and wholesomeness of the product is up to what it would be if Federal standards were imposed? Mr. LILJENQUIST. You can put wholesome meat through State inspected plants with care. In a State where you have a good inspection law, good administration of that law, and well qualified inspectors, you can eat that meat from such plants with the same degree of assurance of safety as you can that from the Federal inspected plants. If a door is a little Mr. FOLEY. Do you mean to say Mr. LILJENQUIST. Where you have got good ante mortem and post mortem examination and clean handling of the products within the plant, you will have a very fine product that you can eat with reliance. Mr. FOLEY. If you do not have, in so far as mandatory inspection is concerned in 13 States, you have a different situation. Mr. LILJENQUIST. In eight States where there is not yet inspection, but the most of the meat even in those States is sanitary, for the following reasons: First of all, an average of 85 percent of all meat consumed is from federally inspected plants in those States. The public health services will see to it that the meat is sanitary. I grant that there is a possibility that in those States some meat could enter consumer channels that would not be entirely fit for human consumption; that, we want to eliminate. We want to correct that as rapidly as we can. And the whole livestock and meat industry and the farm organizations and everyone concerned are now setting about getting that job done, and we will acomplish it. Mr. FOLEY. We have some other witnesses here, and I will not proting that job done, and we will accomplish it. I just want to ask one further question, Mr. Chairman. I do not understand your position on improving the standards of meat inspection and increasing the reliability of meat inspection for the American people while you oppose the proposal to extend the Federal standards by providing Federal assistance? I cannot get away from the fact that you do not want Federal standards. That is principally your opposition to this legislation, is it not? Mr. LILJENQUIST. I want Federal standards, but I want them to be developed only as rapidly as the packing plants within those States can financially afford them. Mr. FOLEY. I think you have been very candid in your testimony. I do want to compliment you on that because I think sometimes witnesses are not clear about their positions and those of their organizations. I mean this, very earnestly; you are clear. I gather that your interest primarily is in allowing only sufficient gradual adoption of the Federal standards to permit marginal packinghouse operators to adjust to the increased standards. I think that is your testimony, is it not? Mr. LILJENQUIST. Yes, with good inspection in every State. Mr. FOLEY. That is all, thank you. Mr. PURCELL. Are there any further questions? Mr. Kleppe? Mr. KLEPPE. I have a couple of quick ones that I would like to ask Mr. Liljenquist, if I can. I am very impressed with the job that has been done by the meat packers, both from testimony and from personal knowledge. This is not what concerns me; it is that extra percentage, whatever it is, maybe one spurious operator, who is in intrastate commerce, that is what concerns me. Is it correct, Mr. Liljenquist, that of the 15 percent of commercially slaughtered animals that are not inspected by the USDA inspectors, that it represents meat that is sold intrastate? Mr. LILJENQUIST. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEPPE. Is that correct? Mr. KLEPPE. My second question: What is the difference between mandatory meat inspection and the other? Would you give me a definition of that? Mr. LILJENQUIST. You can see from the map I presented that the State of Montana has a voluntary State meat inspection. That means that a packer in that State may choose whether or not he wants hist products inspected by State inspectors. He has an option to select whether he wants to be in the program or not. Mr. KLEPPE. It is not as tough as the Federal standard? Mr. LILJENQUIST. It may be as tough, but the operator has the option to be within it or outside of it. What are the pressures that normally would require him to accept that inspection? A willingness on his part to pay part of the cost of that inspection, if the State is not paying the whole bill; and, certainly, a desire on his part to advertise that his products are State inspected. Therefore nearly all of the commercially operated plants in Montana, so far as I know, all of the commercial plants in Montana, have elected to be within the voluntary meat inspection program. The plants that do not elect to participate in voluntary State meat inspection programs are usually the very small operators who may be slaughtering a few animals for their own retail store, but the commercially operated plants who are selling at wholesale will almost always elect to be within the voluntary inspection program. We believe that all State meat inspection programs should be mandatory and that everybody who is in the business of supplying meat for consumers should have the inspection of animals before they are slaughtered, which is antemortem inspection, and it should have inspection of the carcasses after slaughter, which is postmortem inspection and includes inspection of all of the organs, to see if there is any trace of any disease, and then inspection as to the handling of the meat, to see that it is handled in a clean and sanitary way. Mr. KLEPPE. Thank you, Mr. Liljenquist. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Zwach? Mr. ZWACH. Just one short question. Can you give us the figure on the Montana slaughter and the other States' slaughters that are under voluntary inspection? Do you have that information available? Mr. LILJENQUIST. I would say that of the 15 percent that is now not federally slaughtered, another 12 or 14 percent is slaughtered under State, municipal, or county inspection services. Mr. ZWACH. You said 85 percent is federally inspected? Mr. LILJENQUIST. Only 85 percent of all animals are federally slaughtered, slaughtered under the supervision of Federal inspectors, and 15 percent is slaughtered in the States either under mandatory inspection or under voluntary inspection or under county or city inspection or under no inspection at all. Mr. ZWACH. But this 85 percent, I thought you said, was under Federal compulsory inspection. Mr. LILJENQUIST. That is right. Mr. ZWACH. How much is under voluntary Federal inspection? Mr. LILJENQUIST. Well, out of the 42 States Mr. ZWACH. Of this 15 percent that is left. Mr. LILJENQUIST. Of the 42 States that have either mandatory State inspection or voluntary inspection, there are only 13 of those States that have voluntary inspection, so that would be a total of 27, would it not, that have mandatory inspection. Those are the States that are most populous, so you can see that most of that 15 percent is slaughtered under some kind of an inspection, either voluntary or otherwise. Mr. ZWACH. Voluntary Federal or State? Mr. LILJENQUIST. Voluntary State or mandatory State; most of it being under mandatory State inspection, some of it under voluntary State inspection, and, perhaps, a little of it under no inspection at all. We want to see that all of the 15 percent that is slaughtered in nonfederally inspected plants will be good mandatory State inspection programs in all 50 States. That is the goal of our industry, our total industry, not only your association but the other associations, the farm organizations, the livestock organizations, and I am sure the Congress, too. Mr. ZWACH. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LILJENQUIST. And we will accomplish that goal in a few more years. Mr. PURCELL. Mrs. May? Mrs. MAY. How many packing plants in the Western States does your organization represent where. It would not be economically feasible to meet the USDA Federal standards of construction? Mr. LILJENQUIST. I would say that of our 648 members, about 350 of these are handling meat, and of these 350 they are engaged in either slaughtering or processing meats; some of them both slaughtering and processing. Fifty five percent would be under Federal inspection, and about 45 percent would be under State inspection. This is an estimate. I have not counted them, but I will be glad to count them. Then, I would say of the 45 percent of those 350 that are under State inspection, approximately one-half of them are constructed well enough to qualify for Federal inspection-or maybe with a few alterations they would qualify. When you apply for Federal inspection, even though you have built your plant, you think, up to the Federal standards, you may find a few little changes that you will have to make, because the Federal standards are changing right along. They are not fixed standards; they are fluid, as conditions develop and new equipment is made available, et cetera. So, I would say that there would be about 25 percent or 20 percent of our members who would have to make substantial construction investments to qualify for Federal standards and many of them would not be able to finance it at this time. Mrs. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Liljenquist. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much Mr. Liljenquist. At this time, in the interest of time, I am going to call the remaining witnesses out of order. It is my understanding that Mr. Harry Silverman would be greatly inconvenienced if he had to come back tomorrow, and also Mr. Wright is in the same category. At this time, we will call Mr. Wright. Mr. MAYNE. Could I make a brief statement, first? I, first, want to say I certainly do not intend any disrespect to any of these three witnesses who are going to testify, but the House is sitting at noon to consider the antiriot bill, and I really feel that it will be necessary for me to go to the floor of the House at this time. I would like very much to hear your testimony, but I feel that I must be there. Mr. PURCELL. Very well, Mr. Mayne. Mr. Wright, I am not trying to tell you that you cannot testify in any way that you like. If you want to file your statement, all right. I hope that all of us will read it. Then, you can give a summation of it if you so desire. You may do it any way that you like. STATEMENT OF EVAN WRIGHT, ASSOCIATION OF FOOD & DRUG OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would say that I would just like to file the statement, and in case the committee should like to hear more from me later, to ask questions about it later, I will be able to come back and discuss it with the committee. I will simply file this statement without any comments at this time. Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much. It will be made a part of the record at this point. (The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Wright reads in full as follows:) STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FOOD & DRUG OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES The Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States was organized in 1896 and has existed and functioned actively for the past 71 years. Its objectives are to 1. Promote and foster uniformity of laws affecting foods, drugs, cosmetics, and devices, 2. Encourage and promote enforcement of said laws, 3. Encourage and support programs which will contribute to consumer protection consistent with the broad purpose of said laws, 4. Assist members in their technical work and development. 