basis for attacking our food and drub laws and have regrettable consequences far beyond the immediate poultry field. I urge your Committee to report the Humphrey bill and not to weaken its provisions. The measure already represents a compromise by consumer and health groups. Any further weakening will unquestionably mean continued agitation for a more adequate measure, consumer distrust of poultry products and injury to the industry. The best long term interests of the poultry industry are to accept inspection with consumer protection standards that make poultry the unquestioned equal of red meats for wholesomeness. If the inspection, in the minds of consumers, is inferior to red meat inspection, the poultry industry will in the long run suffer in the markets. I appreciate your courtesy and that of the Committee. Sincerely, JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislation Affecting the Food and Drug Administration. (NOTE. The report referred to above is S. Doc. 129, 84th Congress, 2d Sess.) The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, you gentlemen have heard quite a lot of testimony this morning. Is there anything that you can add to what has been said? STATEMENT OF CLEMENT N. THURNBECK, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TURKEY FEDERATION, FOREST LAKE, MINN.; ALSO REPRESENTING THE MINNESOTA TURKEY GROWERS ASSOCIA TION Mr. THURNBECK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I represent the National Turkey Federation and also the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association. These men here with me all represent different groups, producers, and processors, groups and other groups in the State of Minnesota and it has been suggested and they have volunteered to submit their testimony for the record and I have been requested to submit my testimony on behalf of the National Turkey Federation and the Minnesota industry. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Will you gentlemen simply file the statements with the clerk and they will be printed in the record as a whole, and will be considered as though read? Proceed, Mr. Thurnbeck. Mr. THURNBECK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Clement N. Thurnbeck. I am a farmer and turkey grower from Forest Lake, Minn. As vice president of the National Turkey Federation, I am authorized to speak for the 10,000 turkey growers who live with their families on farms in the 48 States of the United States. I am also a past president and at present a member of the board of directors of the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, and am authorized to speak for 1,800 turkey growers who live with their families on farms in Minnesota. Our organization recognizes the great importance of the subject upon which this committee is deliberating. We believe it is just as important to the poultry producer as to the consumer that the health and welfare of the consuming public be protected. It is for this reason that the National Turkey Federation has given the utmost support and cooperation to the voluntary poultry inspection program and will give the same support to a mandatory inspection program. The committee has before it three bills, S. 1128, S. 313 and S. 645. All of these bills provide for mandatory inspection. Of these 3 bills, we oppose S. 1128 and favor S. 313 and S. 645. The National Turkey Federation has welcomed the many services that have been developed by the Department of Agriculture. We have enthusiastically received the many achievements of the Department. These contributions have made possible great advancement in human welfare and have enabled the farmers of the Nation to provide a plentiful supply of quality food products for the citizens of this great Nation. One of these great services of the Department is our present program of voluntary inspection of poultry and poultry products for wholesomeness. Since a very large part of the poultry marketed in the country at the present time is under this voluntary inspection program, this is rendering a valuable service to both producers and consumers. The National Turkey Federation, in convention in January of this year, passed a resolution recommending that any program of mandatory poultry inspection should be administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service, which is administering the voluntary poultry inspection service. We fully realize that administering a mandatory program may be somewhat different from a voluntary program. However, it is only logical that an established Government agency of this kind could render a far more effective, efficient, and economical service, both in the interests of the producer and the consumer, in administering a mandatory program. We hear a great deal from our Government leaders about decreasing the cost of Government through greater efficiency. Certainly, it would be a logical deduction that an agency already established and administering a voluntary poultry inspection program could administer such a program more efficiently, therefore at lower cost to the taxpayer, than to throw such a program into the hands of another Government agency. The National Turkey Federation objects to several provisions of S. 1128 on the grounds they would work a great hardship on all turkey processors, would put out of business many small farm processors and ultimately would increase the cost of turkeys to the consumers. We hear a great deal today about protecting the interests of small business and the small farmers. There are hundreds of small processors, including a great many farm processors who are giving the consuming public high quality