Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Mr. OREAR. Also, I previously mentioned an exhibit which I desire to have made a part of the record. I do not have it with me at the present, but I will supply it for the record.

Senator BYRD. Without objection, that will be made a part of the record at its appropriate place.

(For exhibit, see p. 178.)

Mr. OREAR. The poor housekeeping practices evident in these photos provide shocking evidence that the State-city cooperative inspection program operative in that great market for several years has not been 100 percent productive, although Illinois is considered to have one of the better State inspection programs.

The committee will see trash at the doorways and loading docks, a breeding ground for vermin and a hideaway for rodents. The committee will see unwashed walls, a knife stuck in a crack where salmonella organisms may well be flourishing. The committee will see meat fallen to the dirty floor. The sawdust and grime would make a Federal inspector blanche at the sight.

These photographs are not the product of painstaking detective work on our part. They are the product of a morning stroll through a busy meat fabricating and wholesaling center situated about 1 mile from city hall.

These instances are cited only to make the point that stories of unsanitary conditions in noninspected meat plants are not unbelievable among those who know the industry.

While popular indignation centers around the issue of sanitation of facilities and the wholesomeness of the product, there is a less publicized aspect of the problem which is probably closer to the heart of the industry's resistance to the Federal presence. This aspect has to do with product content.

In a revealing exchange between Mr. Aled Davies of the American Meat Institute and a meatpacker attending the 1962 session of the AMI, Mr. Davies remarked, in part:

The Government has labeling authority which it is constantly increasing, and this is where we quarrel. We do not quarrel much with the Government's sanitation requirements; by and large, those regulations are not the areas of disagreement.

For some clues as to the significance of the Government's "labelling authority," we may refer to a speech by Dr. Dan Schlosser of the Indiana Board of Health delivered to Indiana meatpackers in September 1963. His speech refers extensively to his enforcement problems with deceptively misbranded meat products being sold within the State which contained excessive additives and extenders.

At the present time

Dr. Schlosser said—

a concerted effort is being made to eliminate the labeling of a product, "Breaded Pork Tenderloin," since we know that none of the manufacturers is using the true pork tenderloin.

Dr. Schlosser reported that 308 samples of meat and meat products were examined for compliance with the requirements of State regulations during the year, and that 80 of the samples were found to be in violation for excessive amounts of nonfat dry milk and/or cereal.

In addition-
He said-

34 of these 80 samples were found to contain added moisture in excess of 10 per cent. Operators of establishments are first issued a warning letter and resampling, if they are found to be in violation of the regulation, a notice of hearing is issued for them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for selling an adulterated or misbranded meat or meat food product.

I assure the committee that were these establishments functioning under the authority of the USDA, the inspector on the spot would have tagged the lot and there would have been none of such "adulterated or misbranded" product sold.

This, then, is a largely hidden issue in the conflict over the extension of the Federal authority into that 25 percent of processed meats and meat food products which now annually escapes the USDA's surveillance and control.

Today's meatpacker has learned much in the way of tactical maneuver and defense when the bombs begin to land. When the Clarkson report fell upon the industry in 1963, it came as a veritable bombshell. Industry leaders began at once to build themselves a bomb shelter. The strategy was to disperse the forces through rapid creation of State meatpacker associations which would lobby aggressively in the State legislatures for State inspection programs. They reasoned that the mere existence of State programs would deflect the full force of an anticipated growth in public demand for a cleanup through wider Federal jurisdiction-and Federal inspection is tough inspection.

The Purcell bill of the House, with its "Federal-State cooperation," its total reliance on voluntarism on the part of the States, and the vagueness of its definition of the criteria which the Federal authorities are to use when deciding whether a State's program is worthy of a Federal subsidy, is the fruition of that defensive industry strategy. Even so, the States have been extremely reluctant to adopt mandatory legislation, and even more reluctant to appropriate the money to make it work. While the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has been an active lobby force behind the Purcell bill, it can hardly be assumed that the association speaks authoritatively for the appropriation committees of the legislatures of the 50 States, and they are the ones who hold the 50 different keys that must be turned to make the Purcell bill work. We heartily endorse the Mondale bill's basic premise that the Federal Government assert original jurisdiction, yet waive administration to the States where they are willing to accept the responsibility.

It is our conviction that the Purcell bill and any other which leaves vague or weakly drawn the powers of the USDA in relation to assuring the quality of performance in the State programs would leave the entire inspection program severely if not fatally cripped. It is our opinion that any bill which fails to place a "backup" authority in the hands of the USDA in the event a State shirks its responsibility, or may find the burden too heavy to bear, is something of a fraud upon the public. Lawmakers have been heard to say that they get little mail from the public on this issue. That is because the public has lived for so long under the illusion that its meat is being inspected by the Federal Government for so long that the measure of its peril

has not yet dawned upon a trusting people. If the Congress now proceeds said fanfares to pass an "iffy" inspection law whose greatest virtue is a resounding, confidence-inspiring name like the Wholesome Meat Act, then the public in State after State will continue to munch hamburgers in blissful ignorance of the snuff spit, and the meat on the dirty floors, and the salmonellae that live in the meat grinders.

