Mr. ABERNETHY. In which publication?

Mr. DAHLBERG. In the one you have in your hand.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is

Mr. DAHLBERG. Publication 250.

Mr. ABERNETHY. No. 250.

Mr. DAHLBERG. Yes; you will find a résumé in there of the requirements and those which are considered to be different than the usual ones. That is given in there.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Does your report cover Kansas City, Mo.?

Mr. DAHLBERG. No; the cities covered were Washington; Boston; Rochester, N. Y.; Louisville, Ky.; Birmingham, Ala.; Houston, Tex.; Sacramento, Calif.; and Minneapolis, Minn. Those are the eight cities.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I am glad you mentioned Birmingham.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And Minneapolis.

Mr. ANDRESEN. We have heard this from reliable sources that milk produced in Mississippi could not be shipped into Birmingham. Mr. ABERNETHY. That is not because of the health regulations. I think we are in the inspection area.

What you have reference to is an order that was recently issued by the price-fixing board of the State of Alabama.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you ever find a clashing of minds among these inspectors, I will call them sanitary inspectors, the ones who promulgate the rules and regulations, like in Kansas City, Kans., and Kansas City, Mo., where we were told yesterday the dividing line is on the main street of the town, and a dealer who has equally good milk on the Kansas side cannot bring a bottle of milk over into the Missouri side in Kansas City. Do you think there is such a clashing of minds between the scientists in the different communities that they cannot agree on a uniform standard?

Mr. DAHLBERG. May I ask first, Is this line drawn as a result of public health regulations, and sanitary quality or is it a matter of milk-control business, or what?

Mr. ANDRESEN. I really do not know who brought it up. Did you bring it up yesterday?

Mr. LAIRD. Yes.

Mr. ANDRESEN. What was it?

Mr. LAIRD. It happens to be in that particular case. requirements that bar the movement.

Mr. JOHNSON. You have two different States involved.

The sanitary

Mr. LAIRD. You have two different cities. It is not a State

problem.

Mr. JOHNSON. State line is right down the middle of the street.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Did you read the Collier story?

Mr. DAHLBERG. I certainly did.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is the source of the information; isn't that correct?

Mr. LAIRD. I do not think it was in the Collier's story.

Mr. DAHLBERG. I do not recall it in there.

Mr. LAIRD. I do not believe so.

Mr. ANDRESEN. This is something from your own research.

Mr. LAIRD. Yes.

Mr. DAHLBERG. As I understand the question, I am quite sure that it is generally agreed, among milk sanitarians as to the essentials of

producing a sanitary milk supply. I am also equally sure it is not generally agreed as to some of the details which should be put into the regulations to effect these essentials. If you know what I mean.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I am following you all right. [Laughter].

I get down to this point then that I would like to have your observation on this: Would it not be much better then to have a uniform regulation throughout the country that could meet all situations?

Mr. DAHLBERG. Well, you are in a rather, let us say, difficult one to handle, and to realize just what is involved from the viewpoint of where we are going when the attempt is made. We have made great progress in milk sanitation under our present system. There are difficulties. There is no question in reference to that. There are things which need smoothing out and which I think, in the long run, will be handled at least partially. There is nothing that is wrong with the ultimate result, the quality of the milk under our present system. And before I would like to even pass an opinion on the one uniform standard, I would really like to know what it is and how it is going to be administered because that is such a critical part of the whole thing. That is the thing under which I think we are encountering most of our discussion and difficulties such as they may be at the present time.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Of course, we also find the human element entering into things here in this Congress. I am sure that is one of the great problems throughout the country.

That is why I referred to clashing of minds between these sanitary inspectors.

Mr. DAHLBERG. That is the reason why in this report, in one place we have written in that one of the most important factors in producing milk of good quality on the farm is the desire of the dairyman to do so; without that, you cannot get very far, regulations or no regulations. The human element enters into this from beginning to end. And there is much discussion among milk sanitarians in reference to what is desired, what is not desired, and I suspect that the broader the field that is covered, the more those discrepancies of opinion will grow.

