(The information requested follows:)

MATERIAL SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE NEED FOR THE COMPULSORY
INSPECTION OF POULTRY

I. ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WHICH REFLECT PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN MARKETING OF POULTRY

Summary of post mortem examination of poultry by USDA Poultry Division, Inspection Branch

These actions were taken under the voluntary inspection programs which in 1957 has covered only about 25 percent of the sales off farms.

Total weights on ready-to-cook basis; condemned weight on New York dressed basis-earlier years all New York dressed weights.

II. MATERIAL CONTAINED IN HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON POULTRY AND EGGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A. Statement of Mr. Hermon I. Miller, Director, Poultry Division, AMS (hearings, 84th Cong., 2d sess.), pp. 92 to 97)

The Department of Agriculture conducts many food-inspection programs under various authorities provided by Congress. All red meat which enters interstate commerce is inspected for wholesomeness under the Federal Meat Inspection Act passed in 1906. The golden anniversary of this red-meat-inspection program is now being celebrated. The Department also conducts an inspection service for processed fruits and vegetables and a comprehensive poultry-inspec tion service under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The food-inspection programs carried on under the Agricultural Marketing Act are of a service, nonmandatory nature, since this law does not give the Department authority to impose requirements for inspection of agricultural products moving in interstate commerce. Therefore, these inspection programs are available on a voluntary basis, as a service that is helpful both to industry and consumer groups. In poultry marketing, the Department provides three different types of service. It may be helpful in your consideration of compulsory poultry inspection legislation to review briefly these three nonmandatory services.

(1) Inspection for wholesomeness: This service provides for detailed inspection of individual birds at the time of processing. The consumer can recognize when this inspection service has been performed by a distinguishing mark which is in the form of a circle, and contains within this circle, "U. S. Inspected for Wholesomeness." This guarantees the consumer that the ready-tocook poultry covered by this mark was processed in a plant which met the rigid sanitary facility and operating requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture, and, further, that at the time of evisceration every individual bird was examined by a qualified inspector, either a veterinarian or a lay inspector under the direct supervision of a veterinarian, to determine its fitness for human food. Any bird which is not considered suitable for human

food is condemned on the spot by the inspector and so treated as to preclude its use for human food.

The regulations under which inspection for wholesomeness is conducted represent the experience of a 28-year period during which this program has been in operation. They have been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, which permits the public to participate in the formulation of such regulations. The standards set forth in these regulations are extremely high. They incorporate the views of many scientists and of public health agencies. In fact, the sanitation requirements of these regulations provided the pattern for the suggested code for poultry plant sanitation which was published by the United States Public Health Service, and developed through the cooperation of public health agencies and industry. The poultry inspection for wholesomeness program has received wide acceptance. The use of this service has been expanding very rapidly in the last few years. In 1951, for example, only 145 plants made use of this service; whereas today there are approximately 300. In addition, there are approximately 125 applications for this service in various stages of clearance.

Mr. McINTIRE. Do you have in your statement somewhere an estimate of the total number of plants so that we could get this figure in perspective?

Mr. MILLER. The only information we have on that, Mr. McIntire, is a Department survey, made about a year and a half ago, which indicated that there are about 650 or 700 of what we call line processing plants that process 30,000 pounds of produce a week or more. That is the information we have on this.

Mr. McINTIRE. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. In 1955, approximately 14 billion pounds of poultry were eviscerated under this program. This quantity represents about 25 percent of all poultry sold off farms that year. It represents approximately 50 percent of the poultry moving in interstate commerce.

I would like to underscore that "approximately" because that is just an educated estimate.

Mr. McINTIRE. Let me interrupt you again, if I may, Mr. Miller. What do you mean by "of all poultry sold off farms"?

Mr. MILLER. Taking the total production on farms and removing from it the consumption of products raised and used on farms. That reference was to poultry raised on farms, poultry, turkeys and ducks.