And when the folks at home are struck in the night by a sudden siege of nausea, stomach cramps, diarrhea, and fever, they will no doubt blame it on the "stomach flu," but a more likely diagnosis would be "something I ate."

That concludes the remarks of Mr. Helstein, and I offer myself to the committee for interrogation. My own authority, if such there be, is that I am a former packinghouse worker myself, and I have specialized in following this particular problem since 1960.

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Orear. You spoke mostly in regard to the Purcell bill-in opposition to it?

Mr. OREAR. Yes.

Senator BYRD. Do you oppose the Montoya amendment?

Mr. OREAR. Yes, sir; because, in our judgment, it does not speak to the essential question of a strong authority of the Federal Government to interpose itself to get immediate protection for the consumer in the event the problem appears.

And we further oppose the Montoya bill, because, if I may refer to one of these pictures, I cannot see any reason how a Senator or a member of the industry-a responsible member of the industry-can ask the public of Chicago to wait 2 more years, 3 more years, before the meat is picked up off of the floor. I think that we should move decisively and expeditiously to protect not only Chicagoans but the people of all States.

Senator BYRD. Thank you.

Senator Mondale? Any question, Senator Mondale?

Senator MONDALE. Mr. Orear, I wish to express my appreciation to you and the Packinghouse Workers for supporting my measure, but, more importantly, for the leadership which you and your organization have shown in this field.

One of the questions we have is: Will the States now respond? I think that it is significant that the testimony of the Meat Cutters and now of the Packinghouse Workers, the two organizations whose members work in the plants, confirm the fact that it is a serious problem, a problem that needs correction, and I would assume that both organizations have, for many years, been urging the State legislatures to do this job. Is that correct?

Mr. OREAR. That is quite true.

Senator MONDALE. What has been your response?

Mr. OREAR. Procrastination. We have gotten the same response that many of the industry spokesmen, who speak with a much heavier voice in the State legislatures than we do, that it is too expensive, or that it is not important to us. Any number of complications seem to stand in the way, sir.

Senator MONDALE. But the result has been that despite the urging of the organization that represents the people in the plants who seem to know as well as anybody what goes on, despite the fact that you

have repeatedly taken the position for strong protection it has not been forthcoming?

Mr. OREAR. That is right. And we see no real evidence that the States will now shape up.

Senator MONDALE. Well, I am grateful to you for your statement. Mr. OREAR. May I make one other observation, Senator Mondale? And that is that the Federal meat inspector finds himself in a very anomalous situation in a place like the Chicago open market where he stands in two or three establishments that are within Federal inspection, and he is surrounded by a motley crew of houses that operate under the State and city inspection, if we may call it that; and he is trying his best to make his own employer, where he is dealing, shape up and do right, and across the street and next door, and kitty corner is somebody else where conditions are deplorable, and it is perfectly obvious to anybody who can see. And the meat inspector finds himself in a very embarrassing situation to have to say "Spend some money and get this thing straightened up. You may not do this; you must do that." And from the point of view of any sort of efficiency and reasonable inspection procedures, it would seem to me that there ought to be lodged within the Federal inspector the authority to step across the street if he sees the need for it and to say "Look, there is muddy water dropping from the ceiling on that meat. Clean it up. Remove the trucks. Get the meat out from under the drip," and not have to deal in some way back through channels to get around Robin Hood's barn to someone else who should say that.

Senator MONDALE. The irony of it is that many of those same plants that the Federal meat inspector cannot inspect are subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. OREAR. Indeed, sir.

Senator MONDALE. And where health is involved, the Federal Government is powerless, but where management-labor relations are involved, it has jurisdiction.

Mr. OREAR. That is correct.

Senator MONDALE. And that is an anomaly.

Mr. OREAR. That is one of the anomalies. That is one of the many anomalies in government.

Senator MONDALE. Thank you.

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Orear.

The Chair submits for the record on behalf of the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clark, testimony in support of S. 2147. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony in support of S. 2147, of which I am a co-sponsor, because I believe that we can afford to wait no longer for legislation assuring that the meat which Americans are consuming daily is as wholesome as they believe it to be. Because of the urgency of the problem, I heartily endorse Mr. Montoya's proposed amendment to the bill, which would authorize federal inspection in states failing to establish, within a reasonable length of time, their own inspection systems meeting the standards of the Federal Meat Inspection Program.

« PreviousContinue »