features of handling New York-dressed birds in our plant. We just think that it is a matter of esthetics and quality considerations. We are going out of that type of work and since much of the criticism. against the industry has been directed to this type, particularly by the Food and Drug Administration findings, we feel that we should move in the direction of not giving our blessing to any further handling of New York-dressed poultry. Senator WILLIAMS. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator WILLIAMS. You have evisecerating facilities at each of your plants? Mr. TROMBOLD. Yes. Senator WILLIAMS. If you did not have, would not your proposal be a handicap? Mr. TROMBOLD. It would be a handicap. Senator WILLIAMS. And would it not handicap the operation of the smaller plant which could not afford to put in eviscerating lines? Mr. TROMBOLD. Well, we have for a number of years handled New York-dressed poultry, obviously, as the rest of the industry has, but I think that it is part of progress to begin to get away from it. Senator AIKEN. That means, does it not, that you are headed toward the concentration of slaughtering in the large city plants? Mr. TROMBOLD. That is not necessarily true. If you scald, and defeather a bird, the economical place to pull the viscera out is at that location and I do not understand the necessity for picking birds and shipping them or storing them for various lengths of time Senator AIKEN. Of course, where they are not available it might result in transferring the whole operation to the country plant in some cases which would be helpful to the people living in that area? Senator HUMPHREY. If it works. Senator AIKEN. Yes, if it works. Mr. TROMBOLD. There are many sizes to eviscerating plants, eviscerating facilities. You do not have to have a large plant for that. Senator HUMPHREY. But it is a Senator AIKEN. Excuse me. If you prohibit the shipment of uneviscerated poultry across State lines, you prohibit shipment of live poultry across State lines, too. Senator HOLLAND. I would like to ask you a question. I notice in the statement that you have 14 plants operating under a voluntary poultry inspection program. How many plants do you have that do not so operate? Mr. TROMBOLD. Well, our plants that operate on poultry products are under the voluntary system, in 8 States. Senator HOLLAND. And does that mean that you have only 14 plants that handle poultry, is that it? Mr. TROMBOLD. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Well, do you take poultry from others who handle it? Mr. TROMBOLD. Yes. In my testimony The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of poultry do you handle? Mr. TROMBOLD. I would not be at liberty to say that at this time. The CHAIRMAN. You do not know? Mr. TROMBOLD. I do not know exactly. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. TROMBOLD. But we are large consumers of poultry and that is in my testimony. Senator THYE. May I have this question in the record? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator THYE. Do you buy directly from the produce houses in the various communities or do you have your own buyers in the field buying them? Mr. TROMBOLD. I would say both. Senator THYE. You own buying points and you also will take birds from someone that has them? Do you, for instance, buy from the large cooperatives such as, we might mention, the Land O' Lakes? Mr. TROMBOLD. I think so, but I am not sure. I do not have the procurement data in front of me, so I could not say positively. Senator THYE. That was my only question, Mr. Chairman. Any further questions? Senator HOLLAND. Could you insert for the record the volume of poultry which is handled by those 14 plants that process poultry? Mr. TROMBOLD. I don't believe that I would have that information. I would say it is a considerable volume. Senator HOLLAND. Well, can you not supply that for the record? Mr. TROMBOLD. I could give a rough indication of the volume, yes,. if that would be helpful. Senator HOLLAND. Well, do you not have the specific facts available? Surely your company keeps the data on your industry showing that? Mr. TROMBOLD. All of our records on the volume of poultry handled as well as meat products are part of the governmental reports that we submit each month, so the data is available. Senator HOLLAND. I ask you to supply it for the record, then. (NOTE. Mr. Trombold subsequently advised the committee that the Campbell Soup Co. processes in excess of 65 million pounds of poultry annually.) The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. TROMBOLD. I have another point. Senator HOLLAND. Supplied not on a monthly, but on an annual basis. Mr. TROMBOLD. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mr. TROMBOLD. (e) We believe that the law should provide for control of intrastate shipments in those designated areas where interstate commerce may be affected. We would approve the approach taken to this problem by S. 1128 requiring cooperation with and approval by State and local regulatory officials in those areas so designated. (f) It is extremely important that the law be adminstered by an agency in the United States Department of Agriculture which has had experience in the handling of similar regulatory programs. We would not want poultry inspection to become subservient to or a minor branch of meat inspection. Neither do we favor placing this poultry inspection in an agency where its execution might be limited or hampered by marketing or grading interests. When poultry inspection becomes mandatory, it will require a sizable regulatory group in the Department of Agriculture and will undoubtedly warrant full branch status with its own chief. Senator HUMPHREY. If I may interrupt, Mr. Chairman? Senator HUMPHEY. That is the point I was trying to get at a moment