of a petition for local governing officials removes much of the objections.

4. Previous legislation provided that a violator could be convicted only if he "knowingly" violated the law. In our opinion, this would render the law administratively unenforceable since it would be necessary to prove in court that the violation was committed "knowingly." S. 1128 does not contain the word "knowingly" in the penalty section. 5. Finally, we believe that S. 1128 will provide harmony between Federal poultry legislation and the United States Public Health Service recommended ordinance and code as presently drafted and submitted to the United States Public Health Service for its consideration. We feel that this is important since any Federal law will govern only a portion of poultry processed for human consumption. The balance must be supervised or regulated by States and local communities. Those communities should be assured that interstate poultry offered in their respective localities have met substantially the same requirements as those required of local products.

The Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States appreciates the courtesies you have extended and the opportunity you have provided us to express our views on this important legislation. We hope this committee and the Congress will give serious consideration to the basic principles involved that is, that the ultimate objective is to protect the health and welfare of the consuming public by providing it with poultry and poultry products derived from healthy, wholesome birds, processed under optimum sanitary conditions and properly labeled so as to prevent fraud or deception.

Thank you.

I will be glad to answer any questions there may be.

The CHAIRMAN. We are indebted to you, Doctor.

Senator HUMPHREY. One question. In your study of this legislation do you feel S. 1128 would threaten the financial security or the economic stability of the poultry industry?

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir; no, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. Do you think it would be helpful?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe so because under the present food and drug laws the industries regulated have prospered greatly in the past 30 or 40 years.

You were not present when I mentioned this poultry ordinance. Senator HUMPHREY. I think you alluded to it in your statement. Mr. SULLIVAN. That is right. There are 7 members from the poultry industry and 7 members from Public Health who worked together on this, and all the provisions were agreeable to everybody there.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you also stated you preferred the bill introduced by Senator Humphrey, S. 1128.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not consult with him in the drafting of this bill, did you?

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir; I have never seen him.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir, very good.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you for your help, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Next is Dr. Haskin. Would you give your name and identify yourself for the record and proceed?

STATEMENT OF DR. AARON H. HASKIN, CITY HEALTH OFFICER, NEWARK, N. J.

Dr. HASKIN. I am Dr. Aaron H. Haskin, health officer of Newark, N. J.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a prepared statement?

Dr. HASKIN. I have a prepared statement but I just want to bring 2 or 3 points up.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. Your complete statement will appear in the record.

Dr. HASKIN. We are particularly concerned from a local point of view as far as enforcement is concerned and our experience in that respect of course, ante mortem examination has been well covered by the previous witnesses and I do not think more need be said except that we are heartily in favor of ante mortem inspection from a local health point of view.

However, and again, there is another subject, namely, the word "knowingly" that we were interested in but which has been covered. The CHAIRMAN. That has been covered.

Dr. HASKIN. That has been covered but from the local health point of view that word would make it absolutely impossible to enforce any poultry health code that has that word in it.

However, there are two points of interest. One is the designation and the identification of the inspector, and the Aiken-Talmadge bill identifies him as any person authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture, it may not be a Government employee, it may be an employee of the plant itself. Our experience in that respect has been a very sad one because we have a poultry code in the city of Newark and there was a plant in New Jersey that had just such a situation where the owner was the inspector appointed for that service and we found that that plant was so bad that we had to exclude all the poultry it produced.

The CHAIRMAN. Who appointed him?

Dr. HASKIN. The Agriculture Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all on the voluntary basis?

Dr. HASKIN. That is right. Now, the general attitude where you do not identify the inspector very definitely will permit that system to get into it and therefore I heartily and highly recommend that the Humphrey bill which identifies the inspector very clearly as the more desirable of the three.

With respect to designation of cities, we are involved in it because we have a poultry code, again here the Humphrey bill is more advisable because it gives the opportunity for a city or a State, if it has a program equal to or with as high standards or higher standards than the Federal Government, that they should not be a designated area.

The other particular problem we are interested in from a local health point of view is that the Aiken-Talmadge bills do not specify which agency would be responsible for the inspection work.

On the other hand, the Humphrey bill specifically delegates to the Agricultural Research Service the poultry-inspection work. From our experience in poultry inspection and meat inspection we found that the most desirable agencies who have the greatest consumer health interest in mind are the Federal Food and Drug Administration and the Agricultural Research Service runs their meat inspection branch.

The latter has done an excellent job and we recommend that the Humphrey bill is more desirable, in picking 1 of the 2 agencies, namely, the Agricultural Research Service for that inspection work.

There is another problem and that is the problem of holding dressed but uneviscerated carcasses for later evisceration which I think is the most unsanitary or most objectionable of the practices existing in the poultry industry.

