Page images
PDF
EPUB

chore which would be eliminated at very little cost. The cost of inspecting the livestock and the slaughtering facilities is insignificant compared to the cost of the harm which may be done by sale of uninspected meat.

As has been pointed out to you, I am sure, the harm is not only to the health and well-being of the consumer. The harm is also to the economic well-being of this $16 billion industry. The use of unwholesome, adulterated, or mislabeled meat and meat products in competition with wholesome, properly inspected meat and meat products creates unfair competition for those in the industry who deserve the confidence of consumers. The unscrupulous producer is given an unfair advantage over the honest producer.

The increasing amount of processed meat and meat products sold in today's market has aggravated the problem. Here there is the greatest opportunity for fraud and deception. Adulteration and deterioration of these meats is most difficult to detect. Processed meats can be treated with chemicals and preservatives that make spoilage or the presence of disease producing organisms difficult, or even impossible, for the consumer to detect. The color of these meats can be, and frequently is, improved by the addition of chemicals. Water is frequently used as an extender. The consumer needs, indeed, must have professional protection. How else can she be sure of what she is buying and eating? Yet, it is only through a strong inspection system utilizing good laboratory facilities that the use of chemicals and additives can be detected. Dr. M. R. Clarkson of the Department of Agriculture who made a 49-state survey states, "Federal inspection prevents the substitution of inexpensive materials such as gums, alginates, and cereals used to cut costs of production."

The need for a stronger, more effective, and more uniform meat inspection program has been amply demonstrated. Yet the House of Representatives only recently voted against such a strong program. We now look to your Committee and to the Senate as our last hope in the fight for clean meat. Our objective is complete coverage of all meat products. We feel that S. 2218 would assure this. This Bill has made adequate allowance so that states developing strong programs, equal to the Federal inspection machinery, can handle their own intrastate meat inspection.

The National Consumers League, therefore, urges that you promptly report this Bill and hasten its passage. We appreciate the opportunity to present to you our views on this vital legislation.

MOUNT VERNON, N.Y., November 14, 1967.

Senator WALTER MONDALE,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Consumers Union of United States is delighted to respond to your request for an expression of opinion concerning S-2218, a bill to establish a Wholesome Meat Act, which you introduced in the Senate on August 3rd, 1967.

Consumers Union is a non-profit organization established in 1936 under the laws of the State of New York. Our monthly magazine, Consumer Reports, now goes each month to more than a million families across the United States. Our headquarters and laboratories are located at Mount Vernon, New York. For many years we have been vitally concerned with consumer protection in the field of foods.

As early as 1961 we called attention to the laxity which had appeared both on the state and federal levels in the adulteration of ham with water-the pumping of hams. At that time we described the deliberate and conscious evasion of federal law on the part of packers. We indicated that, while 85% of the total pork slaughtered was slaughtered in federally-inspected plants, interstate packers made a travesty of the Federal Meat Inspection Act simply by shifting a part of their processing sequence from their federally-inspected plants to local uninspected plants. We added that most of the states were not adequately equipped to supervise or control meat processing and concluded that anything less than uniformly high standards of inspection of sanitary conditions and regulation over the use of chemical additives could not be tolerated. We asked the United States Department of Agriculture to seek whatever new legislation may be required to close this glaring loophole in our federal meat inspection laws.

(The Great Ham Robbery, Consumer Reports, March 1961, pp. 120-125; August 1961, pp. 462-464; November 1961, pp. 594–595.)

In September 1964, in our test of frankfurters, we called attention to the deterioration of quality and commented that some meatpackers' consciences, even if they have come a long way from the "jungle" Upton Sinclair wrote about, are still not strong enough, CU's tests indicate, to prevent transgressions of standards when official inspectors aren't looking over the packers' shoulders. "Federal standards are the minimum to assure the public the meat supply is safe, wholesome, and truthfully represented," the USDA said this year in a report to Congress. These standards are enforced by mandatory continuous inspection of all processing of meat for interstate commerce. But of an estimated 10 billion frankfurters consumed annually in this country, about one-third [including many sold under well-known national brand names] escape USDA scrutiy by remaining an intrastate product."

