We strongly recommend that instead of these exemptions the Secretary of Agriculture be authorized to exempt from specific provisions of the act certain small operations in which continuous inspection would be too costly or impractical. This would provide a framework within which necessary provisions would be applicable, particularly those pertaining to sanitation requirements, recordkeeping, and identification of the producer or processor of the product. The Secretary of Agriculture should be permitted to determine the size of the operations which are to be exempted, and he should be empowered to revoke such exemptions should he find that exempted operations are channeling unwholesome, adulterated, or misbranded poultry products into the Nation's food supply. While there are now 12 States with mandatory inspection laws, only four States have active inspection programs. Most poultry prepared solely for intrastate commerce receives little or no inspection. Yet, there is always the possibility that this product is intermingled without identification in retail stores with federally inspected products for sale to the public. Even in States with active inspection programs, the type of coverage is not the same as that provided under Federal inspection. For example, in California, the inspectors are plant employees licensed by State officials to inspect poultry. In some instances plant managers themselves are licensed. In some cases plants receive veterinary supervision only once a week or even less frequently. In North Carolina the inspectors are State employees under veterinary supervision. The North Carolina law covers intercounty shipments. NonFederal plants in the State must have North Carolina inspection only if they prepare products for shipment across county lines. Five States provide for poultry inspection on a voluntary basis, but information available to us indicates that very little use is made of this service. Most of the remaining 33 States have general food laws covering all food processing and food preparation establishments. These laws provide for the sanitary inspection of facilities, equipment, and processes, and prohibit the adulteration and misbranding of products. With respect to poultry, they do not provide for continuous inspection and post mortem examination of each poultry carcass the basic foundation for poultry inspection protection. The effectiveness of State programs depends upon the resources available to carry out these programs. Recently, a number of States have taken action to initiate inspection programs or improve existing programs. In the past several years about a half dozen States have passed new poultry legislation; two additional States will have mandatory inspection legislation within the next 12 months and about eight additional States are considering legislation. These efforts of the States to insure the wholesomeness of poultry products must receive the cooperation and assistance of the Federal Government if this Nation is to achieve adequate overall protection of the consumer-to the immediate benefit of the consumer and greater prosperity for the industry. Without a coordinated network of Federal and State inspection programs, the health of the consumer cannot be protected adequately, nor will continued confidence in our poultry supply be assured or merited. of the report on each plant was furnished to all State making the survey we held a meeting with State dures for conducting the survey were discussed and survey showed that sanitation conditions in 37 of asically in compliance with sanitation requirements etion. Thirty-four of the plants, however, about a major improvement to bring them into compliance itary requirements; the other 26, a little less than brought into compliance with moderate changes in nd facilities. me time that this survey was conducted, our inspecso visited retail outlets in various places, 34 stores in e carcass examination of inspected and noninspected ndred and seventy samples were examined consisting Itry carcasses and 23 tray-packed carcasses displayed inspection responsibility is to remove from food asses or parts of a carcass which are unwholesome. on the federally inspected product concerned readyrather than errors which would render the carcass or example, feathers on a hock or a heart missing from would be recorded as an error in ready-to-cook factors. N. Did you say the heart was missing? The heart was missing. It is one of the organs nor- AN. The gizzard and the liver and the heart are AN. What harm is there, except that the fellow got That is all. It is just a ready-to-cook error. In some the heart out; in some cases they put two hearts in a s something our inspectors should be aware of. It does olesomeness of the bird. o lesions of disease observed. On the other hand, 316 inspected carcasses were examined in 37 outlets in tes where inspected poultry was checked. The samples 5 whole poultry carcasses and 20 tray-packed carcasses Only 18 percent of the noninspected carcasses appeared llowing gross examination. Conditions found in the spected product were gross lesions of disease, septinia-a condition symptomatic of disease, failure to ous processes, and contamination of the body cavity with ts or fecal matter. Laboratory analysis conducted on inspected and nonfederally inspected products revealed of bacterial contamination on nonfederally inspected on those that were federally inspected products. In summary, the original Poultry Products Inspection Act requires amendments to effectively regulate the modern poultry industry as we know it today and as we envision it in the future. The role of the States is not sufficiently recognized in the existing legislation to encourage their effective contribution to a viable network of coordinated programs. Strengthening of the national poultry inspection program is urgently needed. We feel the consumer must be able to buy her poultry products with confidence in their wholesomeness. More important, they must in fact be wholesome, unadulterated, and honestly packaged and labeled. The prosperity of the poultry processing industry and our Nation's poultry producers is greatly dependent upon this confidence being maintained and supported by effective regulation and inspection of the production of poultry products as provided in the bill to prevent adulteration and misbranding. Our responsibility, therefore, is to insure that both Federal and State governments have the tools and resources essential to their