ago with another witness. When you have mandatory inspection, you are going to have quite an operation and, as has been indicated, it will make quite a difference in the departmental structure, between the inspection service and the grading service, and so on. With meat this has gone on for years in the Department. I am trying to emphasize this point, that it ought to be separate. That is one of my feelings. Mr. TROMBOLD. If this law becomes enacted, we hope to see a poultry inspection branch created either in the Agricultural Marketing Service or in the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture making use of the vast experience of those people who have worked with the industry throughout the years in the conduct of the voluntary poultry inspection program. As a part of my testimony, I am submitting Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 which detail certain changes we would make in each of these three bills being considered. For the sake of brevity I will not read each of these, but submit them for committee evaluation. I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity afforded us to testify on this important subject. The CHAIRMAN. Your exhibits will be placed in the record. (The exhibits are as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 1 SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO PERFECT S. 1128 Section 7, page 5, line 18: After the word "wholesome" and before the comma, insert "and not adulterated". Section 7, page 5, line 22: Delete the word "or" and substitute "and". This change would make it clear that the name and address as well as the establishment number of the official establishment is required on all containers. Section 7, page 6, line 3: After the word "form" add "approved by the Secretary". This amendment will clarify the label approval procedure and make it clear that such approval is required prior to actual use. Section 7, page 6, line 6: Delete the word "or" and substitute "and". This change would make it clear that the name and address as well as the establishment number of the official establishment is required on all labels except where the name and address of the distributor is permitted. Section 7, page 6, line 11: At the end of the paragraph add the following sentence: "The Secretary may permit reasonable variations and grant exemptions from the foregoing labeling requirements in any manner not in conflict with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." This type of flexibility is necessary for practical production operations and, particularly, in the case of new products to be market tested. Section 7, page 7, lines 7 through 15: In line 7, place a period after the word "conclusive" and delete all of the remainder of lines 7 through 15. An appeal procedure in respect to label approvals is cumbersome, unnecessary, and would prevent speedy processing of labels submitted for approval. Such provisions would tend to crystalize administrative regulation into an inflexible set of requirements which would not take into account varying products and situations. Existing informal, flexible, and effective label approval procedures would be destroyed. Compare with the provisions of sections 17.1-17.14 of the meat inspection regulations. Section 22, page 17, line 5: Delete the word "wholesome" and substitute the word "clean". 1 Section 22, page 18, line 19: Following subsection (4) insert the following subsections: "(5) If any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom; or "(6) If any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater value than it is." Comparable language is found in the Food and Drug Act. Failure to include such provisions in S. 1128 permits the inference that there is no objection to and no penalty provided for economic adulteration of poultry or poultry products. Failure to prohibit and condemn such economic adulteration is a disservice to the poultry buyer whether that buyer is the housewife or the packer who buys poultry for further processing. Section 22, page 19, line 18: After line 18, add the following: "(o) The term 'processing' means any operation or combination of operations whereby poultry which is intended for sale for human consumption is killed, dressed, eviscerated, cut up, frozen, cooked, heat treated, canned, packed, repacked, reprocessed, or changed in size, shape, or form for marketing for human consumption and includes the combining of poultry and poultry products with other edible ingredients for marketing for human consumption." EXHIBIT No. 2 SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO PERFECT S. 313 Section 4, page 4, line 17: After the word "a" insert "poultry carcass or parts thereof a". Section 4, page 6, line 5: Delete the word "person" and substitute "employee of the Federal Government". This change will make it clear that only government employees-and not processor employees-may act as inspectors. Unless this change is made, the legislation could constitute a deception and fraud on the public. Section 4, page 7, line 2: After line 2, add the following: "(o) The term 'processing' means any operation or combination of operations whereby poultry which is intended for sale for human consumption is killed, dressed, eviscerated, cut up, frozen, cooked, heat-treated, canned, packed, repacked, reprocessed, or changed in size, shape, or form for marketing for human consumption, and includes the combining of poultry and poultry products with other edible ingredients for marketing for human consumption.” Section 5, page 7, lines 11 through 13: Delete all of lines 11 through 13, inclusive, and substitute the following: "such city or area: Provided, That the governing body of such a city or area has consented to such designation." This change would remove grounds for local objection