fact that food produced under conditions as presently exist are so prepared that the consumer cannot adequately protect or inform himself of the safety of the contents. Therefore, the maxim "Let the seller beware" exists in the food industry as opposed to the concept of "Let the buyer beware," which exists in all other areas of commercial enterprise. Should this Congress reverse this procedure with respect to poultry inspection, I-as a consumer and a public-health worker-fear for the consquences with regard to food-law legislation and court decisions that have built the American food industry up to the high level that it presently occupies with respect to integrity and consumer acceptance.

Senator HUMPHREY. Are you saying here that in other food processing beyond this poultry matter, the legal terminology is not one of "knowingly," but the burden or responsibility for a wholesome product rests upon the producer and the processor?

- Dr. SUSSMAN. That is right.

Senator HUMPHREY. And that the Government may come in and inspect and prosecute if evidence is available, even though the industry may say that it did not knowingly understand that these practices were under way?

Dr. SUSSMAN. That is right. I think it should be pointed out to industry, however, that the milk industry, the meat industry, or other phases of the food industry have been under the same hazard, if you want to consider it a hazard, and the hazard is such that it is only a hazard if the administrators first bring the case to court, which they do not have to do under your legislation; second, if it is brought before the court, if the judge or the jury decides that they were guilty to the extent that the person injured or who died or who was sick or something happened, was in a position where they should be reimbursed for their problem-so it is not that way, that industry is going to have its throat cut.

There is no way of putting "knowingly"-into the food business. Food and drug authorities are in the position where we would never know, for example, if a bottling company knowingly allowed some rat feces to enter a bottle of soda pop. However, they have and should be responsible to the consumer.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have to suspend. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. We will resume as soon as we can.

(A recess was taken.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will, please be in order.

Dr. SUSSMAN. I was on the 4th point on page 3, and I think we finished that unless someone had a question. The 5th point is that: The Humphrey bill provides for the placement of the inspection service in the Agricultural Research Service, a consumer protective agency, in contrast to the other bills which would leave the choice of marketing or consumer protective agency to the discretion of the Secretary.

I should like to add at this point that the Livestock Grading Division which handles livestock is in the Marketing Service.

The CHAIRMAN. We know that. That has been put into the record 2 or 3 times.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Yes; I just want to make a point.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Dr. SUSSMAN. This morning someone said about putting one inspection service in one branch of the Department of Agriculture and another inspection service in another branch, but I think that all of these inspection services referred to are in order to provide a grading and quality system such as for orange juice, and the sizes of things, and not necessarily with regard to public health, because it is not a public-health_function as far as public-health people consider it, whether the Department of Agriculture thinks so or not.

The American Public Health Association, at their annual meeting November 15, 1956, and that was a recent meeting, resolved:

That the American Public Health Association supports the passage of a Federal law which will place the responsibility for the inspection of poultry which moves in interstate and foreign commerce in an agency having as its primary responsibility the supervision of the safety of food, such as the Meat Inspection Division of the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration in the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

It should be noted that the Humphrey bill does not require that the poultry inspection service be combined and subordinated to the Meat Inspection Division which has to do with "red meat" inspection services. S. 1128 would allow for a complete utilization of all professional personnel presently employed under the voluntary poultry inspection service. Should the Congress deem it wise and necessary, the Humphrey bill could be amended to provide for the creation of a poultry inspection branch or division within the Agricultural Research Service. This would eliminate some of the fear of subordination to the livestock industry on the part of the poultry industry. It will, however, eliminate some of the savings inherent in elimination of duplication of services.

CONCLUSION

This association feels that, of the legislation presently under consideration by this Senate committee, the Humphrey legislation S. 1128, is by far the most adequate to take care of the needs of the consumer, the producer, and the processor. To pass other legislation of a weaker quality and with less consideration for public health and consumer needs, will not be advantageous to the poultry industry. This hearing would not now be held if it had not been for the consumer, the public-health worker, food and drug officials, and workmen in the poultry industry all demanding action to provide inspection to protect the public health. Legislation that is merely a cloak to protect the industry from the full justified demands of consumer and public-health authorities will not be successful; it will not provide the industry with the complete and unfailing support of public health, food and drug authorities, and the consuming public; it will fail to give to the poultry industry their share of favorable public relations. Decision, naturally, rests with your committee. Our views are presented in the hopes that they may aid you in making your decision.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Doctor, as you know, we have had this before the committee for quite some time.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We were not able to get, on many occasions, the laws that we desire or prefer, and it will be the purpose of this committee to do the best it can and present a bill to the Senate that will be accepted by the majority of Congress. If it does not include all that you desire at this time it may be that as time goes on we can get the things which you say ought to be in there.

