Page images
PDF
EPUB

The alerting of local responsible agencies' personnel has in all serious cases, resulted in State authorities carrying out some form of quarantine measure and flock inspection. In connection with ornithosis outbreaks, the appropriate State officials, in the light of known scientific facts, have been conducting ante mortem inspection and control measures that could be applied at the most effective level, which is the farm.

The procedures for ante mortem inspections, which provide for coordination between State officials working at the farm level and Agricultural Marketing Service inspectors at the plant, were worked out after the Department's experiences in handling ornithosis problems in 1954 in Texas. Similar procedures are now in use wherever inspectors suspect ornithosis, and after virus isolations have been made from diseased tissues.

The CHAIRMAN. If no one else is present who desires to be heard, the hearings are closed and the committee will adjourn.

(Whereupon, the hearings were closed at 1:15 p. m.)
(Additional statements filed for the record are as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY HON. WALLACE F. BENNETT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. Chairman, there can be no question about the need for a compulsory inspection by the Department of Agriculture for poultry and poultry products. The failure of the last session of Congress to enact such legislation was a disappointment to the many groups which have taken an interest in this important facet of our public-health program, and I sincerely hope the 85th Congress will not disappoint them again.

During recent years there has been tremendous expansion in the use of the voluntary poultry inspection services provided by the Department of Agricultrue. In 1951 only 145 plants made use of the Department's service, while now there are twice that number. Per capita consumption of poultry has increased markedly in recent years, and production has increased more than twofold since the 1930's. But our inspection system has failed to keep pace with this growing importance of poultry as a human food. Our voluntary inspection system is not sufficient for an industry which is operating on a steadily increasing scale.

The problem that arises with voluntary inspection is obvious-those most anxious to submit to voluntary inspection are usually the ones whose flocks are known to be without disease. Sometimes a poultryman will find that some of his birds are diseased and will hurry to dispose of his poultry before the disease becomes generally apparent.

Such conditions are not common, of course. The great majority of poultrymen take greatest care to protect their reputations by making sure that their birds are free from disease and clean, and when disease is discovered the diseased birds are destroyed by burying or burning. But the occasional exceptions are of sufficient frequency to create a hazard to public health.

The reputable poultry producers agree that compulsory inspection is desirable. Beyond its obvious effect of protecting the consumer, it also will increase public confidence in the purity of poultry and poultry products, thereby increasing consumption of poultry.

With regard to the differences in the three bills now under consideration, I believe S. 313 would come closest to meeting the needs of the industry. Unlike S. 1128, it does not specify which agency of the Department of Agriculture shall conduct the inspection. It seems to me that such a decision is best left to the discretion of the Secretary, who is charged with carrying out the purposes of the law in the most efficient manner.

With respect to ante mortem inspection, there can be no question about the value of such a procedure, and S. 313 provides that the Secretary shall have discretionary powers to set up such a program. Here, again, I believe we can trust the Secretary to exercise good judgment in establishing the nature and scope of such inspections. Some latitude is necessary to permit most effective use of personnel and minimum interference with plant operations.

In this connection, it might be noted that this committee last year, after consideration of a similar bill, included the following language in its report: "It is the intent of the committee to allow the Secretary of Agriculture administrative flexibility with respect to designating the particular agency, divi sion, or branch of the Department which will be responsible for the operation

[blocks in formation]

of the Poultry Inspection Service. The committee feels that flexibility is a prerequisite to the maintenance of a continuous and exemplary program. At the same time, however, the committee feels that in order to achieve this objec tive the responsibility for the program belongs in an area of related activities. The Secretary, therefore, should review the organizational structure of the Department looking toward the accomplishment of this purpose."

I urge the committee to report favorably on S. 313.

Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 27, 1957.

DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: In connection with the hearings on the proposals for compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products now being held by your committee, I am forwarding the following observations of Mr. Louis R. Burke, chief, division of animal industry, department of agriculture, State of Colorado: "As these bills were presented last year, you will recall we objected very much to the provision which permitted the Secretary of Agriculture to not only regulate poultry slaughtered for interstate commerce, but the bills also provided that the Secretary could delineate areas within the State and make the poultry sold in these areas subject to Federal regulation. Whether or not these poultry had moved inter- or intrastate, this provision appears to us to be an outright violation of the sovereign rights of the individual States, and it would certainly jeopardize the living of the small producers in a State where they were cosponsoring poultry to an area designated by the Secretary. This will mean that these producers will have to pay for Federal inspection and obviously, the cost would be prohibited to a man with a small number of birds. It is our feeling that the Federal Government should request that poultry moving interstate be federally inspected and graded. We have no objection to this part of the bill; in fact, we heartily endorse it, but our people are most considerate over another act, Federal encroachment, when they move into an individual State and dictate the terms under which locally produced products are sold.”

