the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. We would be extremely hopeful that he would recognize the development of the present poultry inspection program and utilize that experience in the establishment of a compulsory inspection system.

Now, I do not feel that a bill should specifically handcuff the Secretary as to where he is going to put that inspection service.

As I stated, we have taken a purely objective point of view as to the inspection agency. However, we do have certain points that we did raise here, that we are hopeful that the Secretary would take into consideration the effectiveness of the voluntary inspection program where the poultry industry is spending more money than any other food industry for a valuntary inspection program.

I would assume that-and it is in our testimony here-the poultry industry spends $2,500,000 for the present voluntary program, and I understand that I am wrong, that it is much higher than that, all on a voluntary program.

It is for that reason, and not just for the financial reason there, but it is for the experience gained in this voluntary program. We now have, I guess, 315 plants that are utilizing that service, and we are hopeful that the Secretary would want to take advantage of the experience we have gained, and I do not think that we would want to handcuff him to say where to put it.

Senator HUMPHREY. Would it be fair to say with a compulsory inspection system that the poultry inspection activities would have gained such new stature that you would want to have a poultry inspection program of equal stature, at least, to the meat inspection?

I am not saying where it ought to be, whether it ought to be in the AMS or ARS, the Agricultural Marketing Service or the Agricultural Research Service, but at least a poultry inspection program itself that would require the Department, rather than just use some little offshoot of some other service, to give it the status of a branch, the poultry inspection branch, wherever that may be-would you want that?

Mr. WOLLNEY. The first thing I want you to understand, Senator, is that we do want to give it recognition or stature, and I believe quite firmly and I am quite convinced that the present voluntary program has stature at least equal to the red meat inspection program. Now, if it got larger, it may have more stature.

Senator HUMPHREY. You may believe that, but the consumer undoubtedly does not.

Mr. WOLLNEY. Senator, there is a question on that. As I pointed out, our industry has grown so rapidly in the past few years, our rate of consumption has grown tremendously, and I believe that the consumer, at least in a portion, has registered her confidence in the produce that she is buying by buying it in such increased quantities.

I do realize and I do recognize, as I am sure anyone in the poultry industry does or anyone in the food industry would, that there is a segment that we are not proud of. But it is a very small segment, a minority, and we think it is extremely unfortunate that our industry has had to take the butt of such criticisms, criticisms that are hardly justified in view of the fact that 97 percent, or 98 percent, or 99 percent of our industry is doing that, producing this wholesome product

Senator HUMPHREY. I agree with you there, and I think that it is very unfortunate. However, we are not arguing about anything there. I am just agreeing with you, and I also think that it is to the benefit of the producer as well as the consumer to have the very best inspection system.

Mr. WOLLNEY. We do not argue that, Senator.

SENATOR HUMPHREY. But the worry is where the system ought to rest. You are quite unwilling to conclude that you ought to have a separate inspection service in the Department, unless I misunderstand you, and what I want is a service that would give you stature-all I am trying to do is to help and not to hurt you. I just want to see that you get an inspection service that is good enough and that will back up your industry.

The CHAIRMAN. The idea is, is it not, first to put the law on the statute books the best we can and then improve it as we go along? Mr. WOLLNEY. That is right.

Senator AIKEN. I would like to ask a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman, and I would like for Senator Humphrey to notice what the questions are because they will raise points.

Is the installation of eviscerating facilities in a plant expensive or difficult in any case?

Mr. WOLLNEY. Senator, I would like to ask Mr. Pringle to answer that question.

Senator AIKEN. The reason I asked that is that I know that there are a lot of smaller plants that employ just two people and they ship their products to the cities where they have facilities for eviscerating. Now, would it be a hardship on these smaller plants if they are prohibited from shipping any uneviscerated poultry across State lines or between official establishments? Would that tend to concentrate the slaughter of poultry in the large establishments in the cities?

STATEMENT OF VICTOR PRINGLE, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ROCKINGHAM POULTRY MARKETING CO-OP, INC., BROADWAY, VA.

