most parts of the world, we assume that most of the goods offered for sale are automatically high quality. It comes as quite a shock to me personally to discover that as far as meat slaughtering and processing goes, many operations in this country are not too different from those described in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"-the book that stirred the interest in our present, and outdated meat inspection law. I do not have to look beyond my own state, Pennsylvania, to deplore the situation that exists in the inspection of meat packing, processing and slaughtering plants. They provide one of the best arguments for passage of this bill. In fact, they beg for even stronger Federal legislation. Inspection in Pennsylvania is at best catch-as-catch can. Philadelphia and a handful of other cities like Reading and Wilkes-Barre, have control over the condition of meat shipped into them. But consumers in the rest of the state have few assurances in the quality of the meat they buy. The State has 30 inspectors for all food, and spends only $200,000 specifically for meat inspection. This means that Pennsylvania is operating at the same level it was at in 1915 when it passed its present weak voluntary law. With 1263 meat processing, or slaughtering plants only 132 were subject to Federal inspection because they dealt in interstate products. Another 54 were subject to inspection which they paid for themselves-because they shipped into Philadelphia and other communities requiring inspection. The remaining 1000 plants are inspected only for licensing purposes. With more than 4.5 million hogs, cattle, calves and sheep slaughtered each year, and only eight veterinarians working in the Meat Hygiene Department, full protection of the public is impossible. What is worse, fully 25% of the fresh meat and 50% of the processed meat in Pennsylvania comes from plants not subject to inspection. Modern science has led the way for meat from animals to be doctored with coloring, emulsifiers, chemicals and drugs so that they can pass for quality foodstuffs. Not only is the public being duped by this kind of corner cutting, but the honest operators who run quality shops are forced into situations of unfair competition. I have been told that it is not uncommon for dead, diseased or disabled cattle to be dragged to the slaughter houses and ground up for beef in our state. Such schocking conditions rest squarely on the shoulders of State officials who have allowed them to exist. It is pretty clear to me that Federal legislation is now the only answer to give the public the protection needed. This is why I have added my name to the list of those supporting H.R. 6168, and have introduced an identical bill, H.R. 11480. Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, THIES PACKING CO., INC., Great Bend, Kans., July 17, 1967. DEAR MR. PURCELL: As an officer of the Kansas Independent Meat Packers Association, I would like to inform you that our Association and the management of each plant in our Association support the views of the Kansas State Department of Agriculture and the Kansas State Board of Health, and therefore, the testimony presented by NASDA to your committee. Please do not interpret this as an expression of opposition to inspection per se. We are certainly in favor of adequate inspection laws, but we feel that the states should have authority over plants that are not involved in interstate commerce. We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the official record of the hearings. Your very truly, KANSAS INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS, STATEMENT OF HON. ROMAN PUCINSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to add my remarks in support of the Administration bill and my own companion measure, H.R. 11305, the Meat Inspection Act of 1967. My district in Illinois is predominantly a city district, largely urban in nature. We have no farms and little livestock. But we do have half a million consumers who spend a good deal of time trying to stretch their food dollars to obtain the greatest value for their money. Protecting these consumers, and seeing to it that their money can be spent on products of quality and value, are two of the reasons for my being in Congress representing them. I believe the Administration bill, and the similar measures under consideration by the Committee, merit prompt action by the Congress. We cannot, either as a government or a people, endure the wanton disregard for human life which has characterized so much of our intrastate inspection, packaging and sale of meat. My state of Illinois has an effective meat inspection law, but 26 of our States do not. The distinguished members of this Committee are surely familiar with the horrifying instances of callous abuse of human health which have been brought to light by the Department of Agriculture and various concerned Americans who support this bill under consideration. We must take steps to correct the abuses that have infected some of the meat packing and processing industries. The reputable, worthwhile firms who work around the clock to protect the public deserve our help and our attention to this problem. I urge prompt and favorable consideration of this measure, which is a significant beginning in the effort to protect the health and well-being of American consumers. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, DENVER, COLO. The American National Cattlemen's Association is pleased to have this opportunity to discuss our feelings on H.R. 6168 and other bills that would amend the Federal Meat Inspection Law. We historically have supported adequate meat inspection which would insure for the consumer the continuance of the world's most prolific and wholesome supply of meat at a minimal cost to consumers, the retailing and processing industries, and the beef cattle industry itself. The American National Cattlemen's Association and its 42 affiliated state organizations have been the most ardent and vociferous supporters of meat inspection on both the federal and state levels. We are fully aware that the transcending popularity of beef over all other red meats has been due, apart from consistent quality, to an inspection system which has literally guaranteed that every bite has been wholesome. The exceptions are so few and so noteworthy as to demonstrate that the public has placed, and rightly so, an exceptional faith in the meat provided it through federal, state or local inspection systems. However, we are at a point in sophistication in meat inspection, as in other phases of commerce in meat, that the industry itself cannot tolerate any deviation from a universiality—an accepted norm-in the presentation and acceptance of the meat products offered the public in any form or in any manner. We compliment Congressman Smith and the authors of the bills in discussion for their efforts to stop all loopholes, to tie down all loose ends . . . for their sincere efforts to make all meat, everywhere and anytime, as trustworthy as we all expect it to be. However, we have several questions about H.R. 6168 which arise because of other principles of government and the effects upon the governed involved. Without going into detail as to section, paragraph or line, there are our basic questions: 1. Is there any real purpose to be served to the livestock and meat industry or the public by suggestion in H.R. 6168 that both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare have jurisdiction, albiet consultative, at various points throughout? The function of Meat Inspection has been vested by Congress in the USDA. That function has been aggressively, adequately and enthusiastically pursued by them. We can see only confusion ahead with any quality of authority, regulatory comparison or internecine dispute. Confusion could prompt some of the packing, processing and rendering firms sought to be regulated for the good of the industry to "go underground" and avoid supervision to the detriment of the espoused reasons for proposed regulations. 2. The suggested requirements for record keeping by both inspected and non-inspected establishments are sufficiently vague as to cause considerable concern as to whether meat packers, processors or renderers may become so bogged down with records they are unable to perform their initial function. We particularly are concerned about the wording of the sections which would require records of non-inspected plants doing business only in intrastate commerce. The nature of the records is not made clear; therefore, it would appear on the surface that these requirements are merely a "foot-inthe-door" toward coercing these establishments into accepting Federal Inspection as the "next step". Many establishments, dealing solely in intrastate transactions in meat, are performing valuable services to the livestock industry and the general public. It would be a colossal tragedy if thousands of well-meaning and well-intentioned establishments are forced, by indirec tion, to adopt standards which are not applicable to their needs or functions. We are well aware that many of these establishments are being "overlooked" by those making purchases on a standard of "FI-or-nothing", but we are also aware of the many that perform a valuable service to the public and the industry by operating at a lesser-cost factor than those which have had, or chosen, to adopt the standards established for inter-state commerce. 3. Inasmuch as we are quite proud of the progress and efforts made by various state inspection programs, we defer to the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and its specific objections to the specific points. 4. We do present, however, a question about the semantics involved in quibbling over whether state systems should be "comparable" to the federal system instead of "consistent". We raise the point only because the original Meat Inspection Act, as amended, suggests that meat inspection systems in foreign countries entitled to export to this nation must be "substantially equivalent". We are not suggesting that there is a double-standard involved; we are just wondering if domestically produced, processed and distributed meat must meet a higher standard than our foreign friends must achieve? Please be assured that the American National Cattlemen's Association always will be actively and enthusiastically in favor of and supporting realistic improvements in meat inspection. If federal support is the only way to achieve adequate state support, we shall be in favor of it. But, we cannot support an over-reaching grab for all meat inspection under the guise of strengthening a law which can only apply, under our constitution, to inter-state commerce. Of major concern is the matter of cost of inspection. To our knowledge, the projected cost of expanded meat inspection never has been carried out or at least has not been made public. Costs of federal activities invariably far surpass those of a local or state level on a comparable program by program basis. We believe that there can be a much lower per unit cost achieved by state laws effectively carrying out inspection on intra-state meat shipments. We have and will continue to urge our individual members and 42 affiliated state cattlemen's associations to aggressively support the enactment of an adequate financing for state meat inspection programs. This measure has several implications and innuendos which need careful study. We are confident that the Committee is aware of them, that it will consider all aspects—including the "semantics" of "comparable," "consistent" or "substantially equivalent" without further prompting from us. We have always found Congress alert to incongrueties in society or commerce. Thank you. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon, GRAHAM PURCELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I enclose herewith a letter from the Commissioner of Agriculture, Phil Campbell, Georgia Department of Agriculture, opposing provisions dealing with the Secretary's authority contained in the provisions of the Meat Standards proposals. This is an objectionable feature and I strongly urge an amendment eliminating this provision. I would like to ask, also, that Commissioner Campbell's letter be recorded in the hearings on this proposal, and related proposals. Please let me know if this can be done. Thank you for this courtesy. Sincerely, Enclosure. Hon. ROBERT STEPHENS, Jr., Washington, D.C. ROBERT G. STEPHENS, Jr. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEAR BOB: Enclosed is a self-explanatory copy of a letter from me to Hon. Charles Paul, recently replaced as Commissioner of Agriculture in California, now with the CMS of U.S.D.A., pointing out the feeling of Georgia's independent meat packers and also my feeling with regard to the proposed Meat Inspection Act currently before Congress. This Bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture at his discretion to move into any state regardless of the Meat Inspection Programs existent therein. If this Bill is not properly amended to do away with these objectionable features I request that you use your influence to defeat this measure. Yours truly, PHIL CAMPBELL. P.S.-There are currently 80 Ga. Dept. of Ag. meat inspectors assigned to intra-state meat plants in Georgia. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Mr. CHARLES PAUL, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHARLIE: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, Section 2 is very definitely the objectionable part of the Bill introduced in the current session of Congress as the "Meat Inspection Act". Also objectionable is Section 205 and several other provisions of the Act which can more adequately be pointed out by Director Don McDowell of Wisconsin who has represented the State Departments of Agriculture in conferences with U.S.D.A. Without it being absolutely clear and certain that the U.S.D.A. cannot under the provisions of this Act voluntarily move into intra-state inspection of meat plants, the Georgia meat industry and I have no alternative than to urge our Georgia Congressmen and Senators to fight the passage of the Meat Inspection Act. Yours truly, PHIL CAMPBELL. NORTH CAROLINA MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, June 30, 1967. DEAR SIR: The annual meeting of the North Carolina Meat Packers Association at Asheville, N.C. on June 10, 1967, unanimously approved a resolution vigorously opposing the proposed revision of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The proposed revision now housed in H.R. 6168 sponsored by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa). Request this letter be made part of the official record of the hearings. Cordially yours, ROBERT B. MOORE, Secretary-Treasurer. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CLC, Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN PURCELL: Over the years, the members of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO have frequently joined with other consumer, civic, and labor groups to seek increased protections for the American worker, both as worker and as consumer. We would now like to add our voice to the growing number of organizations seeking strong and effective amendments to the Meat Inspection Act. As early as 60 years ago it was recognized that the consumer could not protect himself or his family against undesirable meat, that he needed expert help in this area. It is amazing, however, that the safeguards provided at that time have not been updated to meet new problems. Frankly, many of our members probably don't know that all meat is not inspected for wholesomeness. Such protections are taken for granted in this day and age. Even if it is just a fraction of the meat supply which escapes inspection, that fraction is too large. You and your committee are to be commended for undertaking a revision of the Meat Inspection Act. We hope that you will write legislation which will update the law in order to broaden its coverage and require the highest standards in this area of necessary consumer protection. We would appreciate your making this letter a part of the record of your hearings. Thank you very much. The board of directors of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture meeting July 25, 1967, clarified legal aspects of bill H.R. 6168 and supports it as presently written. This is based upon legal interpretations of the bill, conferences with USDA officials and other assurances NASDA specifically supports the so-called "4D" provisions of the bill. NASDA supports strengthened meat inspection as specified in its resolution Number 5 passed in Princeon, New Jersey, October 1965. W. F. Moss, President NASDA. RESOLUTION No. 5-DAIRY, FOOD AND DRUG Subject: Meat Inspection. Whereas, it is recognized that there exists a need to update present meat inspection laws-both state and national and it is also recognized that there also exists a need for cooperative state-federal meat inspection programs designed to adequately safeguard the public interests; and Whereas, in the development and implementation of such a program it is important that every effort be made to avoid duplication of such procedures as licensing, bonding, inspections, quality control, and all other functions involved in a total meat inspection program; and Whereas, under any such a cooperative state-federal program a procedure for continuous evaluation of program activities by both parties jointly must be established and maintained; therefore Be it resolved, that the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture in convention assembled in Princeton, New Jersey, October 3-7, 1965, recommends: I. That a truly cooperative state-federal meat inspection program be developed, including proper legislative action including adequate financing at both levels. |