The Aiken and Talmadge bills would allow these practices to continue while the Humphrey bill, however, would prohibit it, prohibit the shipment of uneviscerated carcasses in domestic interstate com

merce.

Of course we, from a local point of view, are very much desirous that labeling be very specific and the Aiken and Talmadge bills would allow the Secretary to grant exemption from labeling requirements.

In conclusion I would state that the Humphrey bill contains all of the constructive provisions of the Aiken and Talmade bills and in addition it closes the loopholes which would prove detrimental to all whose best interests depend upon an effective poultry-inspection program, namely, the poultry consumers, the poultry workers, the poultry processors, and the poultry farmers. Local health departments are concerned that poultry inspection be done so that enforcement programs be not handicapped by loopholes forcing them to come back time and time again for changes in the law because of loopholes placed in the original act.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. Your entire statement will be put in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. AARON H. HASKIN, HEALTH OFFICER, NEWARK, N. J. The three bills reviewed are S. 313, known as the Aiken bill; S. 645, or the Talmadge bill; and S. 1128, the Humphrey bill. It is my considered opinion that while these three bills all profess that poultry inspection for the protection of the consumer is an admirable and advisable step, I feel that S. 1128, the bill sponsored by Senator Humphrey, of Minnesota, is a measure which will truly protect the poultry consumer, the poultry worker, the poultry-processing industry, and the poultry farmers. It helps all four groups.

The Talmadge bill (S. 645) is, in my opinion, the least effective of the three measures. I doubt that it actually provides mandatory poultry inspection. Similarly, the Aiken bill has so many loopholes and, necessarily, would rob a poultry-inspection program of effectiveness and integrity. In fact, it is perfectly possible that some of the sections of both the Talmadge and Aiken bills could be used in the future as precedents to weaken both the Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In fact, under the Aiken bill and the Talmadge bill, the inspections could be carried out by plant employees in their employer's processing establishments. Ante mortem inspection which all health authorities including the Food and Drug Administration consider essential for the protection of consumers and poultry workers is not required. In fact, the Talmadge bill does not specify the type of ante mortem inspection. An ante mortem inspection of the carcass of every bird is an absolutely essential protection for consumers. An ante mortem inspection which, as I said before, is not required by the Aiken and Talmadge bills is a very important function in the determination of healthy poultry. The Humphrey bill does require this ante mortem inspection. However, the manner of ante mortem inspection is left by the Humphrey bill to the discretion of the Secretary. In other words, before slaughter, inspection is mandatory under the Humphrey bill but it need not be bird-by-bird inspection. It can be an examination by flock, coop, and batch or in any way the Secretary of Agriculture will later prescribe.

Public-health experts have always believed that ante mortem inspection is essential to protect the consumers. Respiratory diseases which are difficult to detect after slaughter may be easily identified in the live bird. Mandatory ante

mortem inspection is also a protection for the poultry workers against industrial hazards. Obviously, any diseased birds which are prevented from reaching the processing line cannot infect the workers. Such a disease as psittacosis could be minimized through proper ante mortem inspection.

As regards post mortem inspection, the Talmadge bill does not specify the type of post mortem or afterslaughter inspection. The Humphrey bill and the Aiken bill agree in providing for carcass-by-carcass inspection. A post mortem inspection of the carcass of every bird is an absolutely essential protection for consumers. Although the voluntary poultry-inspection program now carried on by the Department of Agriculture is lacking in many respects, it does require a post mortem inspection which is carcass by carcass.

In the case of prohibited acts, both the Aiken and the Talmadge bills make these measures extremely difficult if not impossible to enforce. These sections repeatedly state that a violator must knowingly commit the illegal acts before he can be punished. This means that the intention of violation as well as the violation itself must be proved. The Humphrey bill closes this loophole. Yet the Humphrey bill still prevents any unfair or unwise arrangement. Like the Aiken and Talmadge bills, it gives the Secretary of Agriculture the discretion not to report for criminal prosecutions or for institution of injunction proceedings minor violations when the Secretary believes that the public interest will be served and compliance may be obtained by other means. The word "knowingly" is not contained in either the Meat Inspection Act or in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In fact, if it is incorporated in a poultry-inspection law, it would set a very dangerous precedent for possible weakening of these two laws as well.

