under the concurrent jurisdiction, but, I believe, in the conduct of the responsibilities of the two agencies of the Government, that they cooperate in this responsibility so that they are not performing the same functions at the same time. As a result, I do not believe that we would have any appreciable added cost as a result of the concurrent jurisdiction. We do know, of course, that the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for various checkings under the Food and Cosmetic Act which has to do with additives and preservatives and coloring, and all of this sort of thing, in many products, in fact, in all food products, and I do not believe that we have any appreciable added cost because of that. I do not think it would be noticeable, at least as a result of this concurrent jurisdiction.

Mr. ZWACH. There is adequate division of responsibility then?

Mr. MAGDANZ. I am really not able to answer that competently. It is my understanding that there is at least sufficient division of responsibility so that they are not, shall we say, running over each other trying to do the same thing.

Mr. ZWACH. I am going to ask this question of the Food and Drug Administration people and other departmental witnesses.

Mr. MAGDANZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZWACH. That is all. Thank you.

Mr. PURCELL. Mrs. May?

Mrs. MAY. Just one question.

You said your association was going to endorse another possible change in the bill, and I want to clarify this:

Page 22 of the bill. You have recommended the striking of paragraph (C).

As I understand it, if that paragraph remains in the bill, then the provisions of title I would apply to those people who were slaughtering their own animals just for their own private consumption, and that you would recommend that that be struck from the bill?

Mr. MAGDANZ. That is correct, Mrs. May. The only reason that we say this is the fact that this appears to be superfluous since we have no specific exemptions applying to the inspection requirements against those people who are slaughtering for their own personal use. It hardly seems necessary, therefore, to apply the misbranding and adulteration provisions to them in those cases.

Mrs. MAY. I am inclined to agree with that, but could you tell me why it was in the bill in the first place?

Mr. MAGDANZ. I am not able to answer that, I am sorry to say. Mrs. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PURCELL. Might I take up right there? I am not arguing with the position that your association has taken, but this has to do, does it not, with someone ordering say, a food locker plant to slaughter their livestock for them; livestock that either they or the owners provide. Wouldn't this have to do with what the locker plant puts on that package and the precautions they use in processing the meat. It would apply to something more than just the farmer killing a yearling or some pig would it not?

Mr. MAGDANZ. This, Mr. Chairman, may be entirely correct. The exemption-I cannot find it-providing for slaughter for personal use that is done on a custom basis for a producer is also exempt, provided the locker plant does not buy the meat or buy part of it or anything of that sort. I would acknowledge that this may be a

protective bit of language here, because if a producer delivers an animal to a custom slaughterer in the locker plant, there isa lways the possibility that some of it would slip out of his hands and thus be misbranded and get into channels of commerce. There is no question about that.

This is not a very profound objection, so far as we are concerned. It is not that serious. We would not pursue our position in connection with it, if, for any reason, the committee felt that it ought ot be left in.

Mr. PURCELL. I am not arguing the position of your organization. I merely was trying to find out if there was some reason for including it in the draft of the bill.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Kleppe?

Mr. KLEPPE. Mr. Magdanz, you were here yesterday when we heard references being made to the Food and Drug Administration Act. It was testified yesterday, in reference to the Food and Drug Administration, and here, in your statement, again, on page 5, you refer today to the service of the Meat Inspection Service of the Department and the Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as it refers to intrastate control. My question is this: Maybe this is not a fair question to ask you, and, if so, certainly you can beg off. I am interested in knowing what you know about the enforcement by the Food and Drug Administration as to intrastate commerce, if such applies?

Mr. MAGDANZ. I can say definitely, yes, that it applies. And the exact mechanics, the extent and the degree of this responsibility on the part of the Food and Drug Administration, are a technical thing that I hardly feel qualified to explain the details of. As you recall, Mr. Leonard said yesterday, and please correct me if I misstate here, that when a product moves outside of the channels of intrastate commerce or outside of the federally inspected plants, that they are not able to seize or detain it under their present authority and must rely upon the present authority that the Food and Drug Administration has in order to confiscate unwholesome or adulterated meats. And, so, under these circumstances, I would be very sure that the Food and Drug Administration does have the authority to step in and take possession, if necessary, of such products that they feel may be unwholesome.

