me explain our particular problem. Practically all of our product is frozen and much of it goes into cold storage for a period of 6 to 8 months-some of it as long as 12 to 18 months. We grow turkeys more on a year-round basis than does any other section of the country, and consequently, they have to be processed when ready for the market, therefore, requiring that our turkeys be kept in storage for a reasonable period during certain seasons of the year. Should the legislation take effect too quickly, even on a voluntary basis, it is very likely that our markets would demand a federally inspected product. The turkeys that we had in storage at that time and those that we would have to process, in the period before we could possibly obtain the inspection service, very likely would have to be sacrificed-and we could hardly afford to take such a loss under the present economic conditions in the industry. With these considerations in mind, I would like to urge this committee to report out an inspection bill incorporating the provisions of S. 313 and S. 645 which will accomplish the purpose of adequate consumer protection without creating an unnecessary and unbearable burden upon our turkey and other producers and processors. Such legislation, we believe, will be in the best interests of the general public as well as the poultry industry. In closing, wish to express appreciation to the Senators for permitting me this time to present the views of the South Carolina Turkey Federation and the Sumter Chamber of Commerce. STATEMENT FILED BY W. L. WALSH, SECRETARY, ALABAMA POULTRY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, MONTGOMERY, ALA. I am W. L. Walsh, of Montgomery, Ala. I am secretary of the Alabama Poultry Industry Association, which is an organization of poultry producers, hatcherymen, processors, feed dealers, and turkey growers in Alabama. We are the sixth ranking State in broiler production in the United States, producing over 82 million birds last year. Poultry as a whole is a major source of farm income in the State, second only to cotton in this respect. It is our most rapidly growing farm industry and we are anxious to see it continue to grow as new and bigger markets for poultry and eggs are developed. Great strides have been made in this direction over the past few years and we believe this is the best evidence we could produce that the industry generally has done a good job for the consumer. We, as an organization representing all poultry interests in Alabama, are in favor of compulsory poultry inspection and wish to go on record as favoring S. 645. The bill, S. 313, would be acceptable if revised to conform with S. 645. We believe that this bill provides the framework for a compulsory inspection program for poultry which would be of great service to our country and a credit to the poultry industry. Our Alabama Poultry Industry Association works closely with Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association and is in full agreement with the provisions as set forth in their testimony presented at this hearing. On behalf of the poultry industry of Alabama, I want to express our genuine appreciation for the time allotted me to present this brief statement of their position on this important matter. STATEMENT FILED BY A. R. TWISS AND B. C. ROGERS, MORTON, MISS., REPRESENTING THE MISSISSIPPI POULTRY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is A. R. Twiss. Mr. B. C. Rogers and I are from Morton, Miss., and we are appearing here today to present a statement in behalf of the Mississippi Poultry Improvement Association which represents the broiler, turkey, and egg producers, hatcherymen, feedmen, and poultry processors in that State. These various phases of the poultry business rank near the top of Mississippi's total income. This organization has been very concerned about the matter of compulsory inspection of poultry, and all processors shipping poultry interstate have spent a considerable amount of hard-earned money the past year to modernize their plants so as to give the consumer a wholesome product. There is plenty of evidence that the consumer has been obtaining a fine poultry product in unprecedented quantities during the past year, or they would not have provided the terrific demand to consume the record poultry and turkey crop in 1956. By and large throughout the years the industry itself has taken on the job of maintaining and even improving the wholesomeness of its product-now it must take another step ahead through compulsory inspection for wholesomeness. Why, this industry is not the same one of a few years back-it is growing up. To hold the magnificent gains made the last 10 years it should take every precaution to preserve the high standards which have helped us to win a larger share of the food dollar. The voluntary program has served well, but it must give way to progress. The industry cannot afford to waste sympathy on the fellow who, because he is uninformed or careless, or because for competitive reasons, he has decided to cut a few corners and dares to allow unwholesome products to enter trade channels. To do so, jeopardizes the reputation of an entire industry. We feel S. 313 is a good bill. S. 645 has additional points that we would like to see included. Then we would have a practical inspection program that will adequately protect the consumer and will be workable for the industry. It is amazing that here today we have represented all segments of a great industry, banded together asking for a reasonable poultry inspection bill in which the consumer wins a better product and the industry can continue to make a healthy growth. We believe this can be accomplished by following the sound suggestions made by the industry here today. We want to express our appreciation to the committee for allowing us to present the views of the Mississippi Poultry Improvement Association on this subject. The CHAIRMAN. Next