I note that the bill introduced by Senator Humphrey, S. 1128, would require consent of the local government before the Secretary of Agriculture could designate the area as one which has such a large volume of poultry business as to affect interstate commerce therein, and thereby bring the area under the act. I know that you and your committee will consider this matter carefully. I only wish to urge that every precaution be taken to insure that the jurisdiction of local governments will be protected. It may well be that the Federal poultry inspection program should not interfere at all with the local inspection efforts. Your consideration of this matter and assistance in making this letter a part of the record of these hearings will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

GORDON ALLOTT, United States Senator.

STATEMENT FILED BY REUBEN JOHNSON, ASSISTANT COORDINATOR OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

My name is Reuben Johnson. I am assistant coordinator of legislative services, National Farmers Union. National Farmers Union is an organization of ap proximately 700,000 voting members. Our membership is made up of operators of family-type farms. Their interest in poultry inspection legislation is twosided in that they have an interest both as producers and as consumers. The views we shall present to the committee are fully consistent, we believe, with the interests of family farmers as producers, as consumers, or as both producers and consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I do not appear as an expert witness on poultry diseases or on the scientific aspects of the legislation you are considering. I will state some of the practical considerations that we in National Farmers Union feel must be considered in any poultry-inspection legislation that is enacted into law. In this connection, we wish to commend the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the committee members who contributed to the hearings last year on the subject at hand. It seems largely the result of

growing sentiment in this committee and in Congress for a poultry-inspection law that the great majority of poultry processors now embrace the principle of mandatory Federal poultry inspection. We also note that the Department of Agriculture has again this year spoken strongly for such a law.

While most everyone from the producer through to the consumer recognizes the need for mandatory poultry-inspection legislation, or at least support, the principle, there is strong sentiment from some quarters in the direction of placing the responsibility for clean poultry and poultry products, primarily with the poultry-processing industry. Fortunately for both producers and consumers, the sentiment in the committee and apparently in the Congress, has been toward the kind of poultry-inspection law that will insure inspection of poultry and poultry products by Federal employees on the same or similar basis as inspection of other meats by the Meat Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Research Service in the Department of Agriculture.

PROTECT POULTRY MARKET

Unless the poultry-inspection law and the kind of program resulting from it have the full confidence of consumers and public health officials, the producer as well as the processor will see the growth of adverse market factors which may result in the ultimate loss of consumer confidence in wholesomeness of product. Consumer psychology can work in odd ways. This leads us to the conclusion that if we are not going to have a mandatory poultry-inspection law that is acceptable to the consumer and to public health officials generally, we would have been better off never to have brought it up at all. However, now that the matter has been brought up, it ought to be settled and settled at the earliest possible time.

PRICE SPREAD

We believe that the cost of mandatory poultry inspection should be borne by the Federal Government. We take this position because we do not want to add to the spread between the prices received by farmers and the prices paid by consumers. This spread is already too large. This is especially important to small poultry processing plants which, if required to pay the cost of Federal inspection, might be caught in a competitive situation and forced out of business.

ANTE AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION

We are also convinced that the legislation must include adequate ante mortem as well as adequate post mortem inspection. We are concerned over statements of witnesses in which reference has been made to poultry diseases communicable to man that can be detected only through ante mortem inspection. In this connection, we do not believe that bird-by-bird ante mortem inspection is required, nor that inspectors would be needed to inspect on farms all of the poultry marketed in the United States. We do feel, however, that the ante mortem inspection should be mandatory and that the details as to how the inspection is to be carried out should be left to the veterinary inspection. In other words, we do not feel that ante mortem inspection should be left to the discretion of the Department of Agriculture, but we do want to leave to their discretion the means and details as to how ante mortem inspection is made.

The Department of Agriculture recognizes in the regulations laid down for its voluntary poultry inspection program that ante mortem inspection is practical. Instruction H. 918 (PY) ante mortem-1 states:

"While it is not practical to handle and examine each live bird prior to slaughter, it is entirely possible to visibly examine daily each battery of birds in the plant."

ADMINISTERING AND INSPECTING AGENCY

Normally, Congress assigns an administrative function to the Cabinet official involved and leaves to him the decision as to which part or parts of his agency or department is to be assigned the function. However, the legislative and institutional history of the administration of poultry-inspection legislation makes it necessary for us to recommend a departure from this pattern and to state our views as to the designation of the administering office in the Department of Agriculture.

It seems to us that the most logical location for this work within the Department of Agriculture is the Meat Inspection Branch of the Agricultural

Research Service. It is clear that poultry inspection is logically associated with red-meat inspection. Moreover, the Agricultural Research Service conducts scientific research on animal diseases, on food quality, and on other sanitation problems. It is also the mandatory food inspection service.

The Agricultural Research Service has an excellent record in the administering of the Meat Inspection Act. The Agricultural Marketing Service has done good work in the field of sales promotion. While both offices are necessary, they differ greatly. From the practical point of view, we feel that poultry inspection should be administered by the office whose primary function for 50 years has been meat inspection.

EFFECTIVE DATE

With respect to the effective data, Mr. Chairman, we feel that the poultry inspection law should not become effective until July 1, 1958, assuming that Congress will enact a law prior to that date this year.

