Dr. WILLIE. Well, psittacosis or ornithosis, usually psittacosis. For instance, in Newcastle disease of poultry, that is transmissible to man and there have been some instances where Newcastle infection of the eyes has been determined as resulting from contact with poultry. Erysipelas, the same disease that infests swine in certain areas, also occurs in poultry and that is also transmissible to man. Avian tuberculosis, there have been 1 or 2 instances of record where the avian type of tubercular bacillae was found in the human being but from the standpoint of its danger to humans, it is practically nil because humans just do not suffer from the avian type of tuberculosis. There are a few cases on the medical records, however, where they did find the avian type of tubercular bacillus. There are some foodborne diseases, of course, that are carried or transmitted by poultry, through the consumption of poultry or poultry products, just like with all meat products and all food products, but those diseases when they do happen are the result of some carelessness somewhere along the line in the preparation of the poultry or food, and we do hear of a number of cases of food poisoning resulting from the consumption of poultry products but first we want to bear in mind that poultry is a very popular dish and is served at many banquets and gatherings c. Examples of regulatory actions under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act from material furnished by the Food and Drug Administration (hearings, 85th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 62 and 63) The following information was submitted to the subcommittee:) (The information requested from the Department of Agriculture, showing examples of regulatory actions under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act against certain lots of poultry found in violation because of disease, filth, or decomposition. This information was obtained from material which was furnished by the Food and Drug Administration.) Sample No. : 7 -793 M. Article sampled: New York dressed poultry. Amount of lot sampled: 16 crates (1,042 pounds). Date collected: February 2, 1955. Laboratory conclusions: Dressed and contaminated birds present. Date collected: April 20, 1955. Amount of lot sampled: 9 boxes (679 pounds). Laboratory conclusions: Filthy, decomposed and diseased birds present. Article sampled: New York dressed turkeys. Amount of lot sampled : 5 crates (282 pounds). Date collected: June 14, 1955. Laboratory conclusions: (None recorded.) 64 10 1 6 17 26. 6 15. 6 Summary: Three of 5 crates of turkeys showed objectionable conditions. (Turkeys contained therein were diseased, bruised, decomposed or were affected by a combination of these conditions.) Sample No. : 13-170 M. Article sampled: Dressed poultry (New York style). Amount of lot sampled: 5 crates. Date collected: January 20, 1955. Laboratory conclusions: The product contains filthy and diseased poultry. Article sampled : Poultry. Amount of lot sampled: 19 crates (1,492 pounds) Date collected: August 29, 1955. Laboratory conclusions: This product contains bruised, filthy, diseased and decomposed poultry. Sample No. : 37-262 M. Article sampled: Beltsville turkeys. Amount of lot sampled : 13 crates (896 pounds). Date collected: November 21, 1955. Laboratory conclusions: (No laboratory conclusions recorded). Summary: In view of the extreme thinness and the feverish discoloration of all of the birds examined, as well as the prevalence of diarrhea in these birds, the turkeys in this 13-crate lot were obviously from a diseased flock of birds. Post-mortem examination of 12 birds from 3 crates confirms this conclusion. Sample No. : 37-264 M. Article sampled: New York dressed poultry. Amount of lot sampled : 3 crates (245 pounds). Date collected: December 15, 1955. Laboratory conclusions: (No laboratory conclusions recorded). Summary: Of 38 birds in 2 crates examined, all but one showed at least one abnormality indicating an objection or a suspicion. Sample No. : 37-265 M. Article sampled : Beltsville turkeys. Amount of lot sampled : 13 crates (863 pounds). Date collected: December 20, 1955. Laboratory conclusions: (No laboratory conclusions recorded). Summary: Of 33 birds examined out of 4 crates, only 5 were considered apparently normal and 3 others passable with only slight bruises. Sample No. : 37-275 M. Article sampled: New York dressed poultry. Amount of lot sampled: 9 crates (547 pounds). Date collected: March 27, 1956. Laboratory conclusions: (No laboratory conclusions recorded). Summary: The examination showed a large percent of the birds to be objectionable because of disease, mutilation, contamination, and green-struck decomposition. Sample No.: 50-054 M. Article sampled: New York dressed poultry. Amount of lot sampled: 4 crates (234 pounds). Date collected: October 29, 1956. Laboratory conclusions: Diseased and fecal contaminated birds present. Summary: Of 50 birds examined, 18, or 36 percent, were found to be badly bruised, ulcerated, diseased or otherwise unfit. In each instance, the article was judged violated, condemned, and destroyed pursuant to court order. D. Excerpts of material submitted by witnesses 1. Inserted by Hon. Leonor K. Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from Missouri, during hearings of the 84th Congress, 2d session, page 19: "Poultry Diseases Transmissible to Man, including Summary Report of Outbreaks, by Mildred M. Galton, bacteriologist, Communicable Disease Center, Public Health Service, Federal Security Agency, * * * states: The diseases of poultry to which man is also susceptible comprise a rather large group. In his excellent review Ingalls (1) lists 26 such diseases including those caused by bacteria viruses, fungi, and protozoa. It is apparent that some of these diseases constitute a considerable hazard to public health. 2. Senator Richard L. Neuberger of Oregon on page 305 of the hearings, 85th Congress, 1st session, states: * Some of the illnesses (of poultry) are of only academic interest, since they are spread so rarely to humans. Others, like psittacosis, cause major epidemics. Texas poultry workers have been the target of several of these outbreaks between 1948 and 1954. The last, in the summer of 1954, hit at least 200 persons with either 1 or 2 fatalities occurring. Outbreaks have also taken place in New Jersey, Nebraska, Virginia, and Iowa.* * *” 3. In a statement appearing on page 53 of the hearings of the 84th Congress, 2d session, Hon. Harrison A. Williams, Jr., a Representative in Congress from New Jersey, said: “* * * Mr. Chairman, many people have only recently become aware of the fact that inspection of poultry is not compulsory. Undoubtedly, there was a time when the risks involved in coming into contact with and eating uninspected poultry were relatively minor. Now, however, poultry is the third largest source of farm income, which means that a major portion of our population regularly comes into contact with poultry or eats it. As a result, about 1 of every 4 cases of food-borne disease is traceable to poultry. "As the Hoover Commission task force report on Federal medical services pointed out. **** in view of the recent growth of the poultry industry, we do not believe we can expect the States alone to provide the needed controls. * * PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT Mr. WHITTEN. Now we might proceed to the Packers and Stockyards Act, which you request an increase of $225,000. We have had a controversy in this field for a number of years. We have had the complaints on the part of some packers that, by reason of the difference between whether they are checked under the Department's control or whether they are not, it involved the competitive situation. We have had a great deal of argument as to where this administration should be. What is the position of the Department, and what do you plan to do with this additional money? Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, the Packers and Stockyards Act has been adiministered by the Department since its passage in 1921. It is a regulatory act. Basically, the regulations affect two somewhat different operations. One is the buying and trading of livestock and the other is the trading and merchandising of meat. This act provides that a stockyard or auction market above a certain size shall be posted and shall be subject to certain supervision. In addition to that, the act gives us authority similar to that which the Federal Trade Commission exercises in the case of any other industry so far as the trading in and merchandising of meat is concerned. We have over the last several years tried to develop a program which would allow us to gradually post all of the eligible stockyards. At the time the act was passed, in the early twenties, there were a limited number of terminal markets which accounted for practically all the livestock marketed. With the coming of the livestock truck and the decentralization of buying, these have decreased materially in relative importance, so we now have a large number of small markets as well as the terminal markets. The Department adopted the idea-I should think it was back in the thirties that unless we could provide adequate supervision we would mislead the public by posting the yard. FUND INCREASES Three years ago this committee allowed us some funds for additional posting of markets. I think in all fairness that the livestock market and stockyard people are in favor of having the stockyards posted that meet the standards of the act. We have been having very good effects with the posting that we have been doing in the last 3 years. We have also wanted to give more attention to packer operations as such. As a result of the latter, we did, toward the close of fiscal year 1957 make available about $20,000 from unexpended balances for use in the Packers and Stockyards Branch to add staff, to conduct investigations into packer practices. For fiscal year 1958, we transferred $75.000 of funds previously used for