We continued: "Even as products made and sold within states, however, frankfurters come under meat inspection regulations in 34 out of the 50 states. Doesn't that go a long way toward keeping packers honest? Not in the opinion of the USDA-and not by the evidence of CU's tests. Perhaps more sorely lacking in many states, the Agency says, is continuous inspection during the processing of meat products." We concluded that "the results of CU's tests of eating quality suggest the practicality and desirability of US quality grades, especially for foods consumed in as great a quantity as hot dogs. Without belaboring the issue, CU must point out once again how badly needed are federal grades, used at the retail level, for processed foods in general." (Consumer Reports, September 1964)

Another example of CU's continuing concern over the meat problem emerged in our discussion of the case of the "overstretched hot dog" which appeared in the October 1966 issue of Consumers Reports. There we called attention to the action of New York State in permitting the appearance of an economy grade of frankfurter and bologna which reduced the meat requirements from 83% to 71% through the addition of "extenders" and allowing in frankfurters and bologna the pumping of 21% added water instead of 13% in the "economy grade.” These instances are cited to call attention to the fact that the Mondale Bill addresses itself to long-standing abuses which were dramatically underlined in the Clarkson Report of January 1963. From the evidence, it is abundantly clear that the current system of relying upon a patchwork of federal and state meat inspection has not provided the consumer with a unform and effective system which would give full assurance that meat products are wholesome and produced under sanitary conditions.

In reading the Mondale Bill, Title 1 appears to plug the major loopholes in our national meat inspection system in an effective manner. Under Title 3, however, enforcement of Title 1 may be waived by the Secretary of Agriculture whenever he determines that state inspection systems afford adequate consumer protection. This waiver clause includes provision for an analysis of state laws and regulations and, by inference, a periodic check upon the administrative and enforcement procedures. It also calls for subsequent periodic audits so as to be sure that state standards remain adequate.

While the continuation of such a dual system of control may have desirable political overtones, it is our considered judgment that this constitutes a somewhat costly patchwork compromise arrangement which cannot give the consumer effective assurance of consistently high inspection standards. The arrangement is unquestionably a marked improvement over the present situation in which a sort of "Gresham's Law" seems to be operating, to undermine the position of superior meats, with consequent erosion of standards and quality deterioration. Yet, as Senator Mondale well points out, "The commerce clause of the United States Constitution, and a long line of Supreme Court decisions, places ample power in the United States to assume the full responsibility for protecting the consumer from diseased, tainted, adulterated, and misbranded meat and meat products." It would seem to us logical that in bringing up to date our meat inspection laws, it would be far simpler and far more effective to strike Title 3 from the Mondale Bill.

Whatever the deficiencies of the Mondale Bill, however, it starts with a correct principle-the assumption of the need for a uniform federal standard. It permits waivers of federal enforcement only when adequate state laws exist and can be certified by the Secretary to be well enforced. The Montoya amendment to S-2147,

in contrast, is unsatisfactory as it reverses this procedure and, in effect, permits federal intervention only after elaborate and time-wasting procedures. The Secretary would be faced with the necessity of developing corrective action on a state to state basis. The present unsatisfactory situation would not be speedily rectified and we would at best be left with a confused situation of federal and state standards.

Sincerely,

COLSTON E. WARNE, President, Consumers Union.

STATEMENT OF OAKLEY M. RAY, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEED

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

The language of the proposed amendments to the Meat Inspection Act is so broad that it could be construed to apply to manufacturers of livestock and poultry feeds who utilize processed animals byproducts as a source of valuable nutrients in the production of feeds. These processed animal byproducts are defined in the official publication of the Association of American Feed Control Officials and include such items as meat meal tankage, meat and bone meal, blood meal and feed grade animal fat. These products are not used and are not suitable for use as human food. The products have been subjected to appropriate processing such as grinding, cooking and drying. This processing is performed before the livestock and poultry feed manufacturer acquires the ingredients.

Feed ingredients and manufactured livestock and poultry feeds are regulated by the "feed control" agencies of the states and by the federal Food and Drug Administration. Both ingredients and manufacturered feeds are required to be adequately and accurately identified in accordance with nationally established rules and terminology.