Another serious defect in the Aiken and Talmadge bills is the identification of inspectors simply as any person authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect poultry or poultry products under the authority of this act. This particular provision seriously endangers the integrity of the program since it would permit, for example, the use of a company's employees to inspect the firm's poultry. The city of Newark has had a particularly unfortunate experience in just such a case. There is a plant in New Jersey, under supervision of the Agricultural Marketing Service, which was inspected by the meat division of the Newark Department of Health and found to be in a very unsatisfactory and unsanitary condition and the processing of poultry also unsatisfactory that it had to be disproved for sale of poultry in the city of Newark. We also informed the Agricultural Marketing Service of the situation. Now in this case, the Agricultural Marketing Service appointed one of the owners of the plant as the approved sanitarian for the establishment. Obviously, such a situation with a conflict of interests could only cause an extreme dissservice not only to the consumer public but a disservice to the industry itself in casting reflection on the whole program. The Humphrey bill, on the other hand, would void such dangers by stating that all inspectors must be employees of the Federal Government. Thus the inspector would be responsible to the Secretary of Agriculture and there would be no chance for a conflict of interests.

All three bills contain a provision that the Secretary of Agriculture may, after hearings, designate certain cities and areas of intrastate commerce which have such a large volume of poultry business as to affect interstate commerce. After designation, these cities and areas are brought under the scope of the act. While this is admirable because it extends the protection of the poultry-inspection law to many more consumers, poultry workers, poultry farmers, and poultry processors, care must be taken that local or State inspection programs, which are equal or superior to those of the Federal Government, would not be wiped out to the detriment of all. The Humphrey bill does just this. It provides that when a city or State has an inspection program of equal or higher standards than the Federal Government, that city or State cannot become a designated area.

The Aiken and Talmadge bills do not specify which agency in the Department of Agriculture would be responsible for the inspection work. The Humphrey bill specifically delegates to the Agricultural Research Service the poultry inspection work. From our experience in poultry inspection and meat inspection in the city of Newark, we found that the most desirable agencies who have the greatest consumer health interest are the Federal Food and Drug Administration and the Agricultural Research Service, through their Meat Inspection Branch. The latter has done an excellent job in protecting the public against undesirable meat for the past 50 years. In our experience, the Agricultural Marketing Service, while having done admirable work in promoting the sale of agricultural

products, has often done an unsatisfactory job in protecting the consumers with its voluntary inspection program.

The practices used, in holding dressed but uneviscerated poultry carcasses for later evisceration, are among the most insanitary and most objectionable practices existing in the poultry industry. The Aiken and Talmadge bills would allow these practices to continue, the Humphrey bill, however, would prohibit the shipment of uneviscerated carcasses in domestic commerce. In the definition of unwholesome, the Aiken and Talmadge bills can be interpreted to excuse any filthy conditions during the processing through the point of evisceration. The Humphrey bill prevents this practice.

In reference to labeling, the Aiken and Talmadge bills would allow the Secretary to grant any exemption from labeling requirements. The Humphrey bill contains no such loophole. The public today depends upon factual and informative labeling of food products. Exemptions would only confuse the housewife and make difficult the task of State and local regulatory officials.

In conclusion, I would state that the Humphrey bill contains all the constructive provisions of the Aiken and Talmadge bills. In addition, it closes the loopholes which would prove deterimental to all whose best interests depend upon an effective poultry inspection program, namely, the poultry consumers, the poultry workers, the poultry processors, and the poultry farmers. Local health departments are concerned that poultry inspection be done so that enforcement programs be not handicapped by loopholes forcing them to come back time and time again for changes in the law because of loopholes placed in the original act.

Senator HUMPHREY. Would it be possible for the poultry ordinance or recommendation to be made part of the record?

The CHAIRMAN. It will be filed for the committee's consideration. I identified it.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you. You did identify it?

The CHAIRMAN. I did, sir.

(The document referred to will be found in the committee files.) The CHAIRMAN. Next is Mr. Finney.

Will you step forward, please?

STATEMENT OF GERALD D. FINNEY, GENERAL ATTORNEY, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

Mr. FINNEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gerald D. Finney. I am a general attorney for the Association of American Railroads and I appear here on behalf of the association. The association is a voluntary association which includes in its membership railroad companies representing over 95 percent of the class I railroad mileage in the country and having more than 95 percent of the class I railroad revenues. I shall only take a few moments of your time.

The bills on which these hearings are being held are S. 313, S. 645 and S. 1128. We have no comments to make regarding the merits of any of these bills, but are concerned only with the fact that under the provisions of S. 1128 as written, railroad companies might be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine for what would be the illegal acts of others over which the railroads would have no control and of which illegal acts the railroads would have no knowledge. Not only would they have no knowledge of such illegal activities, but there would be no way in which they could reasonably be expected to have obtained such knowledge. Their guilt under the bill comes about by reason of the provisions in sections 8 and 12 of S. 1128. Section 8 (a) would prohibit the transportation or delivery or receiving for transportation of any poultry products unless such poultry products have been inspected for wholesomeness and unless the shipping container and the individual consumer package are marked in accordance