Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator MONTOYA. I would also like to state for the record that I have received a telephone communication from Mr. Burt Rabinowitz, president of the Colonial Processing Co. of Boston, Mass., who is also a director of the American Meat Institute and speaking also for the New England Wholesale Meat Dealers Association, authorizing me to communicate to this committee his endorsement of my bill with the proposed amendments.

Senator BYRD. That will be received.

Senator Mondale.

Senator MONDALE. In conjunction with their testimony last week the Department of Agriculture officials were requested to ascertain the number, location, and volume of intrastate establishments operated by the Nation's large packers in addition to their federally inspected operations. Eight of the 11 meatpacking firms who were requested to supply information have now responded. Unfortunately, however, the Department of Agriculture did not-this was due to an honest misunderstanding-request information on the volume of meat which moves through this intrastate establishments and the companies have not supplied such information. The nine meatpackers which have responded thus far have listed a total of 95 intrastate meat operations and I underscore that because I think that shows the substantial nature of this practice by which federally-inspected large meatpacking firms have set up wholly owned intrastate counterparts-95 of them— and there is some indication that some of these companies may have listed only their slaughtering and processing establishments and did not list other types of intrastate operations, such as fabricating, beef breaking, cutting, boning, sales and distribution plants.

I think it is essential that the committee have an accurate picture of the extent to which large packers are engaged in intrastate operations and I would, therefore, like to request that the Agriculture Department be instructed to resurvey the 11 companies to assure that all intrastate operations are included and, specifically requesting that the volume in terms of pounds of meat or meat products handled by each plant be included.

You will recall, Mr. Chairman, they did agree to seek this information, but there was a misunderstanding on exactly what we wanted. and I would hope that my request could be relayed to them, with the hope that they could inquire more fully along the lines suggested. Senator BYRD. We will be glad to comply with the Senator's suggestion.

(The information is as follows:)

Dr. R. K. SOMERS,

CHICAGO, ILL., November 17, 1967.

Deputy Administrator, Consumer Protection, Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.:

In response to your inquiry on behalf of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Armour & Co. is pleased to provide the information, as requested. Copies are going to the chairmen of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate subcommittee for their information and the record.

For the record, we wish to set forth Armour's longstanding basic policy and also to offer certain observations which we consider germane.

The Armour policy, which is rigidly enforced, is dedicated to providing the American consumers with wholesome meat products of topmost quality, whether these products are destined for interstate or intrastate commerce.

Armour's corporate livelihood, including that of our more than 30,000 shareholders and almost 40,000 employees, depends on sustaining the consumer's

confidence so that any deviation from this policy is viewed by the company with gravity and is not tolerated.

In all of our facilities, wholesomeness of product is the sine qua non.

All Armour units operate under applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Whenever any meat inspection law may be changed, either by Congress or by the States, to require procedures other than those now existing Armour will, as heretofore, follow such new procedures to the fullest degree. We believe that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will agree that the vast volume of meat product made available daily to the American consumer, whether from Federally or State inspected plants, is the most wholesome of any nation in the world and that the integrity of the great majority of the operators in the meat industry toward the consumer is unquestionable.

It is deplorable that a few operators, as reported in a few instances, would deliberately seek to deceive the public. It is equally deplorable, however, to lead the American public to believe that a few isolated instances, whether inadvertent or deliberate, reflect the purposes of an entire industry and all its people who are honestly and diligently engaged in serving the consumers of this Nation. There is no doubt that those Americans who serve in the Federal inspection service are qualified and are interested in protecting American consumers. However, we believe that State officials are equally qualified and dedicated to their work and should be granted support and funds with which to function.

In other words, we believe that the cruellest consumer deception of all would be to lead the public to believe that only a few Americans are honestly trying to protect the consumer and that the majority in our indusry are dishonest in purpose. We believe strongly that the exact converse is the truth and do not doubt that the Congress shares this same belief.

Armour & Co., therefore, supports the House-passed Purcell bill, together with the proposed amendment by Senator Montoya, which would combine Federal and State manpower and financial resources to provide a completely comprehensive surveillance of all operations regardless of size or volume.

Measures which would seek to grant exemption of similar surveillance to a large number of smail opertaors, as has been proposed, would serve only to foster continuance of some of the very questionable practices which currently are under discussion. We, therefore, submit that the Purcell bill, with the Montoya amendment added, would provide the strongest practical measure since it would more effectively protect the consumer from deliberately deceptive acts by the few, would minimize the cost of the tax burden for the American people, and would permit no exemptions for any operators, large or small.

To respond to your questions: (1) The total volume of Armour beef, pork, lamb, and veal product for the year ended October 28 was 2,988 million pounds. (2) Armour products processed at its nonfederally inspected units is 1 percent of our total volume. Armour's nonfederally inspected meat processing units are located at Bluefield, W. Va., Charleston, W. Va., Garland, Tex., Jacksonville, Fla.. Johnstown, Pa., New Orleans, La., Portland, Maine, Providence, R.I., Roanoke. Va., Rochester, N.Y., San Antonio, Tex., Utica, N.Y., Waterbury, Conn., West Palm Beach, Fla., Wilkes-Barre, Pa. (3) All of Armour's slaughtering facilities are federally inspected. (4) Virtually all carcass fabricating is conducted at our federally inspected slaughtering plants. However, for clarification, nonfederally inspected Armour food service units are located at Honolulu, Hawaii, Los Angeles, Calif., San Francisco, Calif., Phoenix, Ariz., Saginaw, Mich., Pittsburgh, Pa., Detroit, Mich., and these units fabricate slightly more than one-half of 1 percent of our total volume.