responsibilities to protect the consumer in the manner she expects and demands. The proposals before this committee will accomplish this purpose. The USDA proposes to conduct inspections of poultry products under a system which merges Federal meat and poultry inspection into a single food inspection component. Secretary Freeman announced the proposal, the plan, on the 21st of this month. This move reflects our desire to find every way possible to meet the rising costs of providing inspection services and I personally do not intend to leave any stone unturned in the search for maximum protection to the public as consumers at the minimum cost to the public as taxpayers. The consolidation of these two important consumer protection programs into a single food inspection service will result in improved levels of consumer protection and in initial savings of about $1 million annually. I believe that the savings can amount to between $2 million and $3 million once the merger is complete. Senator JORDAN. You mean in inspection costs. Mr. LEONARD. In inspection costs. Senator JORDAN. You are not proposing that the processor or the State pay any of the inspection costs. Mr. LEONARD. No, sir. Senator JORDAN. You know, at one time you got that bee in your bonnet, and we had to take it out for you. Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir. We look to the Congress to protect us from quite a number of things. Senator JORDAN. The position I took at that time—and I still take it-is that if an operator pays his own inspector he does not work for the Federal Government any more. He works for the man who hires him and pays him. He is going to inspect for him. I think he should be a Federal employee, paid by the Federal Government, and then you can get the kind of inspection you want. Mr. LEONARD. That is right. We agree fully with that. Now, just some details on this merger. We now have 12 field units. There are seven district offices on meat and five area offices on poultry. We are going to be combining those into eight regional offices with each co were before the merger. t that with a single food inspection service we will have means of serving both the consumer and the industries at the new organization will be responsive to the needs and the meat and poultry industry. es my statement, sir. My colleagues and I will be happy y questions you have. DAN. I do not believe I have any further questions. Do ve anything to add to this testimony? We will be glad to work with the committee staff on any AN. With regard to 9 (a) and 15 (c) (1) which Miss Furht out, we will certainly consider those recommendaDepartment on that. te your testimony. We will be glad to use it when we .Thank you, sir. DAN. Mr. Newsom. Glad to see you again. . Thank you. I would like to ask Al Denslow to come OF HERSCHEL D. NEWSOM, MASTER, AND L. ALTON M. I am Herschel Newsom, master of the National DAN. We are glad to have both of you. You may pro- M. Mr. Chairman, the National Grange is especially In our testimony in 1956, we foresaw the possibility that the provision authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to extend inspection to major consuming areas, which became section 5 of the act, might not be adequate to meet the needs which experience might show existed to make Federal inspection available for poultry and poultry products not otherwise subject to or eligibile for such inspection. We, therefore, suggested at that time the addition of a subsection (b) to what is now section 5, which would have provided that upon the request of a State government, the Secretary might make the provisions of the act available to any establishment processing poultry or poultry products, even though engaged solely in intrastate commerce, provided the establishment was operated in accordance with the provisions of the act and the regulations thereunder. We are still of the opinion that such an amendment is desirable, though we believe that in the light of experience, it should be broadened so as to authorize action by the Secretary also upon the request of any establishment desiring Federal inspection. Such an amendment would permit an establishment not otherwise eligible for Federal inspection to request its benefits, thereby providing an opportunity to extend Federal inspection, which does not presently exist. There is an additional approach to extending the existing system of Federal inspection, which we believe merits exploration and consideration by this committee. The present act might be amended to authorize the Secretary-after the lapse of a reasonable period of time to allow the States to request the extension of Federal inspection to all establishments within their boundaries-to conduct hearings to determine whether uninspected product marketed in any State is affecting or burdening interstate commerce. Upon an affirmative finding, based on the evidence received, the Secretary would be authorized to designate all establishments in that State as being subject to Federal inspection. Such an approach would avoid the necessity of a determination by the Congress by fiat that all poultry products marketed affect interstate commerce, and at the same time would provide authority for such a determination to be made by the Secretary upon the basis of evidence received in an administrative proceeding. Such a provision would also facilitate cooperation between the Secretary and State agencies in carrying out inspection operations, as is presently authorized by section 18(b) of the act, and would permit the extension of Federal inspection without the necessity of a provision which would, in effect, force such extension upon the States upon their failure to take specified action. The Grange urges that there be no change in the provision of section 15(a)(1) of the existing law, which some of the bills under consideration would repeal. This section was designed to preserve to farmers the opportunity to sell their own products in limited markets by exempting them from the specified provision of the act applicable to large poultry processing establishments, provided they comply with such sanitary standards, practices and procedures as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe." This is a salutary provision in that it encourages small farmers to establish relatively small enterprises, the very success of which depends upon the creation and production of a product in sufficient quantity to permit a profitable operation, which product will be in |