Mr. PRINGLE. Senator, there are possibly some of those who are also in the minority, I mean, you have some producers who are not small, they are quite large who also do that same service-in other words, they slaughter the bird, pick the feathers and blood them and move them into the official plant in our present volunteer system, that is provided for and it is very worthwhile

Senator AIKEN. I was not thinking of the large ones.

Mr. PRINGLE. In other words, if you meet certain sanitary requirements, and sanitation is the biggest thing in this anyhow, sanitation is not expensive and it would not work a hardship on a small producer.

Senator AIKEN. You mean if he is prohibited from shipping uneviscerated poultry?

Mr. PRINGLE. Oh, yes, it would work a hardship on the small or the large, either one, if he met certain sanitary requirements and did do a good job, to prohibit him from taking it to an official plant for post mortem examination.

Senator AIKEN. That is what I wanted to find out, because I do have the smaller plants in mind.

Mr. PRINGLE. Yes, it would work a hardship.

Senator AIKEN. They pick the feathers and then ship them to the cities where they have facilities for eviscerating and apparently that is the cheapest way to handle it. We do not want to eliminate the small country plants because we have eliminated enough small country industries as it is.

Mr. PRINGLE. If they met the sanitary requirements in the operation of their end and move into the official plant for a post mortem examination, which is the only thing really necessary anyhow, he should not be handicapped.

Senator AIKEN. Thank you.

Senator YOUNG. I have a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator YOUNG. In my State we have people who are in the processing business, mostly handling turkeys, and they handle a sizable amount in the fall of the year and the rest of the year they would handle but a few.

I want to ask you this: If a State has a good inspection system, do you propose that that be taken over by the Federal Government, that every inspector would have to be a federally paid inspector, or do you think it would be all right to recognize a State system that is good!

Mr. WOLLNEY. I believe it is extremely important in the interest of, first, the consumer and the taxpayer, that there be close working relationships between the Federal Government and the State govern

ments.

Particularly in the State of North Dakota, where you have plants that are operating seasonally, it is important that the definition of an employee be such that the Federal Government could utilize State employees without having to go directly to the State employee-it could be an arrangement between the Federal and the State govern

ments.

Senator YOUNG. I see.

Senator THYE. If you will pardon me, I might add, since the Senator from North Dakota has made reference to it, that they do have joint inspections now between Federal and States. In other words, you have State inspectors who are qualified and certified as Federal inspectors, too?

Mr. WOLLNEY. Yes, sir; that is correct; and we think that that experience gained there in working with the Federal and State governments has been valuable and should be utilized by the Secretary in his administration of a compulsory program.

Senator THYE. You have many inspections such as the dairy, the butter, the fish and produce and fruits, et cetera, which are a cooperative or a joint venture between the Federal Government and the State governments. It has worked out to a greater economy than otherwise would be possible, has it not?

Mr. WOLLNEY. We are hopeful that that is right, and we also are hopeful that the legislation recommended by this committee would be such that it would not tie the Secretary's hands in any way that would slow down such cooperation.

Senator YOUNG. And that is an important point as far as the smaller ones are concerned?

Mr. WOLLNEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. C. D. Trombold, director, quality control, Campbell Soup Co., Camden, N. J. Is he present? Mr. TROMBOLD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Trombold, please give your full name for the record and identify yourself, please.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. TROMBOLD, DIRECTOR OF QUALITY CONTROL, CAMPBELL SOUP CO., CAMDEN, N. J.

Mr. TROMBOLD. My name is Charles D. Trombold. I am director, quality control, Campbell Soup Co., Camden, N. J.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you testify here last year?

Mr. TROMBOLD. I testified last July before this committee on S. 3588 and S. 3933, I think they were.

The CHAIRMAN. And do you have anything new to add today?

Mr. TROMBOLD. I do. I have a few pertinent comments that are different or new or are new ideas.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you please proceed; and I wish you would kindly confine yourself to the new matter.

