under AMS, is the grading service, which, in our opinion, should not, and could not, for all practical purposes, be separated. It would seem only logical that inspection of poultry for wholesomeness should be left in the poultry department, rather than under an agency that has had no experience in the field of poultry inspection.

I do not want to give the impression that I am against mandatory inspection. I am wholeheartedly for a program of this type, but would like to see it handled on a basis that would give the consumer the most protection and be most workable for the poultry industry.

Therefore, we request that this committee recommend the provisions of bills S. 313 and S. 645, because, in our estimation, this will do the most good for the poultry industry of the United States and give the consumer the finest and most wholesome products.

STATEMENT FILED BY HENRY J. PANKRATZ, MOUNTAIN LAKE, MINN.

I am Henry J. Pankratz, farmer and turkey grower from Mountain Lake, Minn. I have served as a director of the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association for 9 years and I am a past president of the association. At the present time I am a director of the National Turkey Federation. I have no material interest in any processing plant.

As a turkey grower, I have always been interested in proper processing and inspection of the produce I grow on my farm. It is very obvious to me that as a farmer, I can prosper only to the extent that my produce is offered to the consumer as an appetizing and wholesome food.

Consequently, my testimony to this committee is primarily in the form of a tribute to the many fine processing plants in my State with whom I have done business since 1939.

I started growing turkeys when poultry was merely one phase of diversified farming; when turkeys were killed in the barn, frozen in the woodshed, packed in barrels and shipped to the consumer in the big cities. Today, poultry is one of the big industries in agriculture.

For this tremendous growth, I give a great deal of credit to our processors, who have cooperated with our State experiment stations and the United States Department of Agriculture to put into practice the practical and scientific knowledge to give the American consumer the nutritious and wholesome poultry products we see on the market today.

Most of our progressive processors have incorporated voluntary inspection of poultry by the Poultry Division of the Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately some plants have not adopted this practice.

Therefore, I, a farmer and turkey grower, being vitally interested in improving my, and my fellow producers' position in the American economy, favor the passage of bill S. 313, to bring all poultry processors under mandatory inspection by the Poultry Division of the Department of Agriculture. This Department has rendered a tremendous service to the poultry producer as well as the processor where they have operated on a voluntary basis.

I believe that I do not speak only for myself, but for thousands of farmers in my State when I express my gratitude to our State experiment stations, and the United States Department of Agriculture for the services they have rendered to raise the living standards of the American farmer.

Twenty years ago my mother would not have served her family the poultry our neighbor shipped to the big city, but today my wife can serve with confidence, poultry which bears the inspection stamp of the United States Department of Agriculture.

STATEMENT FILED BY LAWRENCE ERICKSON, NORBEST TURKEY GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MADELIA, MINN., ALSO REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN MINNESOTA TURKEY GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Lawrence Erickson, of Madelia, Minn. I operate a cooperative poultry processing plant which is a member of the Norbest Turkey Growers Association. Norbest Cooperative Turkey Growers Association has 13 member plants processing over 90 million pounds of turkey annually. I am representing this group here today. Of the 13 plants, 3 are located in Minnesota and the other 10 in the Midwest and the Western

United States. All of these plants are operating under voluntary inspection and we all have a veterinary stationed in our plants who inspects our product for wholesomeness and our plants for sanitation. We also have a USDA grader supervising and grading our poultry.

We have never had a single instance of unclean or unwholesome product in any of these 13 inspected plants and the consumer has been able to buy a good product. The consumer has purchased more and more of our product each year, which speaks well for our inspection service. We know that the consumer must be satisfied and we want them to have the best product we can produce. We feel that the inspection service can best be served under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture because as new developments and new techniques are developed regulations must be flexible.

We also feel that one branch of the Government should handle the entire service, as we can call one office and get a quick answer, which is needed, and we won't get bogged down with redtape.