we have Mr. Chester Housh. STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. HOUSH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL POULTRY PRODUCERS FEDERATION, ELKTON, VA. Mr. HOUSH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have no desire to read this statement, but since the National Poultry Producers Federation is an organization that represents the major portion of the turkeys and chickens that are slaughtered all over the entire United States, I thought I might make this comment, that we endorse S. 313 and many of the organizations that have commented here this morning are represented in this overall organization. We canont make a statement unless it is unanimously approved and I expect we represent 90 percent or 98 percent of all of the poultry grown, that is slaughtered in the United States-and with that statement I say "Amen." I think these men have been giving a wonderful lot of study and thought to this and we wish you well. The CHAIRMAN. All right, your entire statement will be printed in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. HOUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL POULTRY PRODUCERS FEDERATION, ELKTON, VA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Chester C. Housh, a farmer and poultry producer from Elkton, Va. I am president of the National Poultry Producers Federation,1 an organization which represents all the national and regional poultry producer organizations of the United States. The combined poultry production of members of our association represents the vast majority of poultry production of the United States. 1 Members: American Poultry Hatchery Federation, National Turkey Federation, U. S. R. O. P. Federation, Northeastern Poultry Producers Council, Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association, Utah Egg and Poultry Growers Cooperative. Our organization has been vitally interested in the inspection of poultry from its inception. Leaders in our industry have for many years believed that some form of mandatory inspection was feasible and in fact necessary for the welfare of all phases of our industry as well as the consuming public. As a poultry producer and president of East Point Turkeys, Inc., we have been using and paying for the facilities of voluntary inspection and have found the United States stamp of approval for wholesomeness most beneficial for the protection of consumer and producer alike. The National Poultry Producers Federation will welcome mandatory inspection. We believe it is high time to quit quibbling about words. We, as producers, have the utmost faith in our Government and particularly in the ability of the United States Department of Agriculture to administer the mandate that should be given to it by this legislation. The protection that has been given to consumers by the United States Department of Agriculture is too well known to be even questioned or need to be praised. Occasionally we have people in all walks of life who disregard public welfarebut those who refuse to abide by public law eventually pay the penalty for wrongdoing. The only question before us today is what bill will be most practical in operation. No longer is it necessary to talk about the misconduct of individuals or firms. We are all agreed. Harmony should be easy to achieve. We, who produce poultry, feel that we are producing the best meat available for human consumption. We want to tell consumers everywhere of the research work of Cornell University. We want them to know that our product is highest in protein, low in fat. It means much to us when we are told that our product meets hospital requirements-and is recommended for convalescent and athlete alike. We especially want to emphasize to this committee that our industry accounts for a large percentage of farm income, in fact the third most important producer of farm income today. We believe that our industry is so necessary to the consumers that the most practical method of mandatory inspection should be adopted. We believe that poultry inspection is so important that it must not be subordinated to a competing industry. The National Poultry Producers Federation endorses S. 313 with the recommendation that the committee resolve any minor improvements such as are embodied in S. 645 to accomplish the end that we have a sound and practical program to provide protection and assurance that the industry, the worker, and the consumer can have the poultry it wants safely. The CHAIRMAN. Next is Mr. McCluney. Is he present? STATEMENT OF SAMUEL G. McCLUNEY, PRESIDENT, NORTH AMERI- Mr. MCCLUNEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Samuel G. McCluney and I am president of the North American Game Breeders Association, Inc. I have never been before the committee before and this is a different branch of the industry and for that reason I want to make a few comments on these notes that we have here. The North American Game Breeders Association was organized in 1930 for the purpose of fostering the game breeding business, its related industries and activities. Thirty-seven States of the United States, Washington, D. C., Hawaii, Canada, and Holland are well represented in the membership of our association, and respectfully submit this brief for your committee's consideration, The North American Game Breeders Association is fully aware of the necessity of this type legislation and are in agreement with the bills S. 313 and S. 645. We endorse and recommend the passage of either of these bills with this exception, in bill S. 313, section 4 under (d), line 25. We request the deletion and exclusion of the words. "or commercially produced game bird" for the following reasons: 1. 90 percent of the 15,000 game bird breeders in the United States are small producers, raising less than 1,000 birds, total of the game bird food species, quail, partridge and pheasants. It is not practical to set up individual inspection for these small operators even on a part time basis. 