Mr. JOHNSON. And 25 percent of the industry is doing it voluntarily?

Mr. MILLER. Twenty-five percent of the product sold off of farms is inspected; that is, taking the total sales off farms and dividing it into the total amount which is inspected.

The poultry inspection service is under the supervision of highly qualified veterinary personnel. The staff of 425 professional people includes 300 veterinarians. There are some staff members who have been with this service since its inception 28 years ago. All those engaged in this work are employees of the Department, or are State employees licensed by this Department under a cooperative agreement with Federal supervision.

(2) Grading for quality: This service provides for the determination of quality of processed poultry. The consumer can recognize the poultry product which has been processed and graded for quality by the Department by a shield-shaped mark containing within it words to designate its quality, which would be U. S. grade A, U. S. grade B, or U. S. grade C. Grading service on bulk packages of poultry can only be performed on those birds which were processed in an approved plant meeting the same sanitary and operation requirements as used in plants processing under the Department's inspection-for-wholesomeness program. That refers to dressed poultry, not ready-to-cook poultry.

The official grade marks on individual consumer packaged products can only be used on ready-to-cook poultry which has been inspected and approved for wholesomeness. The purpose of the grading service is to facilitate marketing at all levels of distribution through the use of standard grade designations of quality. In 1955, approximately 500 million pounds of poultry were graded under this program.

Certification for quality is performed by qualified individuals who are licensed by this Department after carefully determining their qualifications. Licensees are closely supervised and their work is continually evaluated by civil servant supervisory personnel.

Mr. McINTIRE. That is not the same personnel that does the inspection work on wholesomeness?

Mr. MILLER. No; we have made a provision where we do cross-licensing under this for the sake of making the greatest use of personnel, but that is used very restrictively.

Mr. MCINTIRE. But your inspection service for wholesomeness is separate and apart from the inspection service on grading?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; that is right. They are two separate activities.

(3) Plant sanitation program: This service program provides for plants to operate under Department of Agriculture supervision when processing poultry into dressed form to assure that the plant complies with rigid sanitary facility and operation requirements during processing. This service is necessary to provide evidence that poultry is processed in a sanitary manner when it is moved as dressed poultry into plants for further processing under official inspection into canned or ready-to-cook form.

Unlike red meat, poultry is not always eviscerated in the same establishment where slaughtered. The sanitation program for plants producing dressed poultry which may later move to a plant for further processing under official inspection was inaugurated in 1951. This was done to assure that all poultry was processed in a sanitary manner from the time of slaughter until shipment from the plant in processed form.

Since it is not possible to determine with definiteness whether poultry is fit for human food until evisceration takes place, no certification is made regarding wholesomeness under this plant sanitation program. The label distinctly states that the product is dressed poultry processed under USDA sanitary standards. It also makes clear that this dressed poultry was neither inspected for wholesomeness, nor graded for quality. Moreover, this label can be used only on bulk containers and cannot appear on individual consumer packages.

This plant sanitation service is performed only by a qualified licensed and closely supervised by civil-service supervisory personnel. In 1955, about 1.7 billion pounds of poultry were processed in the plants certified under this program. Mr. MCINTIRE. Pardon an interruption again, Mr. Miller, but I want to get these questions in at the proper point. In your plant-sanitation program, these same plants are under the supervision of State or municipal bureaus or divisions of public health, are they not?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, they may be.

Mr. McINTIRE. That is not your responsibility?

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Mr. McINTIRE. But in addition to your inspection for plant inspection, there may also be the local authority of the Bureau of Public Health in the State? Mr. MILLER. That is right.

This service is primarily for the purpose of providing feeder plants. In other words, the dressed poultry is prepared in this plant under the same sanitary requirements as if it were done in the eviscerating establishments.

I think the records will show that there were 46 plants of this kind that disappeared from the scene in Iowa in the past few years.

Mr. JOHNSON. You mean that one operation is done in one place and another, in another?

Mr. MILLER. Yes; that has been true.

