians and every other health organization that I am acquainted with have gone on record innumerable times during the past several years insisting that ante mortem inspection was one of the musts for a good compulsory poultry inspection.

Senator AIKEN. But not as a test for psittacosis?

Mr. BARKER. The test for psittacosis, while I believe it is made in the laboratory, I am not speaking as a technician hereSenator AIKEN. It has to be made there.

Mr. BARKER. Is on a titer count basis, as I understand it. And it does have to have certain laboratory work done for determination. But that is done when a suspect is found. The ante mortem inspection can only give us the suspects. And from there, comes the proof as to what the disease is.

Let me point out, Senator, that in the case of the Oregon outbreak of psittacosis, we went ahead and proceeded to dress these birds, because the consumer hazard in this case, while it may be repugnant to our aesthetic nature, was not great. After the birds had been treated properly, necessary precautions were taken, so far as the employees are concerned. That is to say, the employees were advised what their chances were.

The employees' medical people, their doctors, were advised that there was a likelihood, that if they developed a respiratory ailment, that it would be psittacosis and should not be treated as a virus infection or pneumonia.

With these factors, we were able to protect our people and we did stop the continued spread of the epidemic.

However, unless an ante mortem inspection had been made, there would have been no suspect birds weeded out. As has been already indicated here to this committee, unless the bird had been placed in the cage and observed at the plant, no one would have been able to have diagnosed the problem as psittacosis.

Senator AIKEN. Was this psittacosis epidemic statewide?

Mr. BARKER. In the particular occasion involved, it was scattered over a 150-mile radius. Since then, however, there have been other outbreaks in other sections of the country.

So that I think it can now be said that it is pretty generally throughout the State.

Senator AIKEN. It might appear on any farm then. You say it is general in Oregon at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. BARKER. The word "may" would permit it. The word "shall," I believe, would make it mandatory.

The CHAIRMAN. Still under all bills we could have ante mortem. Mr. BARKER. We could have ante mortem.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly.

Mr. BARKER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It strikes me if we can get a bill in with "may" to begin with, it might be a good thing to do it, if that is the only way to put it through. You understand our difficulties, don't you? Mr. BARKER. I do. I understand it.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name.

STATEMENT OF ARNOLD MAYER, PUBLIC RELATIONS DIRECTOR, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA (AFL-CIO)

Mr. MAYER. My name is Arnold Mayer. I am also with the meat cutters union.

Ante mortem is so terribly important to the protection of the workingman in the plant that if the word, "may" is used, we are greatly afraid that we will have to make the sacrifice of people being hurt before ante mortem inspection is put into effect.

In a case like that, legislation would only be remedial. It would not be preventive.

And I am certain that this committee will want to enact legislation that will assure that no one will be hurt from poultry, or, will at least minimize the chances of anyone being hurt from poultry. Ante-mortem inspection is absolutely necessary for that.

Senator YOUNG. We do not have compulsory ante-mortem inspection now; do we?

Mr. MAYER. No.

Senator YOUNG. Do you have any figures on the number of laboring people that have been injured?

Mr. BARKER. The evidence we have already introduced in connection with the industrial hazards covers this subject. The poultry industry, known as small game and poultry dressing and packing, is the third most hazardous of all industries.

The incidence of injury of lost time due to injury and disease runs approximately twice what steel does, more than twice what meatpacking does; three times what the national average of all industry is. Senator YOUNG. What are the injuries?

Mr. BARKER. Illnesses such as psittacosis; dermatitis; conditions which remove people from the job. Part of the problem is brought about by the failure of sanitary provisions in the present regulations. Perhaps this is a point that you want. Injuries are based on the million man-hours of work, which is true of all of the industries under the BLS figures.

Senator AIKEN. Do you include in that list people who are allergic to feathers?

Mr. BARKER. When it is recognized as an industrial hazard; yes. Senator AIKEN. And you put particular stress on psittacosis, and mentioned particularly an outbreak in Portland.

Mr. BARKER. There was one.

Senator AIKEN. What was the extent of that? How many workers were incapacitated or made ill or died from it?

Mr. BARKER. 86 were made ill and 2 died.

Senator AIKEN. How did that outbreak occur?
Mr. BARKER. When did it occur?

Senator AIKEN. How did it occur?

Mr. BARKER. How did it start?

Senator AIKEN. Yes.

Mr. BARKER. From two flocks of turkeys; that was the original diagnosis.

Senator AIKEN. How did the turkeys contract it?

Mr. BARKER. That is unknown as of this time.