Mr. KLEPPE. In other words, you are proposing the same sort of enforcement procedures in this meat inspection law?

Mr. MAGDANZ. We are, sir; we have no objection to the concurrent jurisdiction. We have it now, and it appears to be working. We have said that we would look with favor on eliminating, if it can be done, but we, certainly, would not want to erode the inspection and safety of these products in so doing.

Mr. KLEPPE. I agree with you, that we have been a rather lucky people, in that, basically, everybody in this industry, in this business, have been honorable, but there are a few who make it more difficult; and then we have to tie this together with intrastate transactions and we start to get a little fresher ground. These are the reasons for my questions.

I was just wondering how the enforcement under the Food and Drug Act is working in comparison with the fact that the same recommendations, by and large, are being made here in this bill. These are

the reasons for my questions. I was just wondering how we are going to coordinate these efforts between the Federal and the States without improperly infringing in areas where it may be difficult to enforce. I am very glad to have your observations on this.

Mr. MAGDANZ. Thank you, sir. I think that so far as cooperation between the Federal and the State officials are concerned, under a Federal-State program, so far as that cooperation is concerned, I would see no difficulty at all, provided, of course, that the State law is consistent with the requirements contained in the Federal law.

Now, if we have a State, for instance, that wants to hedge on a point here and a point there, and the law becomes a little outside of those requirements, and they still want to engage in a FederalState program, I can understand how difficulties would arise here, but this would amount to nothing more than the Federal Government refusing to cooperate.

Mr. KLEPPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all.

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Price?

Mr. PRICE. I would like to ask a question of the witness.

I am wondering if you are familiar with the same type of requirements that are put on imported beef?

Are you familiar with any regulations that imported beef come under?

Mr. MAGDANZ. To a degree, sir; not all of the fine points, of course. Mr. PRICE. Would you say that they are asked to meet the same regulations that we require of the producers of domestic meats so far as inspection is concerned?

Mr. MAGDANZ. Are you referring to the practice under which this foreign meat is slaughtered and prepared before shipment?

Mr. PRICE. Yes, and also after it reaches the ports here.

Mr. MAGDANZ. I am sure that I am correct in saying that after the imported meat reaches the United States and it goes to customs and is passed by the inspectors at that point, it then is treated exactly as domestic meat and the same requirements prevail on the imported meat as they do on domestic meat.

Now, prior to the time that it arrives here, I am not able to state definitely the requirements that are imposed by our own Government. We do know, from information, that there are periodic checks made as circumstances in these foreign nations and that there is sufficient surveillance to the extent that our officials are willing to state that the slaughtering and processing conditions are comparable to those that exist here.

I think it would also be correct to say that there may be those of us who may be requesting that they be sanitary, and so forth, but I would not make a definite statement to that effect.

Mr. PRICE. Just for the record, I might say that I have seen some of these plants, myself, overseas, and they are not anywhere near the condition that we require of our own meat plants here. In fact, they are rather sickening when you see them, and they then send their meat into this country, and, under no circumstances, is the inspection equivalent of what we require for our own meats. I think that we need a little tightening up in this area, if we are going to require our own slaughterers to be federally and State inspected.

Mr. MAGDANZ. I would certainly agree with you that we do need some tightening up in that area. And this legislation does provide for

a certain tightening up of inspection in imported products. While I am sure we would like to have all foreign products slaughtered and processed under circumstances identical with ours, or at least consistent with our own here, I would doubt that we would ever be able to accomplish that, as much as we would like to have it, but I am fully aware of the circumstances that you have mentioned, that there is a great deal of need and room for improvement, so far as slaughtering and processing is concerned in foreign countries wanting to send their products to the United States.

Mr. PRICE. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. PURCELL. Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. PURCELL. We thank you very much.

Our next witness is a very distinguished scientist on this subject that has just been brought up.

