The proponents of S. 313 and S. 645 say that under those bills, ante mortem inspection would be used when necessary. We assume that they would believe it to be necessary after an epidemic has struck, as in the Oregon case.

We predicate this opinion on the basis that the present regulation under the voluntary inspection service has a provision that would allow ante mortem inspection. We were unable under this provision of the inspection service to obtain ante mortem inspection in the case of the psittacosis outbreak in Oregon.

So we can only assume that the word "may" in this case provides corrective, rather than preventive, measures.

This view would lead to the use of ante mortem inspection only to stop epidemics, not to prevent them. It would mean that men and women must first become ill and perhaps die before the necessary ante mortem inspection can be put into effect.

We cannot accept such a view or such a sacrifice. We believe that this legislation is to be preventative, not remedial.

The farmer is directly benefited by ante mortem inspection. It is one of the few areas of this legislation where he is immediately affected.

The ante mortem inspection would allow a recognition of disease in a flock very soon after the disease breaks out. It would prevent situations, like in Oregon and Texas, where entire flocks were infected before the knowledge that psittacosis was rampant, was available.

It would permit quick treatment and avoid the huge losses of money which the farmer suffers once psittacosis or other disease runs wild. We want to emphasize that we do not ask for bird-by-bird ante mortem inspection. We never have called for it, nor has any bill, which we have ever supported.

We agree with the provisions of S. 1128, that ante mortem inspection must be mandatory, and we believe the details of how that inspection is to be carried out should be left to the Secretary of Agriculture.

An examination by coop, flocks, or batch is satisfactory as ante mortem inspection.

The CHAIRMAN. If we cannot get a bill out except to make it "may," wouldn't you go along and give it a try, at least, since you are in favor of compulsory inspection?

It strikes me that under either of these bills the Secretary of Agriculture would have the same right, the same authority, except as you indicate one would be that he could, if he desired, and in the other he would be forced to.

Wouldn't it be a good start to give him the authority and let him go along that way? There is no doubt if it works well, why, in time to come, which may not be too far away, we might be able to change it to make it compulsory.

Mr. BARKER. I think you raise a very important question, Senator. Can we have a good mandatory poultry inspection law which give the consumer the confidence in the law, the confidence in the integrity of the inspection agency, without ante mortem inspection.

The CHAIRMAN. You will concede, will you not, that under either bill, if the Department desires to give ante mortem, they could have it. Mr. BARKER. No question about that. We agree with that.

Mr. BARKER. I think it can be said that the disease among flocks is pretty generally widespread throughout the State now, yes.

Senator AIKEN. And then you would have to have farm-by-farm inspection to be effective?

Mr. BARKER. Only to be totally effective.

Senator AIKEN. The only way you could control it would be to have the farm flock inspected before birds could be moved off of the farm.

Mr. BARKER. They are inspected anyway.

Senator AIKEN. On the farm?

Mr. BARKER. Yes.

Senator WILLIAMS. I have talked with the department about this problem also since it is a concern in other States.

It may go across State lines, and I am wondering if this particular epidemic that you are speaking of, to the employees and to humans in general, is not one that should be dealt with in separate legislation. Perhaps by quarantining the whole area when discovered and going in with the ante mortem inspection if needed flock by flock, and if you find it on the farm

Mr. BARKER. Quarantine the farm and destroy all of the birds on the farm that are involved and compensate the farmer for them the same as you do in hoof-and-mouth disease.

Senator HUMPHREY. Or Bang's disease.

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes. You are dealing with a very serious problem, but I do not think it is one which can be handled under a poultry inspection bill.

You do not deal with the real problem of eradicating the disease and thereby remove all affected poultry from the market. You are applying it to the particular poultry that will be put in the plant and will be handled by the employees.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I was impressed with the witness' answer that no State except California had the authority to deal with the situation. Mr. Mullin, of Florida, is still here, and I have now in my hand, through his courtesy, a copy of the Florida law on this subject which covers both live and dressed poultry.

In that law the definition of the crime involved, which is the sale of either live or dressed poultry which are in unhealthy or unwholesome state and the regularity power of the commissioner of agriculture clearly apply to prevent the sale of live birds in any diseased condition.

And Director Mullin tells me that while no psittacosis outbreak has occurred in Florida that they have invoked ante mortem inspection for matters like pocks in chickens and the like.

So I am sure that the witness would want to correct his statement. Mr. BARKER. May I again repeat what I said at that time, no State has compulsory ante mortem or post mortem inspection for the purpose of determining wholesomeness of the product except in California. I did not say that no State has authority. There are a number of States that have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations whereby they could set up this type of an inspection.

Senator HOLLAND. I understood you to say when you were questioned by Senator Aiken that no State had the authority and that Oregon did not have the authority to deal with this situation when it arose there.

Of course, Florida does have the authority. And I am satisfied that there are other States that do have similar authority.

Mr. BARKER. In the case of Oregon they did not have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations.

Senator HOLLAND. That is not true in the case of Florida.

Mr. BARKER. I believe not. There are other States likewise. However, my statement still stands that no State, with the exception of California, has such rules and regulations that would require that. That is what I am saying.

Senator HOLLAND. What you are saying is that at the present no law does require compulsory ante mortem inspection as a prerequisite to the slaughter?

Mr. BARKER. That is right.

Senator AIKEN. I cannot conceive of any State authority not having the right to prevent the sale and marketing of contaminated or diseased food products. Under the general health laws they have that authority.

Mr. BARKER. At the retail level, Senator, but not as a preventive measure. They can seize it at the retail level after all evidence of any infection or disease or unwholesomeness has been removed. This is commonly practiced in many areas.

Senator YOUNG. You mentioned some poultry in Oregon being dressed after having died and then sold to the public.