I have operated poultry processing plants since 1934. I have seen the turkey business grow from a small farm sideline to a major enterprise. The plants, too, have of necessity developed from a small hand operation to a highly specialized large volume operation. Wonderful progress has been made in sanitary procedure and new techniques over the past 10 years.

We are in favor of compulsory inspection and we will continue to develop under the present inspection service. We can see nothing but real progress ahead. Mrs. Consumer is our real boss, and she will keep us in business only if we give her the best product which can be produced.

STATEMENT FILED BY EARL B. OLSON, PRESIDENT, FARMERS PRODUce Co.,

WILLMAR, MINN.

I am Earl B. Olson, president of Farmers Produce Co., of Willmar, Minn., where our plant is located and where we processed over 3 million head of turkeys in 1956 which were bought in Minnesota and North and South Dakota. Our plant has been under the United States Department of Agriculture Poultry Inspection Service and Grading Service since we started processing and shipping ready-to-cook poultry. Last year, in our plant alone, we employed 3 licensed veterinarians plus 3 lay inspectors and 3 Government graders. We shipped eviscerated turkeys to over half of all States in the United States in addition to Canada and to the armed services. We have in our files hundreds of letters from housewives and servicemen from all parts of the United States and European countries praising the quality of our turkeys. We have discussed this inspection of turkeys with our growers and with large receivers of turkeys and they recommend and endorse the adoption of the general provisions of S. 313 and S. 645 and without question are opposed to S. 1128.

It is our desire that inspection of poultry should be left with the poultry branch of the Department of Agriculture because of the qualified job the Secretary of Agriculture has done, and also the real experience that his Department has received in the past 28 years.

With poultry products now being the third largest producer of farm income in the United States and with approximately 20-percent increase in turkeys alone to be raised in 1957, we believe for the good of the poultry industry and the housewife that mandatory inspector of poultry should be under the United States Department of Agriculture, Poultry Division.

We thank this committee for their time to allow us to present our thoughts concerning inspection and grading of poultry products.

STATEMENT FILED BY T. H. CHRISTGAU, MANAGER, POULTRY AND TURKEY PROCESSOPERATIONS, LAND O' LAKES CREAMERIES, INC., MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

I am T. H. Christgau. My home is in Minneapolis, Minn. My statement is on behalf of Land O' Lakes Creameries, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minn., where I supervise all poultry processing operations.

Of the several proposals for consideration, Land O' Lakes endorses S. 313. We are opposed to S. 1128, because that bill would remove the inspection service from the poultry branch, where it is now administered in cooperation with the

standardization and grading services for poultry. Grading and inspection are often necessary in the same operation. We want to know what the grade of the poultry is either before or after inspection. Consequently, both services are necessary, and they complement each other. Smooth and efficient operation within our plants comes from having both services under a single administration. Confusion inevitably follows jurisdictional separation of operations which are naturally complementary.

We see no possibility that the meat inspection branch might be more effective in the application of the service than the poultry branch. Both the services are based on the employment of licensed veterinarians, who inspect the poultry for disease and wholesomeness.

Since licensed veterinarians are the operating personnel, we see no reason for believing that they would be more effective under the meat inspection branch than under the poultry branch. Consequently, the reasons for removing the service from the poultry branch to the meat inspection branch are not well based.

S. 1128 makes it mandatory for inspectors to be United States Government employees. We feel that this should be left up to the administrative authority. Since many poultry plants are seasonal, there are times when the actual inspection employees could be part of a State agency under contract with the Federal Government. We operate under such a program in North Dakota now, and the results have proven to be beyond reproach. Such a program makes it possible for producers in sparsely populated areas to get service from small plants near home.

We favor mandatory inspection of poultry. Land O'Lakes has used the United States Department of Agriculture's poultry inspection service since we started processing and marketing ready-to-cook poultry. We used the service of standardization and grading long before that time. We believe both services have always been fair. They have also been firm. We have never known the inspectors to ease their requirements to reduce the volume of rejected poultry as a result of industry pressure.

