Now, as in the past, USDA inspectors are unable to intercept shipments or parcels of unwholesome or suspect products under these circumstances. Their only recourse is to prevail upon State, local, or other Federal agencies to impound or seize goods outside of federally inspected plants.

With this proposed authority, enforcement of the basic intent of Congress and protection of the public would be greatly enhanced. USDA would be far better able to prevent unwholesome meat products from getting into human food channels, and could deal more swiftly with those who violate the law.

Several other areas receive specific attention under the proposed legislation areas in which USDA is currently operating under implied authority that falls far short of promoting effective administration.

The first involves the acceptance or rejection of applicants for Federal inspection. Under the present act, USDA does not have clearcut authority to deny inspection service to applicants who-by their past actions have demonstrated that they are unfit to engage in a business requiring a high degree of public responsibility.

The legislation would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to deny inspection service to such individuals. Included would be provisions for a hearing and legal review to protect the rights of the individual.

The second concerns labeling of meat and meat products. The present act does not clearly spell out the extent of the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to regulate some types of labeling, marking, and packaging which are misleading to consumers.

The Secretary would, therefore, be given specific authority to prescribe the size and style of type used for labeling; the size and form of containers; standards of identity, and standards of fill of containers. These would be consistent with provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Also, judicial review of labels that have been disapproved would be provided, similar to provisions now contained in the Poultry Products Inspection Act. The proposed authority with respect to packaging is comparable to the provisions of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

While these new provisions would require some industry adjustment at the outset, their application would be a major step toward elimination of the complicated and conflicting labeling requirements that presently exist between the various States and between some cities within a State. They would also insure coordination of labeling requirements among agencies of the Federal Government.

Third, the legislation would grant specific authority to prevent the counterfeiting or unauthorized use of inspection marks and marking devices. Unauthorized manufacture and possession of brands and marking devices also would be prohibited.

At the present time we have no authority to prevent a person from counterfeiting a marking device.

These changes do not involve new concepts of Government supervision, for they are similar to provisions now included in existing statutes such as the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Agricultural Marketing Act. Both industry and consumers would benefit from these changes. Standards of identities greater uniformity of labeling requirements,

and elimination of opportunities for fraud and deceit as a result of these proposals—would greatly enhance the marketing of meat and meat products.

As in any 60-year-old statute, there is a need for additional revisions of purely a "housekeeping" nature. The proposal, first of all, would consolidate into one statute the present appropriations measure of 1960 which is popularly called the Meat Inspection Act, the Horse Meat Act, and the import meat provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. The "housekeeping" changes would also insure coordination between the USDA's Consumer and Marketing Service and the Food and Drug Administration of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, in making full, cooperative use of their respective powers to protect the consumer.

Also provided is the authorization to appropriate funds for the expanded program, and establishment of a specified time schedule for implementation of the amended Meat Inspection Act.

Additional minor changes are included to further aid administration of the law and strengthen its protection of consumers.

In summation, the original Meat Inspection Act is becoming increasingly outmoded in its ability to regulate the modern, aggressive industry as we know it today and envision it in the future. The role of the States is not sufficiently recognized in the existing legislation to encourage their effective contributions to a viable network of coordinated programs. Reforms in the Federal meat inspection program are urgently needed.

Yet, the consumer continues to buy her meat with presumed confidence in its wholesomeness. The prosperity of the meatpacking industry and our Nation's livestock producers is greatly dependent upon her continued confidence.

Our responsibility, therefore, is to insure that both Federal and State governments are provided with the necessary tools and resources to fulfill their responsibilities to protect the consumer in the manner she expects and demands. This proposed legislation will accomplish this purpose.

Thank you for your kind attention. I regret that the remarks were long. My colleagues and I would be very happy to respond to any questions you have.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Leonard.

At this point, without objection, I would ask permission to insert in the record two letters from Secretary Freeman that have just arrived and brought to my attention.

Without objection, they will be inserted at this point.