Senator AIKEN. Am I right in understanding that caged birds have been largely responsible for the spread of psittacosis

Mr. BARKER. That, I believe, the scientists at the present timeSenator AIKEN. From such as lovebirds?

Mr. BARKER. The authorities at the present time have not determined how psittacosis is transmitted into certain flocks. There has been a suspicion that seagulls, dust, et cetera, have been the carriers of this disease but at this time I believe that the scientific authorities have not confirmed that.

They suspected wild game as the original carriers in the case of the psittacosis outbreak in Oregon, but were unable to prove that this was the cause for the epidemic.

Psittacine birds are also carriers of psittacosis. And there are many cases of parrot fever which result from psittacine birds. We are not talking about the psittacine birds, the parakeets and parrots, here, however.

We are talking about the industrial hazards to our people from turkeys and poultry, both of which may carry orinthosis, as it is commonly called now, but is basically the same disease.

Senator AIKEN. How widespread was the psittacosis outbreak in Oregon? Was it confined to one plant, or was it general?

Mr. BARKER. No, it was in five slaughtering plants, two of which were under the permissive inspection service. And this is the reason why we pointed up the fact that the present regulations provide for ante mortem inspection.

The veterinarian performing the post mortem inspection, however, even though he was aware of and concerned with the problem, did not assume the responsibility of providing ante morterm inspection. It was not until labor, industry, and the Public Health Service sat down and worked out a code of self-regulation, providing ante mortem inspection, that the thing was put under control.

Senator AIKEN. He was aware that psittacosis existed?
Mr. BARKER. He was aware that the psittacosis existed.
Senator AIKEN. And didn't the State step in immediately?
Mr. BARKER. The State had no authority to step in.
Senator AIKEN. You mean no State laws?

Mr. BARKER. No, no State laws-no Federal laws-no State laws, to provide a compulsory means of providing ante mortem.

Senator AIKEN. I didn't know there were any States that did not permit that.

Neither the Meat Inspection Act nor the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act contains the word "knowingly" or "willfully" as far as violations are concerned.

Yet there have been no charges of unfair indictments, prosecutions or convictions.

Further, we understand that Congress had to amend several agricultural laws in which this word was used, because they made the measures meaningless.

In short, the use of "knowingly" does not provide necessary protection but only an invitation to flout the law. It does not protect the innocent, but only shields the violator.

2. Ante mortem inspection: S. 313 and S. 645 would make ante mortem inspection discretionary. S. 1128 would make the principle of ante mortem inspection mandatory, but would leave the manner in which it is to be carried out to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Ante mortem inspection is absolutely necessary to consumers, poultry workers and farmers. To prove its importance to consumers, I should like to quote a veterinary officer of the United States Public Health Service, Dr. Joe Atkinson.

In a paper presented at the 82d meeting of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Minneapolis, Minn., August 15-18, 1955, he said:

For the purposes of assuring adequate official inspection, careful observation of poultry before slaughter (ante mortem inspection) is, perhaps, even more essential now than was the case a few years ago.

The increased incidence of respiratory diseases, particularly in young poultry commercially produced, is an important factor.

Upper respiratory infections may affect the bird sufficiently to make it appear sick and plainly unacceptable or suspect if observed before slaughter, yet may pass unnoticed on routine examination by the post mortem inspector.

As a matter of fact, the upper respiratory tract may be examined very superficially, if at all, on post mortem inspection, unless the inspector knows the bird is suspect.

Another factor contributing to the increased importance of ante mortem inspection is the use in recent years of high scalding temperatures, which result in removal of the epidermal layer of the skin and give an almost uniformly white appearance to the dressed carcasses.

Thus the darkened appearance formerly associated with certain septicemias and the abnormally pale appearance caused by some disease processes, no longer serve the post mortem inspector, in many instances, as indications of generalized effects of disease.

As far as the poultry worker is concerned, ante mortem inspection and plant sanitation are the two most important protections provided in the inspection bills.

He depends upon ante mortem inspection to prevent or minimize the amount of diseased poultry coming on the processing line and possibly infecting him there.

We have the experience in the Oregon psittacosis outbreak to demonstrate how important ante mortem inspection is to us.

After the Portland psittacosis epidemic of 1956 broke out, industry, Oregon public health officials and the AMCBW worked out a program to stem the outbreak. That program included ante mortem inspection. It did slow and finally stop the incidence of cases.

Ante mortem inspection was then ended. Within a week, the psittacosis epidemic erupted again. Even more persons were hit by the illness.