It is just a question of getting a good start, and I believe that by the adoption of practically any of these bills that are now before us you would agree, I am sure, that it will be a good start compared to what we now have; wouldn't you?

Dr. SUSSMAN. I think I would have to take exception to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, unless you do not have any-

Dr. SUSSMAN. There are just a few minor exceptions

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. They are so minor, though, that, unless you have no confidence whatever in your Department of Agriculture, we should go ahead and pass what we can. I may be in agreement with you, but I do believe that these public officials are as dedicated to doing what is right as you or anybody else in public life, and we must start with that premise.

Dr. SUSSMAN. The only point I make is that the administration of a public health veterinarian program will be better administered under groups of people primarily dealing with that phase, and to have the administration in the hands of people primarily dealing in sales appeal and marketing will not be good for the administration.

The CHAIRMAN. It will not be that, I can assure you of that. We thank you very much.

Now, Senator Neuberger, I understand that you want just 2 minutes. Senator NEUBERGER. I will be very brief in my testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. I would appreciate it if you would be, Senator, because we have people here who are from all over the country. Senator NEUBERGER. Would you prefer I come another time, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are closing these hearings today. Senator NEUBERGER. I will make it very brief. I intended to, anyway.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I think you know that I have a particular interest in this beyond that of a citizen and a Senator, in that one of the most disastrous and tragic psittacosis epidemics, which affected not only the poultry industry but human beings and their health, took place in the State that I help represent.

When I was a member, Mr. Chairman, of our State legislature, I made efforts for the regulation, for the proper inspection, of meat and poultry and poultry products. Unfortunately, I was not successful at that time. But now we have a better law in the State of Oregon. I am going to paraphrase my testimony, and then submit it for the record if that is agreeable.

The CHAIRMAN. It is agreeable.

Senator NEUBERGER. I feel that the only possible thing that the Congress can do is to err, if there is any error, on the side of safety

so that the consumer and a man, woman, or child who eats this poultry has every possible bit of protection.

When these epidemics strike, emergency measures are quickly taken. By necessity such action is expensive, sweeping, and drastic in the extreme. It has to be. The sensible, logical step to take after that is mandatory inspection, such as is proposed by us in S. 1128, of which I am very pleased to be cosponsor. A step in that direction it seems obvious, Mr. Chairman, must be taken by us in Congress as well as in the State legislatures.

One of the basic rights of any consumer should be the right to have full confidence in a clean and healthy poultry product purchased in any market. Such assurance would benefit the producer and processor by further stabilizing his market. I am sure that the poultry industry, the third most important agricultural industry, I am told, will be greatly strengthened and sustained by the enactment of Senator: Humphrey's proposal, of which as I mentioned, I have the privilege and the honor to be cosponsor.

I am going to ask in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that a letter I have received from the Egg Candlers and Poultry Workers Local Union, No. 231, and a pertinent article from the June 1956 Agricultural Bulletin of the Oregon State Department of Agriculture be included. as part of the record. I hope I have not exceeded my 2 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be filed with the committee. Thank you. (Senator Neuberger's statement and the papers referred to are as: follows :)

STATEMENT FILED BY SENATOR NEUBERGER

I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity so courteously offered by the Senate Agriculture Committee to prevent my views in support of the long needed legislation S. 1128 will provide. In joining my distinguished colleague, Senator Hubert Humphrey, of Minnesota, in sponsoring a well conceived, carefully written poultry bill, I was complying with the urgent requests of many Oregon poultry growers, processors, distributors, and consumers who witnessed, not many months ago, the terrifying and alarming spectacle of a psittacosis epidemic.

The pneumonia-like disease, psittacosis or parrot fever, threatened Oregon's vigorous turkey industry with possible extinction, but the resulting sickness and even death among human beings gave tragic confirmation to the plea that manda-, tory inspection was long overdue.