Mr. JOHNSON. You may cover this later, but is it not a fact that poultry can be perfectly healthful and if it is not properly cooled and handled, it can be rendered unhealthful?

Mr. MILLER. Yes; it is a perishable commodity.

Mr. MCINTIRE. Would you put your label for wholesomeness on a product where they did the eviscerating work and the dressed poultry came from a plant that did not meet your standards of sanitation?

Mr. MILLER. There must be a certification on it. The product must be produced under the supervision of the Department, or we would not certify it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Where you certify the product as to sanitation, they have to have proper cooling, and so forth?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. There is a requirement that the temperature must be reduced to a certain level, I think to 40°, before leaving the plant.

The present interest in making poultry inspection compulsory under Federal law represents a development which logically stems from the experience gained over the years under the Department's voluntary program. During the last 2 or 3 years, this interest has grown to the point where proposals for such legislation are being supported by most of the farm organizations as well as industry and consumer groups. Perhaps a brief description of some of the changes

which have taken place in the production and marketing pattern for poultry will be helpful in considering legislation for compulsory poultry inspection.

During the last 20 years, poultry-meat production from both chickens and turkeys has increased from 2.9 billion pounds live weight in the 1935-39 period to 6.6 billion pounds in 1955. The per capita production of poultry meats has also increased. Despite a growing population, consumers have been provided with about 80 percent more chicken meat and 120 percent more turkey meat in recent years than was true in the period of the late thirties.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have figures showing the percentage of poultry production that is now being produced under inspection?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. It is about 25 percent of the sales off of farms of poultry that is being processed under inspection.

The type of poultry being produced has also changed, and areas of production likewise have changed. In the early thirties, practically all of the poultry meat came from the general-type farm, and chicken meat produced was largely a byproduct of egg production. Today, the great bulk of all poultry meat marketed comes from commercial-type operations.

The egg farms are big, too. Where you have a concentration of the population, there are a lot of large flocks in these large establishments.

The phenomenal growth of the commercial broiler industry is undoubtedly familar to the members of this committee. Commercial broiler production was hardly recognized as an industry in the late thirties. In recent years, the number of broilers produced has exceeded 1 billion head per year. The production of turkeys likewise has become highly commercialized, and turkey production is becoming concentrated in specific geographical areas. This centralization of poultry-meat production has brought into being mass movements of poultry products in interstate commerce. As a result of this great change to commercial production units, substantial advances have been made in processing and marketing methods. Today most of the industry is well equipped with modern sanitary facilities and the skills needed to produce high quality products.

The retail merchandising of poultry has changed rapidly, too. Today the housewife is offered poultry as a convenience food item to the same extent, if not to a greater extent, than most other foods. During the past 20 years, the product offered far sale has moved through the phases from live to dressed or "New York dressed," to birds which are ready to cook, and more recently to such convenience foods as fully prepared dinners, boned chicken, and poultrymeat pies which require no preparation by the housewife other than heating. Mr. JOHNSON. How would you show your inspection on one of those pies? Mr. MILLER. On poultry, the indicia, the round circle is on the pie. Mr. JOHNSTON. I see.

Mr. MILLER. These trends are undoubtedly the cause of the tremendous expansion in the use of the Department's inspection services and also the reason why there is increasing interest in making poultry inspection mandatory by law. There are, of course, some definite limitations to the benefits to be derived from compulsory poultry inspection. These must be recognized as openly as possible for the simple reason that compulsory inspection at processing plants is not the cure-all that some of its advocates anticipate.

For example, compulsory inspection will not eliminate the possibility, that exists with all foods, of people becoming ill after eating a meal either at home or in a restaurant. No inspection program, no matter how rigid, could completely eliminate the occurrance of human sickness resulting from the consumption of any food product. This is true because reports of food-poisoning cases reveal that practically all of them result from mishandling the product after it leaves the processing plant where it could be inspected. Such cases of illness are usually the result of mishandling of the food product in the home or in the public eating establishments.