Poultry processors are thoroughly convinced of the value of the inspection service, both to themselves and to their customers. We are disturbed about the things which have been said in the press and in public hearings in recent months about the products of our industry. We believe that some of these implications might be difficult to defend with reference to their application to the inspection service. The things which have been suggested are the very things for the elimination of which the service was built up, and the processors throughout the country have worked in cooperation with the administrators of the service to accomplish the very objectives for which we have been criticized. We, at Land O'Lakes, require the highest reasonable degree of perfection in the poultry which we process, because we not only find it necessary to represent this poultry to our customers without reservation, but we also use it in our own homes. With these observations, I reiterate the position of Land O'Lakes Creameries that:

(a) The existing service can, and will, accomplish anything that can be accomplished by changing administration.

(b) The service to poultry processors will, of necessity, be less efficient if duplicated administrations are set up for naturally complementary functions. (c) Small plants and producers in certain areas will suffer serious handicaps under S. 1128.

For these reasons, the management and patrons of Land O'Lakes Creameries wholeheartedly endorse the adoption of S. 313, and are strongly opposed to S. 1128.

Thank you very much.

Senator THYE. Well, Mr. Chairman, since we have made mention of these men who represent the State of Minnesota, the producers and processors and organizations, I have a letter here from L. L. Baumgartner, the secretary-treasurer of the Minnesota Poultry Hatchery Association. Mr. Baumgartner had intended to be here today, but he wrote me this letter dated February 23 saying that he was unable to be present. He has enclosed a statement headed, "Federal Inspection of Poultry Very Important." It is signed by L. L. Baumgartner,

secretary, Minnesota Poultry Hatchery Association, and I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that it be inserted in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

FEDERAL INSPECTION OF POULTRY VERY IMPORTANT

From information just received, the poultry industry has a new and very serious problem which has come about because of a bill just recently introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Hubert Humphrey. I have every reason to believe that the objectionable provisions of Senator Humphrey's bill come about only because of the Senator's unfamiliarity with the real problems of our industry. The real proponents of a Federal inspection bill are the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL. For some unknown reason they accumulated a large sum of money to get such a bill passed by the Congress. It seems that it all developed because of a controversy between labor and management in the South.

Be that as it may, never let it be said that we, as an industry, are against Federal poultry inspection, in view of the fact that we must take the position that our consumers are entitled to all possible protection. By the same token we are aware of the fact that the Congress could pass a compulsory poultry inspection law that could easily put all small processors and dressing plants out of business, and that would be a tremendous setback for the industry. Senator Humphrey's bill which is known as S. 1128 first places the compulsory inspection provision of the law under the United States Department of Agriculture, that Department which is now responsible for the inspection of red meat. Should this provision of Senator Humphrey's bill become law, the poultry industry of the United States could well become the unfortunate stepchild of the producers of red meat. It is our belief that the compulsory Federal inspection of poultry should be placed under the poultry division of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. This division is now responsible for and are administering the voluntary poultry inspection program, and would be fully capable of expanding this service to take care of the proposed Federal poultry inspection law. Secondly, Senator Humphrey's bill calls for ante mortem inspection which means live inspection of the poultry as it arrives at the processing plant. Our objection to ante mortem is that by the best of authority that we have to date is that ante mortem would be impractical due to the fact that up to the present time the majority of our veterinarians and pathologists are not definitely in agreement on just what should be looked for in ante mortem and that only a post mortem could determine whether or not such poultry would be acceptable for human food and that the veterinarian on the processing line would be fully capable of rejecting any and all poultry not acceptable for human food.

Again-you have a real responsibility. I would recommend that you immediately wire or write Senator Humphrey and send your letter airmail, something along this line:

"In my opinion the compulsory inspection bill, S. 1128, which you introduced in the Senate should be transferred from the red meat division of the USDA to the poultry division marketing service. Otherwise poultry could become an unfortunate stepchild of red meat." Or you could say "could become subordinated to red meat."

