Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. HAGEN. One of the problems of State inspection jobbers is that even federally inspected meat loses its Federal character the minute that meat gets to his plant. Is that not correct?

Dr. CLARKSON. When you use the word "jobber," I am not sure that we are thinking of the same thing. I was thinking of someone who buys and sells without processing, that is without curing, chopping and mixing operations in making frankfurters, and that sort of thing. If federally inspected meat comes into his plant and it is marked, either wrapped or on the carcass, it can then move freely in interstate commerce after going through his plant if it is not processed or the marks have not been removed or it has not deteriorated or spoiled. Mr. HAGEN. But if he took a knife to that meat it would lose its Federal character?

Dr. CLARKSON. Not necessarily. If he divides it into steaks, for example, and there are no marks left on the steaks, then that does lose its eligibility for interstate commerce. We have provided in our regulations for a service of this type to plants on a reimbursable basis, to see to it that the product which merely has been cut and loses its identity can have these marks reapplied to them.

Mr. HAGEN. Are you saying that anyone could come to you and say, "We have a definite intention to make military sales and ship in interstate commerce," and assuming his plant was standard, and so forth, that he can get automatic Federal inspection?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes, sir; if he is conducting processing, he must be doing some of this processing that I mentioned. We do not extend inspection to the jobbers and the wholesalers where they are just moving meat through the plant.

Mr. HAGEN. Of course, I understand that many jobbers do something to the product that causes it to lose its Federal character.

Dr. CLARKSON. We have inspection in plants where they are conducting, in proportion to their main business, a rather small proportion of processing. It is for that purpose, and not for the jobbing purpose. Once it is in there, we have control over the operations in the entire plant.

Mr. HAGEN. Are you saying that there has been no problem of this character?

Dr. CLARKSON. I recognize that there are problems. The people who are here from the industry will be able to recite them. We are not in agreement as to the extent of their problems. If they have State inspection and supply intrastate trade, they can buy freely from both federally and nonfederally inspected sources. If they come in under Federal inspection, then they are restricted in their buying to only that meat which has been under Federal inspection. So there is a problem for them.

If this bill were passed, it was their belief that it would help to solve that problem. They believe that enough of those who are under State inspection would avail themselves of this service, that they would have a greater flexibility in their purchasing. Frankly, we have differed with them that that would be the result, but that is a difference of opinion as to what people would do if the legislation were passed. Mr. HAGEN. Let us take this case again that I mentioned-a man who is 300 miles from nowhere, except possibly a large military instal

lation nearby. He is not a big operator. Assuming you license him, what are his problems? His buying is not large enough, perhaps, to justify keeping an inspector there all of the time. Does he not have problems getting an inspector there, and paying overtime, and so forth?

Dr. CLARKSON. I think the establishment you identify is one that has perhaps only an occasional sale to a local military establishment. There is a problem involved in that situation. There are two aspects of it that must be kept separate. Meat which moves interstate, whether it is in the hands of the military, or whether it is going to the military must come under Federal inspection. But in the case of meat going within the same State to a military establishment there is nothing in the law that requires that meat to have been federally inspected.

Now then, that comes down to a matter of purchasing policy by the Government agency, the Army, the Navy, or whoever it may be. If they require only federally inspected meat, then this small operator who is next door has no opportunity to serve them without getting Federal inspection.

From our standpoint, as you say, if you move it interstate, you must have the inspection. As this operator says, "My only interstate outlet that I anticipate is to sell to the Army," and this is not going to move out of the State, he would not have any justification for Federal inspection. But if he is just going to sell it to the Army, we take that as evidence of interstate movement, because we know that the Army, getting long on meat in one place and short in another, will move it, and they oftentimes move it without notice. So that the sale to the agency is evidence of interstate commerce from the standpoint of his applying for and getting inspection. He does not have to have inspection by law in order to supply a military establishment in his own State for consumption in that State.

Mr. HAGEN. However, it would be presumed that an Army sale is an interstate sale requiring Federal inspection.