I am glad to have before us today Dr. M. R. Clarkson, who is now the executive secretary of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

We will be glad to hear from you at this time, Dr. Clarkson.

STATEMENT OF DR. M. R. CLARKSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. CLARKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I have a brief statement which I will present to you. The American Veterinary Medical Association appreciates this opportunity to present its views to the committee, in connection with proposed legislation to amend and extend the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The meat inspection program, to assure the wholesomeness of meats moving in commerce, is one of the oldest and strongest veterinary activities of the Federal Government. It is the model for similar programs in the States and in many foreign countries.

We understand that the committee has under consideration H.R. 1314, H.R. 1321, and H.R. 6168. Our comments are directed to the provisions of H.R. 6168, introduced by Congressman Smith of Iowa. We understand that it supersedes H.R. 1316, previously introduced by Congressman Smith. Also, it appears that the provisions of H.R. 6168, covering cooperation with the States, contemplate a far more comprehensive program of inspection for meats in intrastate commerce than is provided in H.R. 1321.

We are glad to see that H.R. 6168, if enacted, would preserve intact the essential provisions of the current Federal Meat Inspection Act. Although the act was first passed in 1906, there have been few changes in the intervening years, because the statute, buttressed by several Supreme Court decisions, provided the underlying authority for flexibility in administration, with ample powers of regulatory action by the Secretary. Thus, it has been possible for the Department to cope with changes in the meat packing industry, varying patterns of the spread of animal diseases, new threats posed by the possibilities of residues of drugs, pesticides, and other chemicals, the developing technology of meat-food production preparation, and dramatic changes in consumer preferences for meats. We trust that in the consideration of this legislation, to confer additional powers upon the Secretary of Agriculture, there will be no impairment of the flexibility of adminis

trative action which is so necessary to the day-to-day conduct of a viable meat inspection program.

Our Association feels that there are three general criteria against which the proposed legislation should be measured:

1. Does it maintain the excellent quality of the Federal meat inspection program?

2. Does it provide for realistic Federal-State cooperation which will support and enhance the quality of the total program?

3. Does it provide clear, uncomplicated, lines of authority and responsibility for administration of the act?

Our comments will be concerned with these points.

On page 21, lines 20 and 21, it is not clear whether the phrase "by him and members of his household and his nonpaying guests and employees" provides an additional area of use for which there would be exemption from the inspection requirements of the act, or whether these uses must take place in the household of the owner. It is suggested that the comma following "owner" be deleted, or that the last phrase quoted above be deleted in order to avoid the interpretation that meat for use by the nonpaying guests and employees of a manufacturing company, or of an airline, would be exempt from inspection.

The provisions of paragraph (c) on page 22, lines 15 through 18, are not readily applicable to products prepared by farm slaughtering and for home consumption under paragraph (a) of section 23, but more logically apply to the products exempted from inspection requirements under paragraph (b) of that section. It is suggested that the section be amended by the elimination of paragraph (c) and the incorporation of the provisions of that paragraph as an additional sentence in paragraph (b).

On page 25, it is suggested that the words beginning after the comma on line 16, and continuing on through the end of that section be deleted as requiring unnecessary surveillance by the Secretary over the regulation by the States of storage and handling facilities under State jurisdiction.

The most urgent need for amendment of the proposed legislation involves a number of language changes to eliminate the provisions for dual jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. Chairman, the Meat Inspection Act is enforced by procedures which are far different from those used in the enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Every hour of the day, meat inspectors working directly with the slaughtering and processing crews in the packing plants, authorize placing the stamp of approval of the Secretary of Agriculture on large quantities of meat; or, conversely, they deny this approval and require that the meat be condemned and destroyed, or held for further attention.

Regulations and instructions must be clear and uniform. On the effective date of any new regulation, the changes are put into effect without delay by the inspectors in the meat packing plants.

Clear and untrammeled lines of authority and responsibility are necessary for the guidance of inspectors, and for the handling of appeals by packers and others who are affected by the inspection procedures. Day-to-day guidance of inspectors and prompt appeals cannot be handled effectively by committee, nor can they be handled