2. Because of the different types of game birds and their sizes, poultry processing plants that have inspection refuse this type product for custom dressing as it would require much more time to adjust their equipment and personnel, than the compensation from such a project would allow. 3. Game birds for food are a seasonable product and come at a time of the year when the majority of poultry processors are working at a peak on turkeys and holiday fowl. 4. The quail and partridge are of such a small size that the processing is in the main, a hand operation, rather than a production line item. 5. A large quantity of game birds are sold as gift items. These sales are not through commercial channels or direct to the household consumer, but requires a third party. (This is a violation under exemptions.) 6. The products are a luxury item and are not in large enough demand to be cooperatively processed and moved in volume in regular commercial channels. 7. Finally may I cite as a paralleling example of this request. When the red meat legislation, regulating inspection of beef, pork, lamb, etc., was passed, commercially raised venison was excluded from that bill. As of today, I have seen this bill, S. 1128, but I have not had time to study it or make any comment on it. But in addition to this statement I might say that I am a poultry processor and have been for 19 years, and I know the problems that the poultry processors would have in connection with these small operators who raise a total of less than 1,000 birds per year, and we feel that we should have some consideration on this commercial game bird proposition The CHAIRMAN. By excluding them? Mr. MCCLUNEY. By excluding them at the present time from the bill. The CHAIRMAN. How much is involved? About what is it? Mr. MCCLUNEY. Oh, I would say that are possibly 3 million pounds a year. The CHAIRMAN. Three million pounds a year? Mr. MCCLUNEY. In entirety, that includes the entirety, and out of that 3 million pounds that which would be used for food products would be approximately 50 percent of that, or about 1,500,000 would be used for food products. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are there any questions? If not, we next have Mr. Shaw. I may say that he happens to be the last witness unless somebody desires to be heard. 89520-57-—7 STATEMENT OF SETH T. SHAW, VICE PRESIDENT, SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I just want to identify myself and make about a one-minute statement. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. SHAW. My name is Seth T. Shaw and I am vice president of Safeway Stores, Inc., in charge of our administrative branch office here in Washington. Safeway Stores operates approximately 1,800 retail food stores in 25 States and in the District of Columbia. As a retailer, we might be considered as a purchasing agent for our customers and we certainly want to give our customers good, wholesome food of high quality. We believe that all customers are entitled to the same kind of protection in poultry that they have had in red meat for a great many years. I might say that we have purchased now for some years only Government-inspected poultry and poultry products. For the last couple of years we have purchased only Government-inspected and Government-graded poultry. We believe that the law should certainly contain the authority for both ante mortem and post mortem inspections but should not spell out an inspection procedure. We as a retailer are not concerned with the number of the bill or the agency that is going to carry out its mandates. We only want to be sure that we do have an excellent service and I will say that we feel we have had very good service under the voluntary program. The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone have any questions? If not, we thank you, Mr. Shaw. Your statement will be put in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF SAFEWAY STORES, INC. My name is Seth T. Shaw. I am a vice president of Safeway Stores, Inc., in charge of our administrative branch office, located at 1425 H Street NW., in Washington, D. C. Our general offices are located at Fourth and Jackson Streets, in Oakland, Calif. Safeway Stores, Inc., operates approximately 1,800 retail food stores in 25 States of the United States and the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, as a retail food company we believe it is in our interest, as well as an obligation to our customers, to sell wholesome, quality products at the lowest possible profitable price. When it becomes a choice, however, between wholesomeness and price, price becomes secondary. The point I would like to make is that our company pays a premium for USDA inspected and graded poultry, and poultry meat products, in order to assure our customers wholesome products of high quality. This additional premium cannot be passed on to our customers because of the highly competitive nature of the retail food business. So long as part of the poultry processors in the United States pay for inspection under the voluntary inspection program, and part of the poultry processors do not, the costs of inspection must be borne by the processor, retailer, or producer, either 1 or a combination of the 3, depending upon marketing conditions. Inspection costs could hardly be expected to be passed on to consumers unless every plant and product were inspected. Since Federal legislation does not affect products in intrastate commerce it is fitting that the cost of this service, so important to the public health, be borne by the public. Mr. Chairman, I have briefly stated that Safeway Stores, Inc., favors compulsory inspection of poultry. We believe that not only our customers, but that all of the consumers of this Nation are entitled to the same kind of inspection service they have received on the red meats for a good many years. I am told approxi |