5. Co-operate with other professional groups in advancing consumer protection under such laws, 6. Disseminate information concerning food and drug law enforcement and administration through its official publication, .82-270-67— -13 7. Encourage and promote co-operative enforcement programs with federal agencies and between related enforcement agencies within each state. The activities of the Association include the drafting and updating of the Uniform Food, Drug and Cosmetic Bill which has been adopted in whole or in part by a large majority of the states. It has been instrumental in the fostering and development of training programs, uniformity of inspection and uniformity of analytical techniques at all levels of government. It has fostered and developed new avenues of cooperation between the various levels of government. It has served as an active liaison between several federal agencies, especially the Food and Drug Administration, and the states. The regular membership of the Association consists of federal, state and local officials enforcing their food, drug and cosmetic laws and associated laws. Many of these officials are engaged in the enforcement of meat and poultry inspection laws and general food laws affecting meat and poultry. At present the membership includes officials representing 49 states, several federal agencies and municipalities. State representation includes health, agricultural and other consumer protection agencies. The Association's Executive Board has examined HR 6168, and respectfully submits the following comments and recommendations. The representative of the Food and Drug Administration on the AFDOUS Executive Board did not participate in any of the discussions of the Meat Inspection Bill nor did he indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with the position taken by the Executive Board concerning this proposal. In Section 2 of the bill establishing a new Section 1, (n) (12) beginning at line 10 on page 10, the Secretary of Agriculture, or any officer to whom he may delegate the authority, may prescribe arbitrarily, and not within the limitations of the law, labeling requirements over and above those specifically indicated in the definition of misbranding. In general, the subsection (n) is the definition for misbranding taken largely from the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. However, neither the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act nor the Uniform Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in force in the majority of the states, gives the enforcing agency or its chief officer the unbridled authority to establish labeling requirements by fiat as this subsection does. Under this type of law, which sets no bounds on the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Agriculture, state cooperation or uniformity with state law would be impossible. The Association recommends the deletion of all wording in Section 2, (n) (12) beyond the word "legend" on line 12, page 10. Section 2 of the bill which establishes a new Section 2 in the law beginning at line 19 on page 11 states some truisms concerning the desirability of meat inspection for the protection of the public health and welfare and for the protection of those involved in interstate commerce in meats. It proceeds from there to the preemption to the Secretary of Agriculture of the authority to inspect all meats by claiming all meats regardless of their interstate or intrastate character affect interstate commerce. While the title of the bill indicates it is "to provide for cooperation with appropriate state agencies with respect to state meat inspection programs" it is obviously the true purpose to strip the states of their traditional authority to protect the health and welfare of their citizens through their own police powers. It is absolutely impossible for cooperation to exist coincident with preemption. Such a situation as is implied by this section could result only in a federal system of inspection forced downward into all the states, with those states which chose to furnishing money and man-power for the implementation of fiats from Washington. The states which chose not to enter the so-called cooperative program could stand aside and see their traditional duties taken over by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Concerning the affect of meat in intrastate commerce on interstate commerce, it is perfectly obvious that any meat in the normal channels of trade-intrastate or interstate-affects interstate commerce. Every other food and every other article in trade affects interstate commerce in the same manner and to an equal degree. The extension of this type of preemption by a congressional declaration that an article in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce could destroy the authority of the states to control any of their own commercial activities. It is the recommendation of the Association that the bill be amended by strikout the word "it" on line 14, page 12, and all the wording thereafter through line 22; and by substituting therefor the following: "The Secretary shall develop a federal-state system of meat inspection which will protect the public health |