(The letters follow:)

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C., June 26, 1967.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of March 3, 1967, for a report on H. R. 1314, a bill "To extend Federal meat inspection and to permit cooperation with State meat inspection services, and for other purposes.'

While the Department favors the objectives of the bill, we believe H. R. 6168, also introduced by Mr. Smith of Iowa, would provide greater consumer protection than would be provided by H.R. 1314.

On February 23, 1967, this Department transmitted to the Congress a draft of a proposed bill cited as "The Wholesome Meat Act" and recommended its

enactment. This proposed bill was recommended by President Johnson in his Special Consumer Message to the Congress on February 16, 1967. It subsequently was introduced by Mr. Smith of Iowa as H. R. 6168. We have worked with State Departments of Agriculture and industry groups in developing the provisions contained in H. R. 6168 and believe that it would enhance the role of States in meeting their public responsibility for consumer protection. H. R. 6168 would also significantly strengthen present Federal authority under the Act by closing several loopholes and by extending Federal jurisdiction to presently unregulated meat handlers. We therefore strongly favor the enactment of H.R. 6168 rather than H.R. 1314.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. The Bureau also suggests that the Committee may wish to secure the views of the Department of Justice and Commerce on this bill.

Sincerely yours,

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., June 26, 1967.

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of June 7, 1967, for a report on H. R. 1321, a bill "To amend the Meat Inspection Act to extend its coverage in certain areas.

While this Department favors the objectives of the bill, we believe H.R. 6168 would provide greater consumer protection than is provided by H.R. 1321. We therefore strongly favor the enactment of H.R. 6168 rather than H.R. 1321.

H.R. 1321 provides for the extension of the Meat Inspection Act to a "major consuming area" if, following application by an appropriate State or local official or agency, or local meat industry group, and following a public hearing, thẹ Secretary determines that meat or meat food products are handled or consumed in such volume as to affect, burden or obstruct the movement of inspected meat or meat food products in interstate or foreign commerce and that designation of the area will tend to effectuate the purposes of the Act.

On February 23, 1967, this Department transmitted to the Congress a draft of a proposed bill cited as "The Wholesome Meat Act" and recommended its enactment. This proposed legislation was recommended by President Johnson in his Special Consumer Message to the Congress on February 16, 1967. It subsequently was introduced by Mr. Smith of Iowa as H. R. 6168.

Title III of "The Wholesome Meat Act" would provide Federal financial and technical assistance to the States to assist them in strengthening State meat inspection programs. We have worked closely with State Departments of Agriculture and industry groups in developing this proposed legislation and believe that the resulting combination of Federal and State inspection activities would provide greater consumer protection than would be provided by H.R. 1321.

Provisions similar to those in H. R. 1321 are contained in the Poultry Products Inspection Act. To date, these provisions have not been used to extend the coverage of that Act. Based on this experience, we conclude that the use of the proposed provisions in the Meat Inspection Act also would be limited and the enactment of such provisions would not result in substantial additional costs in the administration of the inspection program.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. The Bureau also suggests that the Committee may wish to secure the views of the Departments of Justice and Commerce on this bill.

Sincerely yours,

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN.

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Jones, do you have questions?

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I have one or two questions I would like to ask. I am sorry I was a little late and I did not hear the first couple of pages of testimony.

Did I get the impression from your testimony that this 60-year-old legislation has not been amended or updated during that time?

Mr. LEONARD. It was amended in 1938 to provide more specific language on exemption of farm-slaughtered and retail-slaughtered meat. That has been the only change.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Did not the original legislation give the Department considerable leeway and authority to promulgate and enforce regulations which would protect the public?

Mr. LEONARD. It has. It has worked very effectively. In the last decade where slaughter is moving out closer to the production of the animal and meat processing is moving closer to the consumer markets, the authority that once was adequate no longer is adequate. For example, the authority to seize unfit meat applies only within a federally inspected establishment. We have to pursue this meat outside of that establishment without any real authority to do so. This is only one example.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I want to go back some 14 or 15 years. We had the so-called Delaney committee and we covered a pretty wide front of everything included in the growing, the processing, preparation of food, including the use of all kinds of insecticides, herbicides, preservatives, colors, and everything else.