fruit and vegetable contract work into the Livestock Division for the packers and stockyards activity to strengthen this same work. The Department notified both this committee and the Senate of these changes. We are this year asking for an increase of $225,000 for increased enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. We have indicated in our budget notes that we were planning to use $75,000 or more I should say something between $75,000 and $100,000, depending on personnel and organization-to strengthen the packer-practices activities, and something more than one-half, at least $125,000 of this fund to continue posting markets. We estimate that we now have about 60 percent of the markets and yards, which have been estimated as eligible for posting under our regulations, and with the additional funds we could probably increase that to about 70 or 75 percent. I would, in connection with this discussion, like to introduce to you Mr. David Pettus, who is in charge of this. Mr. WHITTEN. How many additional people do you plan to put on this coming year? Mr. WELLS. About 30. POSTING STOCKYARDS Mr. WHITTEN. How many yards are now posted and how many additional ones would be posted? Mr. PETTUS. We have now about 600 yards posted. We think we can post with this increase between 100 and 150 additional stockyards. Now with the increase, we think it would be a total of 100 to 150 stockyards, the difference between 600 and 700 to 750. There are approximately 1,000 stockyards in the country that would be subject to the act if all were posted. Mr. WELLS. You mean you now estimate you may have 1,000 eligible. We can go a little over 700 with these funds we are asking for here. Mr. WHITTEN. I was wondering about that. Mr. WELLS. There are an estimated 1,000 of the stockyards that are eligible for posting, and we have about 600 posted. Now with the funds we have asked for we can post another 100 to 150, depending partly on the division between packer activity and the work in the other activities. Mr. WHITTEN. Are these yards requesting posting, or are you just visiting this upon them? Mr. WELLS. I think it is fair to say that most of the unposted yards are auction yards, and most of the people would like to see all the yards posted, so as to minimize the competitive disadvantage. Mr. WHITTEN. Those that are posted want the others to suffer under the same restrictions, but those that are not posted are not seeking it; is that correct? Mr. WELLS. They are not necessarily protesting. Mr. WHITTEN. That is a good statement, but it is not responsive to my question. Mr. WELLS. We believe the yards that are posted feel that the unposted yards should be posted in all fairness. Mr. WHITTEN. Now we get around to my question: What is the attitude of the unposted yards? Are they seeking this service? Mr. WELLS. Mr. Pettus can probably answer that better than I can. A few yards have requested posting and the National Livestock Auction Association, representing many nonposted yards, is urging that all eligible yards be posted. They are not individually actively seeking it. Mr. WHITTEN. In other words, those that you have posted think that the others should be posted, too? Mr. WELLS. Yes, I presume so. Mr. WHITTEN. What is meant by "posting"? Mr. PETTUS. It means checking the operations to be sure that the yard meets the requirements for posting under the act. Notice is given through the Federal Register and through posting of a notice that the yard is subject to the regulations of the act. Mr. WHITTEN. Now I renew my question: What does "posting” mean? Mr. PETTUS. "Posting" means we have inspected the yard, determined that it is subject to the regulations and posted a notice in the yard that it is under the supervision of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Mr. WHITTEN. What are those regulations? What does the yard have to do as a result of that? POSTING REGULATIONS Mr. PETTUS. The yard has to then comply with the regulations. Mr. WHITTEN. What are the regulations? Mr. PETTUS. There are a good many regulations under the act. Basically, they assure that the rates charged and the service rendered by the yards are reasonable-the rates charged are approved by the Department. They must be reasonable charges for the services rendered. Mr. WHITTEN. In other words, you regulate the commission? Mr. WHITTEN. And you regulate the basis on which it is operated. Do you attempt to tell it how to run its business, or do you attempt to see that the commission is correct? Mr. PETTUS. We attempt to see that the commissions are reasonable. Actually we see that the yards do file their rates with us, and that they are reasonable rates. We require them to keep records. We tell them the type of records they need to keep. We try to work with them and explain the purposes of the act. Mr. WHITTEN. Could we have in the record at this point a copy of your regulations in connection with posting? Mr. WELLS. We would be very happy to put that in. Mr. WHITTEN. How many pages are there? |