Mr. Chairman, when I was a member of the State legislature in my home State of Oregon, I had worked strenuously for the enactment of laws providing for proper inspection of meat and poultry. Those efforts proved unavailing at that time. It is unfortunate that it takes human suffering and economic loss to mobilize sentiment for this kind of legislative action. S. 1128 is the kind of bill demanded by those who have seen lives lost, people made ill and a thriving industry faced with paralyzing ruin. All of these terrible results to life and: property can be minimized, and perhaps even prevented, by the enactment of poultry inspection legislation, like that offered in S. 1128.

The Oregon story, which I know of personally, has been repeated in other States. Outbreaks have taken place in Texas, New Jersey, Nebraska, Virginia, and Iowa.

In Oregon, health officials for the first time, I am told, found farm workers had contracted psittacosis from poultry. In previous outbreaks, only poultry processing workers had been affected, the United States Public Health Service reports. First the processor, but now the producer, and, perhaps, in a later and unnecessary epidemic, who knows, it may be the consumer.

When these epidemics strike, emergency measures are quickly taken. By necessity such action is expensive, sweeping, and drastic in the extreme. It has to be. The sensible, logical step to take after that it mandatory inspection, as we propose in S. 1128. The step in that direction it seems obvious, Mr. Chairman, must be taken by us in Congress as well as the State legislatures. One of the basic rights of any consumer should be a right to have full con

fidence in a clean and healthy poultry product purchased in any market. Such assurance would benefit the producer and processor by further stabilizing his market. I am sure that the poultry industry, the third most important agricultural industry, I am told, will be greatly strengthened and sustained by the enactment of Senator Humphrey's proposal.

Again, I thank you very much for this opportunity and I ask your permission to include for the record a recent letter from Local Union 231, Egg Candlers and Poultry Workers, Portland, Oreg., supporting in particular the above mentioned bill, and a most pertinent article entitled "Operation Quarantine" from the Agriculture Bulletin of June 1956, published by the Oregon State Department of Agriculture.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: Since the outbreak of psittacosis in Oregon, the members of local union No. 231 have been more anxious than ever to have a strong compulsory poultry inspection bill enacted by Congress.

There are several amendments being introduced in regard to poultry inspection but the amendment introduced by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey is the one which we believe will provide the type of legislation we want.

We are writing to ask that you cosponsor the Humphrey amendment and do everything you can to secure passage of a mandatory poultry inspection bill in this session of Congress.

With sincere best wishes, we remain.
Very truly yours,

L. B. MYERS,

President, Egg Candlers and Poultry Workers Local Union No. 231.,

[From the Agricultural Bulletin, Oregon State Department of Agriculture, June 1956]

OPERATION QUARANTINE

WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON EMERGENCY ACTIONS LIKE THE ONE SURROUNDING DIAGNOSIS OF ORNITHOSIS

(By the editor)

Somehow I never seem to forget one of the stories my dad, who often doubled as country editor and volunteer fireman in those days, delighted to recount. It was about a fire on the edge of our small town.

:

He'd give us a buildup on the fire call, the volunteers dashing from everywhere to scramble onto the old fire engine and then running madly to the fire scene. "And what do you suppose was the first thing we saw when we got there?" he'd always preface his punch line. "Why, there was the house in blazes and Ol' Jack tearing up the yard with a big, frosted cake in his hands."

"And that's all Ol' Jack saved from the fire," dad would add. Then he'd chuckle and chuckle as though, having seen, he still could not believe.

LET'S SEE

Now that little story may not seem to have any application to Operation Quarantine. But let's see.

Suppose we call a quarantine a device to put out a fire. Or, to keep it from spreading.

Oh, of course, Jim Short, M. E. Knickerbocker, Frank McKennon, Kermit Peterson or the other officials who may sign quarantine orders for the State départment of agriculture doesn't call them fire stoppers. They would tell you a quarantine is a restraining measure, with the power of law behind it, to prevent the introduction or spread of a contagious or infectious disease affecting plants or animals and, directly or indirectly, man.

That is a bit more in line with the dictionary definition. You'll probably prefer it to the fire idea-but we'll get around to that later.