Dr. CLARKSON. That is evidence of his intention to deal in interstate commerce and thus sufficient to authorize the Secretary to extend inspection to his plant. If his meat is not moved across the State line, he is not subject to the penalties.

Mr. POAGE. If he wants Federal inspection you will give it to him; does it not come down to that?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. If he wants to sell to the Army, he has to have Federal inspection?

Dr. CLARKSON. If the Army requires it.

Mr. POAGE. And the Army does require it?

Dr. CLARKSON. I think so.

Mr. POAGE. We all know the fact is that the Army does require it. If he wants to sell to the Army, he has to have Federal inspection; and, if he wants Federal inspection, he gets it from you under the present law; is that not right?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. What is the fight about then?

Mr. HAGEN. These statements of policy differ from what some people believe has been the policy in California; moreover a policy is worthless if it is ignored for one reason or another.

Mr. POAGE. I am just trying to simplify this thing. There does not seem to be any problem. If he wants to sell to the Army, he has to have Federal inspection; and if he wants Federal inspection, you will give it to him if he is going to sell to the Army?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. That is all there is to it, is it not? What is the rest of it? What is the rest of the problem?

Mr. HAGEN. Some people argue, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal inspection is not that easy to get because of a lack of funds or because of policy. It is alleged that the policy in practice has not been the policy stated here.

I want to ask you this: Is it not true that milk products and the like, and drugs, move in interstate commerce without Federal inspection? This may be out of your field.

Dr. CLARKSON. As you say, that is out of my field. There is quite a body of law on requirements for preclearance of new drugs. I would not attempt to discuss that one with you, Mr. Hagen. The Food and Drug Administration people would have to do that. In the field of biologics, there is inspection and preclearance, both for veterinary use and for human use.

Mr. HAGEN. I want to ask you about the situation on the import of foreign meats. Is it true that the only inspection applied to imports coming into this country is on the carcass, a post mortem carcass inspection that is the only inspection that is required?

Dr. CLARKSON. No, sir. This has been the subject of a good deal of difference of opinion and a good deal of unhappiness in the current situation. The provisions of the Tariff Act dealing with the importations of meat require the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate the inspection service in the country of origin and to determine whether that system is essentially the same as our own.

In doing that we use the full facilities of our agricultural attaché system and the facilities of the State Department, backed up with such expert review as is necessary from our own people. When it is found that the system is the same, then agreements are reached for the acceptance of the certification of the appropriate official of that foreign government for the products to come into this country. Their labels have to be approved by us. So far as preservatives and chemicals are concerned, they must meet the same requirements. We have laboratories to check on them when they come in.

When our own inspector inspects an import lot, he gives this product inspection as to its current condition, its labeling, backed up with such laboratory analyses as he thinks are appropriate.

Then if the requirements are met, the products are marked and by law considered the same as domestic meat, and they move freely.

Mr. HAGEN. I understand that in effect you are delegating the duties that you normally perform for parts of the domestic industry to foreigners; whereas domestic meat processors are closely supervised by Federal employees with respect to plant standards and both ante and post mortem animal inspection, that is not the case with foreign proces

sors.

Dr. CLARKSON. It would be a kind of operation that would not be feasible with regard to movements within our own country, because if we applied the same system, then we would have to have a system

54787-60-3

of permits and certification and reinspection of products as they move across State lines, and that would be an unmanageable thing in this country, in our opinion.

Mr. HAGEN. That is the reason you refuse to accord domestic inspection the same status as foreign inspection?

Dr. CLARKSON. Our feeling is that if it is the desire of the Congress that meats covered under this bill are to move interstate, then this is the way to do it, rather than following the procedure we use with foreign countries.

Mr. HAGEN. For example, great quantities of meat come in from Mexico into this country, into Texas, Arizona, and California? Dr. CLARKSON. Yes.

Mr. HAGEN. And on the average, the only inspection that meat gets from the U.S. Department of Agriculture official is the post mortem carcass inspection.

Dr. CLARKSON. Reinspection at the border or at the first point, at least, before it is released from customs jurisdiction.