I am sure you will agree that as time passes on, there is going to be more of a struggle between the various commodity groups, such as red meat and poultry, for the consumer's dollar. It should be pointed out that it is not our intention to take advantage of the red meat people. By the same token, we do not want to be placed in a position where they could take advantage of us.

So get busy and get your telegram or airmail letter on the way at once. MINNESOTA POULTRY HATCHERY ASSOCIATION, L. L. BAUMGARTNER, Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. And in that connection I wish to place in the record a letter from Senator James E. Murray, dated February 26, 1957, on the same subject; and we have several other letters that the Committee Clerk will see are put in the record.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, February 26, 1957.

Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Sr.

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Since I will be unable to appear at your hearings on compulsory poultry inspection, I would appreciate your making this letter a part of your record and distributing to the members of your committee the enclosed copies of a report on the subject filed last year for the Subcommittee on Legislation Affecting the Food and Drug Administration of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

It is important that a system of poultry inspection which has the full confidence of consumers be established. Unless there is consumer confidence in the inspection, this matter will be before Congress constantly unitl it is achieved. There already have been requests to our subcommittee to consider again at this session legislation placing poultry inspection in the Food and Drug Administration. Those who propose it feel that the bill reported by the Agriculture Committee near the close of the last Congress was dangerous and unsatisfactory and are, in my opinion, prematurely judging what your committee will report this year.

I have joined as a sponsor of Senator Hubert Humphrey's measure to establish compulsory poultry inspection in the red meat division of the Agricultural Reserach Service because it meets minimum requirements and will be acceptable to consumer groups, State health officials and others involved.

The Humphrey measure contains three provisions which are "musts :"

1. It places administration of inspection in the red meat branch of the Agricultural Research Service.

As the enclosed report indicates, consumers justifiably lack confidence in the voluntary poultry inspection conducted by the marketing branch of the Department of Agriculture. Emphasis has been on assisting in marketing. Inspection and inspectors are not independent of processors. Officials are inclined to compromise consumer interest to keep inspection from being onerous on those who use it. The attitude of the Department of Agriculture toward ante mortem inspection and insistence on keeping administration in a branch devoted to marketing objectives and highly susceptible to industry influence was itself evidnece that protection of consumers was secondary to industry approbation.

Serious question of the propriety of maintaining any of our consumer protective services in a Department primarily concerned with production and marketing of farm commodities has been raised. But our subcommittee felt, in view of the excellent record of the meat-inspection branch and the reluctance of Food and Drug Administration to undertake poultry inspection, a compromise on the meatinspection branch would be acceptable. Correspondence from consumer groups, public health officials, veterinarians, and others indicates that designation of the meat-inspection branch is still acceptable. But permitting the inspection to remain in a marketing agency continues to be wholly unacceptable.

2. Ante mortem inspection is mandatory in the Humphrey bill. It is essential to protect workers in the industry. There have been three new outbreaks of psittacosis during the year, and only ante mortem inspection can detect psittacosis and, therefore, prevent its transmission to humans. It is also essential to assure consumers that they are not getting fowl that was diseased or even deceased on arrival at the slaughtering plant.

Evidence before our subcommittee indicated that most communicable diseases can be neutralized by cooking. But some would require high, prolonged temperatures unlikely to be used. Others might contaminate utensils and be transferred later to cooked poultry products and on to humans.

Finally, even though health hazards were all certainly overcome by cooking, the consumer is entitled, as one witness put it, to protection against being sold garbage for food.

3. The penalty provisions of the Humphrey bill are enforceable. The word "knowingly", which was in the Agriculture Committee bill last year, has been deleted. Experience of the Food and Drug Administration shows that the word "knowingly" makes penalties virtually unenforceable. Persons who engage in poultry processing should be willing to accept responsibility for a clean, wholesome and healthful product.

Further, the insertion of a provision that penalties apply only to "knowing" violations in a poultry inspection act could set a precedent that would be the