DESIGNATED AREAS

Most of the legislation introduced provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may bring certain areas of intrastate commerce under the Federal Poultry Inspection Act. Consideration is given hereby to areas of large population in which interstate and intrastate poultry become so intermingled that to deny intrastate poultry Federal inspection would be discriminatory, in effect. We support the view. However, we do not feel that the intrastate commerce of an area should be forced into the Federal poultry-inspection program against its wishes and against the wishes of the governing body. For this reason, we believe that the legislation you approve should allow the Secretary of Agriculture to designate an area for Federal poultry inspection only upon the consent and approval of the governing body of the area concerned.

There is one other point that should be made in this connection, Mr. Chairman. The legislation finally approved should not permit by Federal designation of intrastate areas the lowering of already existing standards of local or State poultry inspection programs.

Mr. Chairman, I have intentionally avoided the mention of specific bills. I have tried to cover the more important provisions of any poultry inspection laws which we in National Farmers Union strongly feel would strengthen and make more effective and workable a mandatory Federal poultry-inspection program. We appreciate the privilege of appearing before the committee and presenting our views.

Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER,

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES,
Washington, D. C., February 26, 1957.

Chairman, Committee on Agricultural and Forestry

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of our member associations which are marketing farmers' poultry and poultry products, we favor legislation authorizing a practical and workable compulsory poultry-inspection service.

We believe the Secretary of Agriculture should be authorized and directed to make appropriate inspection of poultry and poultry products moving in interstate commerce; and of the facilities for processing and handling in the markets; and when occasion requires, ante mortem inspections, and metropolitan inspections where both intrastate and interstate shipments are received.

We believe also that poultry raised by poultry producers and sold directly to household consumers should be exempt from post mortem inspection.

Discretion should be left with the Secretary as to which agency in the Department of Agriculture would have the responsibility, but the service should be separate from other meat inspection service in the Department, with the procedures especially adapted to the poultry industry, based on experience of both the Department and producers with the voluntary inspection service which has been carried out for a number of years.

We believe the inspection should be wholly at public expense in order to completely protect the integrity of the inspection service in the public interest. We believe approximately 18 months should be allowed to expand and perfect the inspection service and to give the industry time to prepare for compulsory inspection; but that in the meantime poultry processors already having inspec

tion service and those becoming ready for inspection service be allowed to participate in and utilize the inspection as fast as the expanding service can serve them.

We will be pleased if this letter can be included in the record of the hearings of February 27 and 28, 1957.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN J. RIGGLE, Secretary.

STATEMENT FILED BY DR. MACK I. SHAN HOLTZ, SECRETARY-TREASURER, ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICERS, RICHMOND, VA.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have been directed by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers to transmit the following prepared statement to your committee in support of the Senate bill No. 1128.

Because of our concern with the public health aspects of poultry inspection, we feel that Senate bill No. 1128 fulfills the need better than other bills currently under consideration. Certain essential provisions are necessary for an acceptable inspection service.

Ante mortem slaughter inspection is necessary in detecting certain diseases in poultry and for protection of persons employed in the industry. This must be provided for in any good inspection program.

Post mortem inspection, or afterslaughter inspection, must provide for carcassby-carcass inspection. Any other procedure would be inadequate in ascertaining the degree of wholesomeness. Reasonable provisions must be provided for the enforcement of regulations on a fair and impartial basis. Employees conducting the inspection program in order to insure the integrity of such a program must have civil service or merit system status as employees of the agency con- ducting the inspection.

It is our belief that the meat inspection branch of the agriculture research service has done an excellent job administering the red-meat inspection program and would do an equally fine job in administering a poultry inspection program for the protection of the consumer, poultry producers, and poultry workers as a whole.

Poultry should be eviscerated immediately after slaughter in order to exclude -contamination of the edible portions with intestinal material. Sanitary standards should be carefully provided for throughout the entire slaughtering procedure. Accurate records should be maintained and made available to the enforcing agency. Careful attention should be paid to the labeling of poultry, -as the public depends on factual information of labels on their food products. All of the foregoing items are best provided for in Senate bill No. 1128 and the authority of the enforcing agency to assume responsibility in intrastate poultry commerce is restricted to those times when it is invited to do so by the local governing body.

In general, Senate bill No. 1128 is the most constructive legislation providing for effective poultry inspection currently being considered in Congress.

THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

New York, N. Y., February 27, 1957.

Mr. JAMES M. KENDALL,

Assistant Chief Clerk, Senate Agriculture Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. KENDALL: This is in reply to your telegram of February 21, 1957, requesting appearance before your committee or a statement with respect to -compulsory poultry inspection legislation.

Approximately 350 million pounds of dressed poultry is received in the city of New York annually. About half of this is eviscerated under voluntary Federal inspection or under supervision of state and local inspection services approved by the board of health of this city in conformity with the requirements of the sanitary code of this city for ante and post mortem inspection.

It is not practical for this department to maintain supervision of some 60 plants which operate under "approved" inspection services in widely scattered -cities and towns in various States. However, spot checks have been made which disclosed deplorable conditions in some plants, no veterinarian in attendance

« PreviousContinue »