It will be all the harder

Mr. ANDRESEN. I have found from my observation in this study that there is a general resistance on the part of the producers to make a change and to probably improve conditions on their farms unless there is some inducement for it.

Mr. DAHLBERG. That is true to a certain extent, but it is also true, I think, that the producers in the main who are supplying our fluidmilk markets, realize that they must advance if there is reason for it, and they must develop a farm situation which is satisfactory to the consumer and to the regulatory agency and which will give a satisfactory milk supply. They may not look at it in that light individually, but in their overall impression, they recognize it. I give as an example of that the fact that in one of the cities that we have studied, Rochester, N. Y., there was no requirement in reference to electric refrigeration. They could have cooled milk any way they had a mind to. But 98 percent of them had electrical refrigeration and the city had no authority to require it.

Since this study that has been pointed out, that there is a rather definite relationship between cleanliness of utensils and sterilization

and facilities in the milkhouse, in this same market, city market, there has been a marked increase in hot water and wash vats in milkhouses, in spite of the fact that it is not required. ·

That indicates that education and reason can go a long way with producers irrespective of the absolute essential requirements of the ordinance. They do cooperate. I do not think there is any question on that.

Mr. ANDRESEN. If there would be a national ordinance that would have certain alternatives in it, that could be followed and met the general specifications for sanitary milk, do you think that would work out all right?

Mr. DAHLBERG. There are two or three things in reference to this national standard that have always been puzzling to me. I am not just so sure how the thing might be prepared in sufficient detail to be generally applicable, and if it is prepared in general terms, as I think it would need to be, then the question comes in of interpretation. That is the purpose of the large and extensive code which accompanies the United States Public Health Service ordinance.

Then comes the question of how that would be enforced. It must be enforced obviously on a local level. And how easy it will be for that to be altered and adjusted to make it possible for the producer and the dairy industry generally to follow new developments which either improve the quality of milk or make it cheaper to produce it. As an illustration, take the matter of the bulk milk tanks on farms which have come in within the past few years. It was stated to me by a State regulatory official the other day that in his State now 40 percent of all of the milk for bottling purposes was handled by this procedure, which was unheard of through any State just a few years ago. It probably is a more economical way of producing milk of higher quality.

If we were under one standard, it becomes much more difficult to adjust that to give these new developments an opportunity to advance. What I am about to say is not a matter of discredit at all to our present United States Public Health Service ordinance because I think it is an excellent one. It was generally adopted by the present States and cities as recommended in 1939. The revision of it was made in 1953. And the last month I heard a representative of that service say that so far as he knows the 1953 edition had not been adopted as yet by any city or State.

So we have in 1955 a 1939 ordinance in effect generally in all of those areas that have adopted it.

I do not mean by that that the States and cities modify faster there necessarily, because in this study, I think it is pointed out and I give this only from memory, and it may be inaccurate, that one of the city ordinances which we encountered had not been revised in approximately 40 years. So that they may lay very still, too, but nevertheless, being on a strictly local basis, they do have the opportunity to change them, adapt them to changed conditions much more rapidly than could be done on a national basis.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you know if this amendment to the order involves a considerable expenditure on the part of the producer?

Mr. DAHLBERG. I think the expenditures to the producer is not great except in one instance, and that is in reference to the cooling of milk. And I should say that the old ordinance is very faulty in that

62203-55-pt. 1—20

regard in requiring cooling of milk to 70° which of course is a ridiculously high temperature. The new one requires cooling to 50°.

Mr. ABERNETHY. For my own information, these standards that are fixed at the Federal level, they were fixed by the United States Department of Health; that is correct, is it?

Mr. DAHLBERG. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. It is not incumbent on anyone necessarily, to comply with those standards. That is a suggested standard, is it?