The acquisition and use of processed animal byproducts in the manufacture of livestock and poultry feeds in no way presents any problem with respect to the effective regulation of our meal supply as contemplated by the proposed legislation. Therefore, we wish to request modification of the proposed language, or an appropriate statement included in the Committee's Report to indicate that the proposed amendments are not intended to have any applicability to manufacturers of livestock and poultry feeds with respect to their acquiring or using processed animal byproducts in the manufacture of feeds. Such action would not affect the objective of the proposed amendments and would serve to preclude regulation which would serve no useful purpose.

STATEMENT OF MRS. DOROTHY S. WHEELER, SECRETARY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, GREENBELT CONSUMER SERVICES, BELTSVILLE, MD.

My name is Dorothy Wheeler. I am a housewife, and Secretary of the Board of Directors of Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc., which is the largest consumerowned retail cooperative in the United States. I have been authorized by our Board-on behalf of our 19,000 member families-to submit this statement in support of legislation to strengthen the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

Our Cooperative is vitally interested in the various legislative proposals being considered, and the effect such legislation will have on the wholesomeness of this Nation's meat supply.

First and foremost, we are consumers. We are greatly concerned about the tremendous volume of meat products sold for human consumption with little or no inspection to insure sanitary processing and truthful labeling. Quite frankly, it is appalling to us that any meat is sold to the unsuspecting public without adequate inspection.

Second, among other business enterprises, our Cooperative is engaged in the retail grocery business. At the present time, we operate 21 supermarkets in the metropolitan areas of Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, and in Westminister, Maryland, which serve thousands of shoppers, both members and non-members. We anticipate gross sales of nearly $40 million this year-approximately 20 percent of which will come from the sale of meat products.

As consumers who are in business to serve ourselves and the public, it is of vital importance to us that we have complete confidence in the products on our

supermarket shelves. Because of the complexity of modern marketing, the best assurance we have that meat products are wholesome and truthfully labeled is the Federal Meat Inspection Program.

Thus, it is of twofold importance to us that all meat products be properly inspected. Further, we believe that every step necessary must be taken to stop unfit or adulterated meat products from reaching consumers.

I will not undertake a section-by-section analysis of the respective bills and/or amendments before you. Rather, I would like to comment generally on these proposals.

We strongly support S. 2218, sponsored by Senator Mondale of Minnesota, which would extend Federal meat inspection immediately to all meat products regardless of whether they move in interstate or intrastate commerce. Further, we highly commend Senator Mondale for his efforts in behalf of the consumer. We urge the entire Congress to follow his lead, by putting the consumer first— and casting aside the self-serving interests of the meat packing industry and the territorial jealousies of State officials.

The record of the present Federal meat inspection program is, for the most part, excellent. It serves as a model for the world. There is no State inspection program in existence that can match it for thoroughness in protecting the consumer. We have every reason to believe that it could be administered effectively and fairly to all if so extended, and thus provide all consumers with absolute protection for all the meat they buy.

The consumer has the utmost confidence in the Federal program now. This same high degree of confidence cannot be placed in State inspection programs generally. You have heard enough evidence of the abuses and filthy conditions in non-federally inspected plants that we need not repeat them again. However, it should be noted that if one were to go back in history and read the Congressional hearings in 1906, when the present Meat Inspection Act was being debated, one would find great similarity between the charges of exaggeration and sensationalism levied against proponents of that Act and the protestations of members of the industry being heard today. In fact, one can hardly distinguish those 1906 hearings with some of the current testimony.

The charge has been made that the Federal Government has no business injecting itself into plants not now subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act, This position is ridiculous for several reasons.

First, the distinction made between "interstate" and "intrastate" commerce under the present Act is over 60 years old. It literally reeks with antiquity! It's based solely on the idea that meat coming from a plant must cross a State line before the packer is subject to the Federal act. The live animal must have crossed 10 States getting to the packing plant, but this has no bearing on whether the meat from that animal is in interstate commerce.

Second, our whole economy-including the livestock and meat industry-has changed greatly since this distinction was made at the start of this century. Consequently, our modern laws have long recognized that while products may not physically cross a State line, they have a major effect upon interstate commerce. Federally inspected meats compete side-by-side in retail stores with non-federally inspected means. Why, then, should they not compete on an equal basis? Why should they not be subject to the same standards of inspection for wholesomeness, sanitary processing, and truthful labeling? The obvious answer is that they should!