Also, seizures of poultry in marketing channels will not be completely eliminated through the imposition of compulsory inspection. Most food seizures result from improper handling or damage during marketing-that is, after the product leaves the processing plant. Therefore, compulsory inspection at the processing plant would not eliminate those types of seizures. However, if legislation for compulsory poultry inspection should eliminate the movement of dressed poultry in interstate commerce, except to plants operating under inspection as is contemplated under H. R. 10527, the seizures of poultry would be reduced since records indicate that most seizures are of dressed poultry rather than the ready-to-cook poultry items.

There is also some misconception about the extent of coverage that would be provided through a compulsory poultry inspection program under Federal law. We should like to point out that such a Federal law would primarily control poultry moving in interstate commerce. The elimination of unwholesome poultry produced for sales in intrastate commerce could only be brought about by an active program on the part of local authorities. We in the Department would, of course, want to assist these local authorities in every way possible as we are now doing.

Statement of Dr. Roy E. Willie, Chief, Inspection Branch, Poultry Division, AMS (Hearings, 85th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 49 and 50)

*

Mr. WATTS. What diseases, in birds, would show up in ante mortem inspection that would not show up in post mortem inspection?

Dr. WILLIE. Well, it is pretty hard to make an accurate diagnosis of poultry diseases on ante mortem inspection. There are a number of diseases and conditions of course that are determined on ante mortem inspection such as respiratory diseases which include quite a number of diseases, specific diseases of poultry and certainly respiratory diseases can be observed on ante mortem inspection. Some of the nervous diseases, such as the nervous form of Newcastle disease, can be observed on ante mortem inspection.

Whether the inspector could make a positive diagnosis, of course, that is subject to question because after all it would require a laboratory diagnosis but I should say that he would be able to throw out birds because of nervous conditions, respiratory conditions, crippled birds, of course, and birds in a dying condition that may be suffering from a number of diseases.

The inspector actually would not be able to make a positive diagnosis-he would be able to diagnose, of course, fowl pox if it existed.

Mr. WATTS. Would those diseases show up in post mortem inspection?

Dr. WILLIE. Yes, they do and a number of these diseases, of course, for instance the nervous diseases, if that was the only lesion available, that is to say, if the only clinical symptoms were evident were lesions and there were no post mortem conditions or lesions visible, then of course he would have nothing to base his final disposition on the bird, he would have to pass that if he did not perform an ante mortem inspection previously but with coordination of ante mortem inspection and post mortem inspection a bird suffering from a nervous disease when it reached the inspector, he certainly would have an opportunity to use the ante mortem history and pass judgment in accordance with the prescribed instructions.

Mr. WATTS. As I understood, on the voluntary program, you have some ante mortem inspection now?

Dr. WILLIE. That is right.

Mr. WATTS. Of course, in Oregon and some of those places.

Dr. WILLIE. We have performed ante mortem inspection in the State of Texas on a number of occasions when ornithosis-suspect flocks were considered possible, and we have performed ante mortem inspection in the case of poultry destined for Great Britain. It happens that Great Britain has certain regulatory requirements with respect to respiratory diseases and the only way we can get our poultry in there for the American troops is to provide an ante mortem inspection for such poultry.

Mr. WATTS. Any question, Mr. McIntire?

Mr. McINTIRE. No.

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Hagen?

Mr. HAGEN. What diseases are there that fowl have that are transmissible to human beings?

Dr. WILLIE. Well, there are several diseases of fowl that are transmissible to human beings. Of course, everybody hears about ornithosis today so we put ornithosis as No. 1. I do not think ornithosis is probably as great a problem as many people feel it might be. Certainly it is one that presents a number of hazards to plant personnel. We have never had a record of any consumers, however, coming down with ornithosis.

Mr. HAGEN. What do you commonly call that, is that another name for psittacosis?

21494-58-pt. 3