Mr. BARKER. This is what the Public Health people found when they went in to investigate the death of the man with psittacosis. A man died in the veterans' hospital. And when the health authorities went to trace back the source of infection, the suspect had psittacosis. The health authorities found birds, that were killed through other means than slaughter, being prepared for sale to the consumer. Senator YOUNG. This is in Oregon?

Mr. BARKER. Yes.

Senator YOUNG. Was there any prosecutions brought about as the result of this?

Mr. BARKER. That I am not familiar with, Senator. I am not

sure.

Senator YOUNG. I cannot imagine a State permitting a situation of this kind.

Mr. BARKER. We offered last year, affidavits for the consideration of the Senate Agriculture Committee showing this was not only practiced in Oregon but was practiced in many other plants in the Nation. Senator AIKEN. Who issued the affidavits?

Mr. BARKER. The affidavits?

Senator AIKEN. Were they affidavits from the State authorities? Mr. BARKER. The affidavits were taken from employees who were compelled to perform these functions.

Senator AIKEN. Could we get a statement from the State authorities?

Mr. BARKER. I assume if the Senate committee chose to investigate further, it would find confirmation of these affidavits. These were submitted to the hearings last year.

Senator AIKEN. I do not see how you can control the situation completely without a bird-by-bird inspection on the farm. That is what it amounts to.

As you may well understand, my first interest is in Florida, its citizens, and its visitors. The proposed mandatory poultry-inspection legislation is in every public servant's heart whether he be in Florida or in Alaska. My colleagues from the Florida poultry industry have studied the various bills which have been introduced in the 85th Congress, and we are unanimous in the opinion that the designation clause of a bill reported favorably by this committee must protect Florida. It must incorporate an amendment which provides that where a constituted State agency charged with the administration and enforcement of adequate poultry inspection is in operation, it must be the sole source of any request for public hearing to designate an area of such State under the poultry-inspection legislation.

Aside from this point, we feel that S. 1128 will provide greater protection for consumers, poultry workers, poultry processors, and poultry farmers. We heartily support it and its provisions. We hope this committee will report it with the designation amendment we have suggested.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Barker.

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY W. BARKER, DIRECTOR, POULTRY DEPARTMENT, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. BARKER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is S. W. Barker. I am the director of the poultry department of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (AFL-CIO).

The AMCBW is a labor union with 325,000 members organized in more than 500 local unions throughout the United States, Canada, and Alaska.

The AMCBW and its locals have contracts with thousands of employers in the meat, retail, poultry, egg, canning, leather, fish processing, and fur industries.

More than 30,000 of our members are employed in the poultry processing industry. It is because of them that our organization feels we have an important stake and role in that industry.

With the permission of the committee, I should like briefly to tell of my own relationship with the various phases of the poultry industry. I have been connected with some parts of the industry all of my life.

I was reared on a poultry farm in Oregon. My family raised poultry until last year. I began working in the poultry processing industry in 1923.

In 1937, when I became a representative of local No. 231 of the AMCBW, my knowledge of the industry increased because I also became aware of the many problems of management.

Today, as director of the poultry department of the AMCBW, I am in daily contact with local unions which have nearly 700 agreements with poultry processors all over the Nation.

One of my jobs is to assist these local unions in their work with management. Thus, I am called upon to travel into all sections of the country.

In fact, I am currently in the midst of a 2-month tour of our poultry locals. In short, Mr. Chairman, I believe I can testify with very practical knowledge of the poultry industry.

Our union began its campaign for compulsory poultry inspection in 1946. We did so because of the hazardous conditions which face poultry workers in many plants.

We believe that if an effective and meaningful compulsory poultry inspection program is put into effect, the health dangers ranging from bothersome skin rashes and infections, to killing psittacosis, would be minimized.

We also firmly believe that we have a responsibility to the consumer. We feel that the scandalous practices of some part of the industry must be ended; that the consumer must be assured of a clean and wholesome product.

Our campaign swung into high gear about 32 years ago as it became increasingly apparent to us that compulsory inspection was the answer to the health problems of poultry workers.

At first, we sought a close working relationship with the poultry processing industry and the Department of Agriculture to secure an inspection law.

Unfortunately, at that time, many sections of the industry did not believe inspection was desirable and the Department of Agriculture believed its voluntary program was sufficient.

Therefore, we, together with public-health organizations, women's groups, consumer organizations, and some farm groups and other labor unions went into the drive for compulsory poultry inspection

on our own.

We are very happy to see that all responsible parts of the poultry processing industry now favor the principle of compulsory poultry inspection.

We also note with great satisfaction that the Department of Agriculture has in 1956 and today, spoken strongly and forcefully for this principle.

I want to emphasize our great concern about mandatory poultry inspection because we have fuond that in some quarters there is the very strong belief that this problem should be strictly the concern of the poultry processing industry.

We have been considered to be bothersome outsiders who are sticking their noses into something which is not their business.

Public health people have been thought of as nosey busybodies whose heads are in the clouds. And consumer groups have been considered as people who should be satisfied with platitudes and thankfully accept any bit of protection which is given them.

I am certain that this is not the view of the committee members. But I should like to discuss here briefly how unfortunate and dangerous is the opinion I have described.

Mandatory poultry inspection legislation is not a marketing legislation. It has four major purposes:

(1) To protect the health and purchases of consumers;

(2) To protect the health of poultry workers;

(3) To protect the reputable processors against the dangers to his business provided by the practices of the shady operators, and (4) To protect the poultry farmers' business.

The latter two objectives necessarily depend upon the first and somewhat on the second.

Since this is the case, the consumer and poultry worker certainly have an important stake in poultry inspection and their views should have some meaning.

Further, since the standards for health and consumer protection will be dependent on medical and scientific knowledge and since the