turkeys and poultry products. We oppose S. 1128 on the grounds it would work undue hardship on these small processors, even to the extent of putting them completely out of business. This is not the American way of life. We sincerely believe the provisions of S. 313 and S. 645 make it possible for more of these small processors to remain in business and at the same time will give superior quality turkey and poultry products to the consumer. These bills place the responsibility in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture. Their provisions are clear and enforceable. He is authorized to conduct a mandatory poultry inspection service in the best interests of both the producer and the consumer. The National Turkey Federation recommends to you the enactment of S. 313, S. 645 or either of these bills, with appropriate amendments to include the best features of the other. As the representative of the National Turkey Federation and the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, I thank you for the privilege of presenting our views for whatever value they might be. Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, before there are any questions of the witness, I regret that I have to leave but I wish to introduce for the record a telegram addressed to me and signed by J. E. Eldridge, president, Sumter Chamber of Commerce of Sumter, S. C., in reference to the matter under discussion. Also I have a letter from Norman Sanders, general manager, Farmers Cooperative Exchange, Inc., of Columbia, S. C., dated January 22, 1957, and I ask that that letter be incorporated into this record. And also a letter from Mr. J. W. Marshall, of Belton, S. C., which I ask be incorporated in this record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the telegram and the letters will be so printed in the testimony. (The material referred to is as follows :) Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, FARMERS COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC., United States Senator, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: I respectively call to your attention a recent bill which is listed as S. 645. This bill being introduced in the Senate on Thursday, January 17, by Senators Talmadge and Russell, of Georgia, along with Senators Young, Eastland, Stennis, and Sparkman. This bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and it is my impression that it will be assigned to the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Research and General Legislation. Senator Johnston, as you will note upon inspection of this bill, that it has to do with the inspection of poultry at poultry processing plants. I am sure that you have heard of several other bills that appeared in the last Congress with respect to inspection of poultry at the processing level. I have studied briefly this bill that was introduced on January 17, and as it appears to me from my knowledge of poultry as is produced on the farms and processed in the cities and finally reaching the consuming public through the retail channels, that the details of this bill seemingly are more adequate and workable than anything that I have seen presented so far. I would hasten to say that I am perfectly in accord with the apparent desire of the American public to be assured of the wholesomeness of poultry meats at the retail counters. At the same time, I am somewhat of the opinion that this can be assured through a mandatory inspection law and at the same time give a measure of protection to the individual farmers of South Carolina and a more favorable return for better quality products produced and sold through processing plants. Senator, I am sure that you are very familiar with the poultry development in South Carolina. Frankly, of recent years the trend of this development has not been too much to my liking in that its tendency is in the direction of an integrated enterprise that is depriving individual farmers of the ability to operate poultry farms and compete with the packaged deal that is offered by financiers and feed manufacturers. Knowing of your interest in the small farmer, small-business man, and laboring people of our State, I took the liberty of bringing to your attention this bill in that, I believe, that it is the best bill that has been introduced thus far and it is possibly deserving of your attention and assistance in passage. Our organization is the Farmers Cooperative Exchange. Organized in 1940 by 70 farmers it now has a membership of 5,645 farmers of central South Carolina. We are independent of the Farmers Cooperative Exchange of North Carolina with offices at Raleigh, N. C., and are completely owned and controlled by our farmer stockholders. I bring this to your attention in that you might have the opinion that we are a part of an outer State organization. I would add that our organization has the largest egg marketing program functioning in central South Carolina that I am familiar with and we are very proud of its accomplishments for South Carolina farmers. Therefore, we would appreciate your consideration with respect to maintaining a healthy program on a national basis that might affect our farmers here at home. With kindest personal regards, I remain, NORMAN SANDERS, General Manager. SUMTER, S. C., February 25, 1957. Senator OLIN D. JOHNSTON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Request your support of S. 645 and S. 313 requiring Federal poultry inspection. Urge opposition to S. 1128 as detrimental bill. Please give us your feelings on these bills being considered by Senate Agricultural and Forestry Committee. J. E. ELDRIDGE, President, Sumter Chamber of Commerce, Inc. BELTON, S. C., January 17, 1957. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: We have gone all out in promoting the poultry industry in the territory that we cover in South Carolina. We have not only been offering a market to farmers for poultry but also producing, financing production, and otherwise supervising and encouraging it. We understand from others that our processing plant at the farmers wholesale market in Greenville is perhaps the largest in the State, at least volumewise. Although most of the poultry processed by us is distributed by our retail outlets in the upper part of the State, we still distribute several thousand pounds each week outside of the State. We are members of such organizations as the Southeastern Poultry Association, The Poultry & Egg National Board, and the National Broiler Council. Being vitally interested in the industry as a whole we are naturally concerned about the bills being brought up before the Congress relative to mandatory poultry inspection. The industry has made great progress in the past few years toward doing a better job in every respect. In making this progress the poultry plants especially have had the help of the United States Department of Agriculture, State and local agencies. In our own business we are aware of this progress because of the necessity each year of large expenditures in order to keep up with the latest trends, new methods, and modern equipment. However, in spite of this we feel for sure that a standard inspection is the coming thing and we certainly do not oppose it. However, of the 2 bills that we understand are up for consideration, 1 of them could be very detrimental to the processing and marketing phase of the industry. The other bill, which I believe is referred to as the Aiken bill-H. R. 514 and S. 3588-is supported by the processing industry, farm organizations, and I understand by the Agriculture Department. Under this bill, the inspection would remain under the United States Department of Agriculture which has already been doing a splendid job under the present voluntary inspection setup. They have had experience with it and understand the problems involved. The bill of which we are in favor also will give the processing industry sufficient time to get ready for the compulsory inspection. This in itself is a very important factor. We wanted you to understand our position relative to this matter. We feel that you can be of much help to us in making sure that the wrong bill is not passed. If there is anything that you might not understand relative to the workings of the poultry industry and we can be of help to you, don't hesitate to call on us. Respectfully, MARSHALL FARMS, The CHAIRMAN. Now. Senator Humphrey, do you desire to ask questions? Senator HUMPHREY. I surely do. I am very happy to see Mr. Thurnbeck back here; he and I had a little visit yesterday. Mr. Thurnbeck, are you for poultry-inspection service in the Department of Agriculture that has equal status to the meat-inspection division? Mr. THURNBECK. Yes, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. You are? Mr. THURNBECK. Yes, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. And do you feel that that is the objective that we should have in order to give status and stature, a poultry inspection branch in the Department of Agriculture? Mr. THURNBECK. That is right, sir, and a good service, of course, being close to the industry and recognizing the problems in aplying the service, that would be the net result that we all want, that is, a better consumer product. Senator HUMPHREY. Exactly. Now, the Meat Inspection Service is in the Agricultural Research Service; correct? Mr. THURNBECK. That is right, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. And you were worried that S. 1128 was designed to put the poultry inspection under the Meat Inspection; is that correct? Mr. THURNBECK. That is our understanding. Senator HUMPHREY. Who gave you that understanding? Mr. THURNBECK. Well, the bill provides for the placing of mandatory inspection service, in S. 1128, is that not correct? Senator HUMPHREY. That is correct, but does that say it should be under the Meat Inspection Service? Mr. THURNBECK. Well, it would be placed in the Meat Inspection, with it Senator HUMPHREY. No-there are many services, there are many branches and subunits under the Agricultural Research Service, which is a whole division in the Department of Agriculture, which was set up by the present Secretary of Agriculture. Do you think that the present Secretary of Agriculture would subordinate the poultry inspection under the Red Meat Inspection? Mr. THURNBECK. Not willingly, sir; and perhaps that would never happen. However, our feeling, of course, is that for the poultry industry-and it is the poultry industry we are considering that this poultry industry is just barely coming of age, and it has emerged from the backyard into a commercial industry Senator HUMPHREY. Right. Mr. THURNBECK. And it has turned over night into a big operation. I think that the identity of the poultry industry is necessary to permit the development within the industry, to safeguard the industry and its product as it goes to the consumer. Senator HUMPHREY. And there is no argument about that, the only question here is where the inspection service ought to go, and Senator Aiken's bill says to let the Secretary determine. So if the Secretary does determine that it should go into the Agricultural Research Service which is very probable, because you already have the meat inspection over there, and it is probable he will put the poultry inspection |