to this legislation and eliminate possible constitutional questions. Section 8, page 12, lines 11 through 18: In line 11, after the word "conclusive” insert a period and delete all of the remainder of lines 11 through 18. An appeal procedure in respect to label approvals is cumbersome, unnecessary and would prevent speedy processing of labels submitted for approval. Such provisions would tend to crystallize administrative regulation into an inflexible set of requirements which would not take into account varying products or situations. Existing informal, flexible and effective label approval procedures would be destroyed. Compare with the provisions of Sections 17.1-17.14 of the Meat Inspection Regulations. Section 9, page 13, lines 8, 13, 15, 16 and 22: In line 8, delete the words "Knowingly and". In lines 13, 15, 16 and 22 delete the word "knowingly" where it appears. The word "knowingly" would make proof of violation almost impossible and render the section practically unenforceable. Section 9, page 14, line 1: Delete the word "Knowingly". The word "knowingly" would make proof of violation almost impossible and render the section practically unenforceable. Section 9, page 15, line 5: Delete the words "between official establishments and". This change will prohibit the interstate shipment of New York dressed fowl. Section 11, page 15, line 17: After the word "records" insert "for a period of 2 years following each transaction". From an administrative viewpoint, there must be a time limit placed on this record keeping requirement. Section 13, page 16, line 7: Delete the word "knowingly". The word "knowingly" would make proof of violation almost impossible and render the section practically unenforceable. Section 13, page 16, line 16 through page 17, line 1: Delete all of the proviso beginning at line 16, page 16 and ending at line 1, page 17. There is no sound basis for giving special consideration to a carrier which participates in a violation of the statute. Keeping such a proviso materially weakens the effectiveness of the law from an enforcement viewpoint. This is particularly the case in view of the “worning” provisions of Section 14. Section 16, page 18, line 16: Delete the word "promises" and substitute the word "premises". Section 19, page 20, lines 20 through 23: In line 20, after the word "agencies" insert a period and delete the remainder of lines 20 through 23. To secure a uniformly administered, objective inspection service there should be no authority to conduct inspection service through state or local agencies. This is a substantial objection to S. 313 if this language is to remain. EXHIBIT No. 3 SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO PERFECT S. 645 Section 4, page 4, line 17: After the word "a" insert "poultry carcass or parts thereof a". Section 4, page 6, line 5: Delete the word "person" and substitute "employee of the Federal Government". This change will make it clear that only government employees-and not processor employees-may act as inspectors. Unless this change is made, the legislation could constitute a deception and fraud on the public. Section 4, page 7, line 3: After line 3, add the following: "(o) The term 'processing' means any operation or combination of operations whereby poultry which is intended for sale for human consumption is killed, dressed, eviscerated, cut up, frozen, cooked, heat-treated, canned, packed, repacked, reprocessed, or changed in size, shape, or form for marketing for human consumption, and includes the combining of poultry and poultry products with other edible ingredients for marketing for human consumption." Section 5, page 7, line 15: After the word "area" delete the period and substitute a comma and insert the following: "Provided, That the governing body of such major consuming area has consented to such designation." This change would remove grounds for local objection to this legislation and eliminate possible constitutional questions. Section 6, page 8, lines 1 through 8: Delete all of lines 1 through 8 and substitute the following: "major consuming area of any poultry product which is unwholesome or adulterated, the Secretary shall, whenever processing operations are being conducted, cause to be made by inspectors ante mortem inspection in such manner as he determines necessary; post mortem inspection of the carcass of each bird processed, and such quarantine, segregation and reinspection as he determines necessary of poultry and poultry products in each official establishment processing such poultry or poultry products for commerce or in or for marketing in a designated major consuming area. All carcasses and parts thereof". As written, S. 645 would make no requirement for bird-by-bird post motem inspection. This is a substantial weakening of the inspection service even as it is now constituted on a voluntary basis. This is a major defect which should be remedied as indicated. Section 8, page 11, line 24 through page 12, line 7: In line 24 at page 11, after the word "conclusive" insert a period and delete all of the remainder of lines 24 and 25 on page 11 and all of lines 1 through 7 on page 12. An appeal procedure in respect to label approvals is cumbersome, unnecessary and would prevent speedy processing of labels submitted for approval. Such provisions would tend to crystallize administrative regulation into an inflexible set of requirements which would not take into account varying products or situations. Existing informal, flexible and effective label approval procedures would be destroyed. Compare with the provisions of sections 17.1-17.14 of the Meat Inspection Regulations. Section 9, page 12, line 22 and page 13, lines 2, 4, 11 and 15: In line 22, page 12 delete the words "Knowingly and". In lines 2, 4, 11 and 15 at page 13 delete the |