Third, many packers and processors including some of the Nation's largestingeniously use this antiquated distinction to circumvent inspection of products so as to cheat the consumer. They buy the animal in one State; ship it live to a federally inspected plant in another for slaughter; ship the carcass to a nonfederally inspected subsidiary in still another State that does not have adequate inspection for fabrication into meat products, and then sell meat products which have been purposely adulterated or misbranded to the unsuspecting consumer. Their actions are premeditated—make no mistake about that. Yet, these packers would have you believe that they are not operating in "interstate" commerce under these circumstances. That is preposterous!

Another reason cited by those who oppose Senator Mondale's bill is that the States can do the job. Frankly, we are not impressed with the record of the States. They have had over 60 years to demonstrate their ability, and, for the most part, have failed miserably. There are still some States without any meat inspection law whatsoever, and only vague, lackadaisically enforced general food

laws. Some have voluntary laws, which are apparently designed primarily to give packers an advertising slogan-if one trade representative's testimoLy is accurately interpreted-but little or no effective inspection to protect the con

sumer.

True, there are some States with mandatory laws, but the question must be asked-how does their enforcement of these laws stand up to scrutiny. The statute books are filled with mandatory laws of one kind or another, but having a law on the books doesn't mean that it is adequately enforced.

The record is convincing that most States with mandatory laws do not have adequate enforcement. Oh, their directors of agriculture will give you flowery assurances, but the words are empty-they are not backed up by deeds. It reminds us of the mother of an ugly baby-to her, that baby is still the most beautiful child in the world. The mother's instinct is too strong to see otherwise.

The same is true with directors of State meat inspection programs. They have no alternative but to assure you everything is as it should be. The proof of the pudding, however, is to examine the number of full-time veterinarians and meat inspectors on duty in their State inspected plants at all times those plants are in operation.

Do they look at every single animal before, during, and after slaughter? Do they maintain constant supervision over meat processing? Do they approve every label before it's used, and check to make sure that the product it is used on is the same identical product described by the label? Do they make frequent daily inspections of sanitary conditions, and require buildings and equipment to be cleaned at least daily? Do they maintain tight control over chemicals, preservatives, and other additives? Do they adequately insure that inedible products cannot be mixed in with the good? Do they maintain competently staffed laboratories to provide the scientific basis for making highly technical decisions? Are the veterinarians and inspectors appointed on the basis of ability, or under the "spoils" system?

These are the questions that must be asked, and their answers should be well documented with facts and figures-not just flowery assurances.

One trade representative, when testifying before your subcommittee earlier. boasted proudly about how his organization sought to obtain good State meat inspection in States wherein his members operate. One of those States was Washington. Yet, Congressman Foley-during full House debate on meat inspection legislation exposed the program in his home State of Washington as falling far short of the standards expected by consumers.

Others in the industry, and the States themselves, point with pride to the supposedly energetic efforts among the States to upgrade their laws and programs. The truth is, that many of these States did little or nothing until two years ago when the U. S. Department of Agriculture proposed legislation virtually identical in concept with the amendment proposed by Senator Montoyawho, incidentally, should also be commended for his efforts to obtain meaningful meat inspection legislation.

That legislation proposed in 1965 did more to get the States moving than anything else. And, that action was generated solely out of fear on the part of the States and the industry that their cosy game of fooling the public would be exposed and stopped. Frankly, the efforts by the States to get moving is reminiscent of the bridegroom who is dragged kicking and screaming to the alter for a shotgun wedding.

Further, that legislation was killed by a mutual admiration society of the States and the industry. Among the primary leaders in its death was the American Meat Institute, whose representative earlier testified before you that he now has gotten religion and supports the same concept which he fought so hard to defeat. This change of heart is ironic!

It should be noted, also, that both the States and the industry first opposed the forerunner of the House-passed "Purcell" bill, but later grudgingly supported it when circumstances pointed to possible passage of the stronger Smith-Foley amendment-just like the bridegroom who found himself face-to-face with the shotgun.

We supported the Smith-Foley concept when testifying before the House committee, and would do so again if a compromise measure becomes absolutely necessary. The public has not received adequate protection in the area of intrastate meat inspection for too many years. This cannot continue indefinitely, and

« PreviousContinue »