sold without ever having been subjected to any form of government inspection, and that approximately 15 percent of our meat supply (some 19 million animals), and 25 percent of our commercially processed meat products (some 8.75 billion pounds) are subject only to State or local inspection which varies from good to good-for-nothing. It is shocking that in 1967 there are still nine States which have no meat inspection laws at all. Do we need another Upton Sinclair to alert the public to the hazards of eating intrastate meat products in these States? Should we perhaps be campaigning for billboards at State borders warning travelers when they are about to enter a State without meat inspection? It calls to mind the occasional signs I have come across during my travels where I have seen "nonpotable" signs over water supplies. At least in that way the consumer got a fair warning. But, of course, we know that even in those 41 States which do have inspection, the degree of protection varies greatly. Thirteen States have only voluntary programs. Two States require only mandatory licensing of packers with no provisions for actual inspection of meat. Only 25 States provide for mandatory inspection of animals before and after slaughter, and only 25 States provide for mandatory inspection of processed meat products. In such a chaotic situation, where safe, wholesome meat, properly inspected, may be lying side by side with meat produced under poor inspection, or no inspection at all, the consumer is at a great disadvantage. One more chore is added to the burden of making a wise choice in the marketplace. And this is a chore which could be eliminated at very little cost. The cost of inspecting the livestock and the slaughtering facilities is insignificant compared to the cost of the harm which may be done by sale of uninspected meat. As has been pointed out to you, I am sure, the harm is not only to the health and well-being of the consumer. The harm is also to the economic well-being of this $16 billion industry. The use of unwholesome, adulterated, or mislabeled meat or meat products in competition with wholesome, properly inspected meat and meat products creates unfair competition for those in the industry who deserve the confidence of consumers. The unscrupulous producer is given an unfair advantage over the honest producer. The increasing amount of processed meat and meat products sold in today's market has aggravated the problem. Here there is the greatest opportunity for fraud and deception. Adulteration and deterioration of these meats is most difficult to detect. Processed meats can be treated with chemicals and preservatives that make spoilage or the presence of disease-producing organisms difficult, or even impossible, for the consumer to detect. The color of these meats can be, and frequently is, improved by the addition of chemicals. Water is frequently used as an extender. The consumer needs, indeed, must have, professional protection. How else can she be sure of what she is buying and eating? Yet, it is only through a strong inspection system utilizing good laboratory facilities that the use of chemicals and additives can be detected. Dr. M. R. Clarkson, of the Department of Agriculture, who made a 49-State survey states: Federal inspection prevents the substitution of inexpensive materials such as gums, alginates, and cereals used to cut costs of production. H.R. 6168 by providing for expansion of Federal inspection procedures and for support of, and cooperation with, State meat inspection programs, will take a big step forward in providing meat consumers the protection they require. The need for stronger, more effective, and more uniform State meat inspection programs has been amply demonstrated. Enaction, of this bill, H.R. 6168 will provide a uniform program to protect the consumer throughout our great Nation. We can afford the little it will cost. We cannot afford to wait any longer. The National Consumers League, therefore, urges that you promptly report out this bill favorably, and hasten its passage. We appreciate the opportunity to present to you our views on this vital legislation. Mr. Chairman, when preparing this statement I was not aware that your committee was considering more than H.R. 6168 which the League has endorsed. However, we are aware that this bill would not do the whole job which is needed to give the consumers the protection they want. The exemption that certain sized slaughtering plants and certain owners in section 23 (a) and the authority granted to the Secretary of Agriculture in section 23 (b) might affect a significant amount of meat. Moreover, the coverage of this bill is not extensive enough, since we do not feel optimistic about State action being either promptly taken or strong enough to make sure that all supplies could be covered. Our objective is complete coverage of all meat. And I hope that your commitee will, therefore, amend this bill by including those sections of H.R. 1314 and H.R. 1321 which would achieve this objective. We urgently ask that you promptly report out a good bill and hasten its passage. We appreciate this opportunity to present our point of view; please, sir. Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much. Mr. PURCELL. Do you have any questions, Mr. Mayne? Mr. MAYNE. I would like to thank you for a very fine statement. Certainly the interest of the consumer is a very, very important one. Your presentation will help us. It has been very effective. Mrs. NEWMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. PURCELL. I would like to supplement what Mr. Mayne has said. We appreciate your making a very fine presentation, and providing for us the attitude of the consumer groups. I think you have made a very responsive and very proper approach in this instance. We appreciate it very much. Mrs. NEWMAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. PURCELL. At this point I would ask permission to insert into the record a statement prepared by Mr. Patrick Greathouse, vice president of the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Without objection this statement will be allowed to be inserted into the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF PAT GREATHOUSE, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I appear before you today as a UAW Vice President, a member of its International Executive Board and on behalf of its million-and-a-half active and retired members. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to voice our whole-hearted support for your efforts to protect the public from the unscrupulous activities of some of this nation's largest slaughter houses and meat packers. As you know, the Federal Meat Inspection Act went on the books sixty years ago. In all that time it has never been substantially revised or up-dated. This half century of neglect has given quick-buck artists in the meat business plenty of time to search out-and take full advantage of the gaping holes which riddle the law as it now stands. Most American families assume that all the meat they buy at the corner grocery store or order in a restaurant is fully and adequately inspected according to a national standard. I must confess that until recently, I, too, was one of those trusting customers. But my good friend from Iowa, Congressman Neal Smith, set me straight about a month ago. And I want you to know that I am going to do my best to make sure that every auto worker and his family learns the truth too. One-fifth-twenty percent-of all the meat sold in this country completely escapes even the most cursory inspection because of loopholes in the Meat Inspection Act. As it stands now, federal inspection is required only if a slaughter house sells meat in another state. Since few states have adequate inspection laws, some large packers deliberately and carefully avoid selling across state lines so they can sell sick or diseased animals which could never pass a federal inspection. Another serious threat to the public health and safety is created by processors who, knowingly or not, make hamburger from contaminated meat which was originally intended for dogs or cat food. Furthermore, the Act permits the importation and sale of meat which has not been slaughtered, labeled, branded or handled according to the standards our government requires of domestically slaughtered meat. The Act must also be tightened to give us additional protection against deceptive labeling. Many customers, thinking they are getting the best buy for their food dollar, actually buy bologna which is one-third flour, and not pure meat. Others, because of legal but deceptive price-labeling practices, pay good money for ham which contains as much as thirty percent water. HR 6168 goes a long way toward patching up the legal loopholes which make these and other serious abuses possible. It also does a fine job of laying the groundwork for extensive Federal-state cooperation in meat inspection. Its offer of technical and laboratory assistance, backed up by fifty percent Federal matching grants, will offer real incentives to our states as they begin to up-date their inspection capacities. The UAW supports this Committee's efforts to modernize the Meat Inspection Act. But I want to make it clear that we will not endorse an amendment that leaves substantial flaws in the Act. We need total protection against bad meat peddlers and total protection means total inspection. I hope this Committee will use all its ingenuity to work out a jurisdiction formula which will-for the first time in our history-protect all Americans who buy meat. Any protection less comprehensive than this will, in my opinion, fall short of the mark we must set for ourselves. Anything less will only allow unethical meat producers to continue making money at the risk of making Americans sick. Mr. PURCELL. Are there any other witnesses in the hearing room at this time who would like to be heard who have not been given that opportunity? If there are none in that category and I assume there are none, since no one has spoken up, I will state, then, that this completes the list of witnesses who have been requested to be heard at this time. The subcommittee will meet again for this purpose on Monday, July 17, when there will be quite a series of witnesses to be heard at that time and whatever days after that that are required to conclude those hearings. So at this time the subcommittee will be in recess until July 17. (Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, July 17, 1967.) 82 270-67 ---8 |