Mr. DAHLBERG. Those standards have no force of law except for milk on interstate carriers and except for a limited few instances of use through Federal agencies. So far as the States and cities are concerned, they have no force of law at all. And it is made very clear in that regard in the ordinance, that these are the 1953 recommendations.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it fair to say that in many instances the standards which are fixed by the various cities and consuming areas about the country, the differences in them is just the difference, I would not say in all instances, but in many instances, the difference of the mind of one person operating differnet from that of another? What I am trying to say is, we just do not all think and act alike? Mr. DAHLBERG. Yes, we do not all think and act alike. We have often thought that our local conditions are quite different than those which exist in some other areas. Might I mention one item on that? We have mentioned the city of Birmingham, and their ordinance forbids the use of bedding in the dairy barn.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it also fair to say, I am not trying to defend now, I am just asking your opinion-or to prosecute either is it also fair to say that the ordinances of some cities may be what some of us here or others might assume to be more restrictive, that they came about as a result of the local health departments feeling a deeper obligation to the consumers of that area, than those at the national level felt in fixing the national ordinance?

Mr. DAHLBERG. That has worked both ways. In some instances the cities and States have made regulations which are more detailed and more rigid than those recommended by the United States Public Health Service, and in some instances the States and the cities have made regulations which are not as rigid as those of the United States Public Health Service.

In this study of the National Research Council, we have grouped the cities into three classes on the basis of the rigidness and detailedness of regulations. And the cities which have used the recommended ordinance of the United States Public Health Service are in the middle group.

Mr. JOHNSON. What are the various cities and where do they stand, which in the No. 1 group?

Mr. DAHLBERG. The No. 1 group from the standpoint of the most detailed and rigid regulations are the cities of Birmingham, Washington, and Sacramento. I should say that Sacramento is in a State wherein the city has no authority in making regulations. They must enforce only the State regulations.

The cities with the least rigid and detailed regulations were those of Rochester and Boston. And the three cities that had adopted practically intact the United States Public Health Service recommendations were Houston, Louisville, and Minneapolis.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are considering the fact of national health regulations as one of the things to stop barriers between the States for the free flow of milk. And you hear mostly among the people that are opposed to that say we could not enforce them in the various cities as they would be unconstitutional.

I know you are not an attorney. But in your study have you ever heard that same argument?

Do you know people that have looked into that angle of the question? Would it require a constitutional amendment?

Mr. DAHLBERG. I do not know, I do not say anything in reference to constitutionality of a Federal law, taking over the present authority of the cities in reference to the control of public health measures within the city. Everyone I suppose would guess about the same as I do, namely, that you would expect that those cities who secure their milk supplies interstate would come under the law and those cities whose milk supplies are strictly intrastate would not come under the law. I do not know whether that is a fair thought or not but whether that is the way it would be, I can imagine a tremendous confusion if that is the situation.

Mr. ANDRESEN. That is the same way as we have with other laws with the Federal Government on interstate business and transactions like that, but during the past 15 or 20 years, it has been determined that what is done within a State may have an impact upon interstate commerce and consequently the Federal regulation has extended into a particular State and area.

Mr. DAHLBERG. I know nothing in reference to that, as to that situation.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Some have suggested that we ought to declare the distribution of milk and transportation a public utility. Have you

any ideas as to whether that would be desirable?

Mr. DAHLBERG. It seems to me that what I have said toward the end of the written statement pretty well expresses my belief. We have done so well under our present system that I dislike to see the system just thrown overboard and start all over on something else. I would rather see us grow from what we have got.

Mr. JOHNSON. You would rather not see Congress tinker with the regulations, then?

Mr. DAHLBERG. And if they do, I would prefer to build on what we have got, rather than to try and take away from both the States and the cities the rights of controlling their own local milk supply.

Mr. JOHNSON. Would you recommend any changes in the present Federal health standards that have now been recommended, simplifying them in any way?

Mr. DAHLBERG. You are referring to these?

Mr. JOHNSON. The 1953.

Mr. DAHLBERG. Recommended ordinance and codes?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. DAHLBERG. I think the present recommended ordinance is excellent. One or two of the serious omissions of the 1939 recommendations have been corrected. It is a little difficult to pass judgment from the standpoint of adaptation within a local market until you see just what your conditions are and how it is going to be interpreted.