Mr. TROMBOLD. In particular, there were a lot of things that came up before this committee this morning that I would like to comment upon, if you will let me.

Campbell Soup Co. and its subsidiary, C. A. Swanson & Sons, of Omaha, Nebr., have 8 plants operating under meat inspection and 14 plants operating under the voluntary poultry-inspection program. Our experience with these services dates back to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act in 1906, and, in the case of the voluntary poultryinspection program, to its inception some 25 years ago. The development of the voluntary program for poultry inspection throughout these years has paralleled in many respects the developments within my firm in the manufacturing and marketing of processed poultry products. Campbell operates in nearly all phases of the poultry industry. Campbell represents a sufficient diversity of activities in the poultry industry so that it can properly appreciate the interests of all groups who have previously appeared before this committee. Our product line is composed of canned poultry products, precooked frozen poultry products, as well as uncooked frozen poultry. "We fully appreciate the public health, consumer acceptance, consumer protection, marketing, procurement, manufacturing, and administrative considerations involved. Campbell not only processes poultry from the live bird to the finished product, but purchases large quantities of inspected, eviscerated, ready-to-cook poultry for use in its products. Campbell processes and packs over 20 individual poultry products.

We have been in a position to see this voluntary program supported by industry grow from several inspected plants to over 300 plants. We consider this voluntary program a major reason for the present high consumer acceptance of processed poultry products. My firmalong with other principal segments of the processed industry-takes certain pride in having supported, and in a sense perpetuated, the voluntary system which is a normal precursor to the compulsory inspection program which this committee is now considering. Campbell is in full accord with the compulsory poultry inspection legislation

efforts of this committee and it is our earnest desire that enactment be expedited in order to obtain a strong poultry-inspection law and early enforcement throughout the entire industry.

During the previous Congress we followed with interest the bills presented on this subject and last June took part in the public hearings on bills S. 3588 and S. 3983. It was our feeling that bill S. 4243 which was reported out of committee represented a vast improvement_over some of the other bills introduced during the last Congress. More recently we have made a detailed study of Senate bills 313, 645, and 1128.

I will not, for the sake of brevity, give you here all of those details, they are all in this statement. It is not my plan to burden the time of the committee by reading each detail. I would like to highlight it

The CHAIRMAN. Fine.

Mr. TROMBOLD. In a general way, so that we may have the essential points.

I would like to outline what my firm believes to be the essential points in a strong workable compulsory poultry inspection law. We list these points as follows:

(a) The law should have the strength to stand up in the courts and should have enforcement provisions on a par with those of the Meat Inspection Act of 1906.

(b) We feel that this new law must carry adequate provisions for ante mortem inspection of poultry. This does not necessarily have to be a bird-by-bird inspection, but it should effectively prevent obviously sick or diseased poultry from being slaughtered for processing. Since there has been previous discussion on this point, I would like to elaborate if I might.

The law should provide for ante mortem inspection but in dealing with meat inspection regulations as well as poultry inspection regulations, the importance is in the regulations. The way they are written as a guide to the inspectors in the field and the law need not spell out specifically each detail, but be left possibly to the preparation of regulations, as in the meat inspection regulations. Because they are in essence the strength of the law. Because they are written as the result of contacts with the field and oftentimes after hearings on the specific subject—but they are written by experts and not as a legislative process.

(c) The law must spell out bird-by-bird post mortem inspection, and this must be done by a qualified Federal employee of the United States Department of Agriculture. I underlined the word "Federal."

(d) The language of the law should prohibit the shipment of uneviscerated poultry both between States and between official establishments.

Senator HUMPHREY. Would you care to develop that because that is the point that Senator Aiken directed his comments to and I am sure it would concern the other committee members?

Senator AIKEN. And that would particularly affect the New England States where the State lines are awfully close together.

Mr. TROMBOLD. It would work a hardship in different areas where the dressing is in a different plant than the eviscerating. We are coming out in this vein because we have found certain unsatisfactory