At that time I had a question that I brought to the attention of the Department when you people were testifying, and that was, because I had seen such a deterioration in the preparation of chili con carne, and since that time it has gotten continually worse. At the time they told me, "We will look into it." I am going back now some 30 odd years ago. I will refer to one company, the Swift Co., which is a large processor of meat. At that time they sold three grades of chili. I remember their top grade was what we called "Sobrosa" or some similar word to that. It was a fine chili. Today there is nothing on the market to compare with it. I like chili con carne. I buy it everyplace I can, every time I see a new label or processor and try it out. I am disappointed as usual. Today I defy your Department to find a can of chili on the market that does not contain an excess of fat, gristle, bone, hooves, intestines, and everything else that goes into it. I think that your Department has not used the vehicles that you have had at your command to try to preserve the high standards. At that time they promised me they were going to look into it. They said we will get you some good chili. I have been waiting 15 years and it has continually gotten worse and I have about quit eating it.

One other question: How large a plant or what amount of business does a plant have to do to justify the placing of a Federal inspector in the plant?

Dr. SOMERS. Mr. Jones, there is no minimum amount of product that a plant must manufacture or process in order to obtain Federal meat inspection. If they move any of their product in interstate commerce, they may apply for and receive Federal meat inspection. Mr. JONES of Missouri. In other words, regardless of whether they are a little one-man operation processing food, you will send an inspector in there.

I have in mind a place where this fellow turns out a fair product, but it is just very small, sometimes only two people working there. I have seen this Federal inspector there, and frankly, I did not think that the total amount of the business that the plant did would pay the salary of the inspector. Do you think there should be any change in that?

Dr. SOMERS. Small plants of that kind are usually covered in a combination or circuit where the inspector examines the operations at several plants that are within a commuting distance. This has been one of our administrative problems in the past few years with the development of many more small processing plants. We attempt to provide the service in the most economical way.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. On page 11 and 12, Mr. Leonard, you said something about the detention, seizure, and injunctions and court actions authorized to deal expeditiously with criminal activity. Don't you have the authority now to seize meat or meat products that are crossing State lines, although it has not been processed? Can't you do that now?

Mr. LEONARD. Only if it is within a federally inspected plant.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I am not talking about that. Before it ever gets to a plant, I mean. If a fellow is trying to sell meat that is spoiled or something like that, and he ships it across State lines, can't you seize that?

Mr. LEONARD. No; our authority does not allow us to do that. We either go to the State agency which has authority over meat or to local Food and Drug Administration people and ask them to hold the meat while we can investigate and determine its condition. This is one of the areas where our authority is lacking.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Thank you. I will not take up any more time now.

Mr. PURCELL. Mrs. May?

Mrs. MAY. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Leonard, I would like to say at the beginning I am certainly in thorough agreement with the statement of the Chairman when he opened the meeting of this morning on the goals we are seeking with the enactment of this legislation. I do have some questions that go to your statement and the interpretation of what this legislation as it is before us would do.

For background, I would like some further clarification from you about page 8 of your statement where you go into the subject of more authority to regulate composition and labeling of meat products. I remember with the passage of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act the representative of the Consumer Marketing Service testified that the Department of Agriculture was doing a great deal of work in this field and handling just this problem.

Under what authority have you been doing this in this field, and what is it that you lack, or where do you need to go further?

Mr. LEONARD. The authority that we have now is a general authority for the Secretary to prevent mislabeling.

Mrs. MAY. Could you give me an example? You say clear-cut authority to deal with certain packaging and labeling and composition standards are all presently lacking. I had understood you were doing, and had authority to do, things in this field, but what is it that you need that you cannot do now?

Mr. LEONARD. We do it now under general authority. I would like to have Dr. Somers explain this in more detail.

Dr. SOMERS. This is done now as a part of our prior approval of labels before they are used. This, coupled together with the supervision in the plants over the use of labels does go a long way toward preventing deception or use of improper names. Actually, the present legisla