Mr. HAGEN. And assuming some failure in the foreign inspection, health hazards are possible because post mortem carcass inspection is no really adequate by your standards?

Dr. CLARKSON. It must have had this previous inspection in order to meet it.

Mr. HAGEN. It is not like the domestic inspection?

Dr. CLARKSON. If we find that it is not being done, then we withdraw our recognization of the work of the foreign government. Mr. HAGEN. That is all.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. I do not have a question of the witness, but I would like to express this thought, however.

Congressman Horan of Washington is one of the authors and cosponsors of this proposal. It was my understanding he had prepared a written statement and was to have sent it to me to be presented here today.

May I ask permission to have it inserted into the record?
Mr. POAGE. It will be inserted into the record.

(The prepared statement of Hon. Walter Horan follows:)

TESTIMONY OF HON. WALT HORAN, OF WASHINGTON

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me to appear before you today during your consideration of legislation which would permit the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with the meat inspection serviecs of the various States.

The primary purpose of this legislation, as I understand it, is to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to make full use of all accredited and capable meat inspection facilities on a Federal-State basis. Under the terms of this legislation the cost of our meat and poultry inspection programs would be substantially reduced without endangering the meat inspection services which protect the consumer. Poultry inspection is a relatively new service in the United States and yet it is today costing approximately what our total expenditures were for all of our meat inspection when I first came to Congress in 1952. The total that is budgeted for meat and poultry inspection today is in the neighborhood of $33 million, as compared to approximately one-third of that amount 17 years ago. This, of course, does not take into consideration expenditures which are made by the military for the inspection which they conduct in their procurement activities.

I cannot understand at this time how any proposal, such as the one before you today which would allow competent inspection services to be joined with all other efforts, could mean the breakdown or reduction in the type of pro

tection afforded the consumers. I know you will carefully consider all ramifications of this measure and will take whatever action you feel is necessary to protect our meat and poultry inspection services.

Mr. SHORT. Before we completely leave this matter of meats coming into this country from outside of the United States, there are several points that I would like brought out. As you are well aware, some of the criticism, justified or otherwise, about meat being imported arises, as to whether or not our inspection service is adequate, where a considerable quantity of meat comes in in frozen form. It would not be possible at all, in some people's opinion, at least, to properly check whether or not the inspectors in the foreign countries are carrying out the inspection that should be made.

You do a real good job, in my opinion, in this country, but when it comes to checking the frozen meat you have a problem.

Would you care to make just a brief comment on that situation? I think it merits it.

Dr. CLARKSON. I quite agree with you, Mr. Short, that the movement of meat in a frozen condition adds to the difficulties of reinspection on this side of the water or this side of the border, whichever it may be, and it requires a defrosting of a representative portion of the lot in order to be able to make any inspection.

We operate in this way, when shipments from the same place have been found to be coming in in good shape, we require the defrosting and inspecting of a representative sample proportion. Where we have found evidence of any difficulty, or if it is coming from a new area, then we give the whole lot a careful inspection.

One of the points that I neglected to mention a moment ago in response to Congressman Hagen's question was this, that coming in from foreign countries we have the advantage of this product being held by customs until we are finished with it. Secondly, if there is anything seriously wrong with it, we reject the whole lot. For example, in the early days of meat coming in from New Zealand, we rejected whole shipments, which then must be returned to the country of origin or sold elsewhere.

Mr. SHORT. That is a point that some people often overlook. They think that the meat is coming into the country and it has not been brought to their attention emphatically enough that the inspection service does withhold entry on a considerable amount of the meat. Dr. CLARKSON. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. Let me ask you a little further on that. We are bringing meat in in canned form, are we not?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. How do you inspect that?

Dr. CLARKSON. We open up representative numbers of the cans, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously you cannot open all of them; otherwise there would not be any canned meat for sale. The system has been reviewed time and again. Our sample inspection of those canned meats most times turns out all right.

We are watchful for the origin. When some new group starts up, and is not paying attention to appropriate methods, we have had to reject very sizable shipments of canned meat. We reject the whole shipment and not just the cans that we look at.

« PreviousContinue »