We are pleased to make these facts available and any others desired.

In conclusion, may the record show that Armour supports all constructive efforts to safeguard America's meat supply.

CLIFTON B. Cox, Group Vice Presilent, Armour & Co.

Mr. R. K. SOMERS,

Consumer and Marketing Service,

CHICAGO, ILL., November 15, 1967.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SOMERS: In accordance with your request of November 9, 1967 we submit the following information with respect to intrastate plants operated by John Morrell & Co.:

Tom Sawyer Meat Products, 2523 Wabash Avenue, St. Paul, Minn. The Tom Sawyer plant produces approximately 6,300,000 pounds of sausage annually.

John Morrell & Co., 208 Jackson, Oakland, Calif. The Oakland plant produces approximately 6,750,000 pounds of bacon and smoked meats annually. The combined production of both of these plants is less than two-thirds of 1% of the total meat business of the company.

Sincerely yours,

L. J. KURKOWSKI,

Vice President, John Morrell & Co.

CHICAGO, ILL., November 17, 1967.

R. K. SOMERS,

Deputy Administrator, Consumer Protection, Consumer and Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.:

Answering your wire of November 15 and referring to my wire of November 9 to Senator Ellender. At Swift two nonfederally inspected slaughtering meatpacking plants in fiscal 1966, 69,147,000 pounds of meat were produced which was 1.7 percent of the total volume of meat produced by all Swift slaughtering meatpacking plants that year. All live stock slaughtered at these two plants were subject to mandatory State ante mortem and post mortem inspection. At Swift 10 present nonfederally inspected meat-processing facilities which produce hams, bacon, and a wide variety of table-ready meats, and at 18 other such facilities which Swift operated in fiscal 1966 but which are now closed, 72,426,000 pounds of processed meat products were produced in fiscal 1966 which was approximately 12 percent of Swift total volume of such processed meat products produced by all such Swift meat processing facilities. The 12 nonfederally inspected units referred to in my November 9 wire clearly referred only to nonfederally inspected slaughtering meatpacking plants and meat-processing facilities which produce hams, bacon, and table-ready meats. It did not include other facilities which do some fabricating since they are primarily sales and distribution units. However, approximately 3,957,921,000 pounds or 96 percent of all meat sold by all Swift units in fiscal 1966, including sales by sales and distribution facilities which do some fabricating, was originally produced in federally inspected slaughtering meatpacking plants or federally inspected meat-processing facilities.

R. W. RENEKER. President, Swift & Co.

PHOENIX, ARIZ., November 16, 1967.

Dr. ROBERT SOMERS,
Deputy Administrator, Consumer Protection, Consumer and Marketing Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.:

Our processing volume at the five units was about 111⁄2 million pounds. Of the total volume handled by these five units this tonnage would equal about 14 percent. These are the only intrastate units in the company that process meat. H. G. FISHER, Vice President, Meat Division, Cudahy Co., Phoenix.

AUSTIN, MINN., November 16, 1967.

Dr. R. K. SOMERS,

Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.:

During our fiscal year just ended our five nonfederally inspected processing branches sold 10,640,000 pounds of meat products which were processed in those branches. This amounts to somewhat less than three-fourths of 1 percent of our company's total sales tonnage. The great bulk of bacon slicing or other processing involved meat from federally inspected slaughtering plants.

GEO. A. HORMEL & Co.
R. F. GRAY.

Dr. ROBERT K. SOMERS,

WATERLOO, Iowa, November 16, 1967.

Deputy Administrator, Consumer Protection, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Consumer and Marketing Service, Washington, D.C.:

Regarding your wire November 15, this confirms that all noninspected fabricating plants now in operation were furnished in previous telegram. Total volume handled by these plants during 1967 fiscal year was 32,958,000 pounds. This represents 0.0607 percent of total. Tonnage processed in these plants consisted of beef which represented 0.0250 percent of total and all other products representing 0.0357 of the total were primarily products sold in original containers packaged and furnished by our main federally inspected plant.

R. K. SOMERS,

Consumer and Marketing Service,

GEORGE E. HAWK,

THE RATH PACKING Co.

CHICAGO, ILL., November 16, 1967.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.:

We sent airmail answer on November 13 to your November 9 wire. Further answer is that our non-Federal inspected plants annual volume is 11 million pounds which is 16 percent of our total volume of all plants.

MICKELBERRYS FOOD PRODUCTS CO.

CHICAGO, ILL., November 16, 1967.

Dr. R. K. SOMERS,

Deputy Administrator, Consumer Protection, Consumer Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.:

One hundred percent of Wilson's slaughter and dressing operations are in federally inspected plants. Better than 95 percent of our processing done in federally inspected units.

Dr. R. K. SOMERS,

ROY V. EDWARDS,

President, Wilson & Co., Inc.

DETROIT, MICH., November 17, 1967.

Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.:

Re your reply to your telegram of November 15, 1967, we submit the following information: Our telephone report and confirming letter, dated November 10, includes all plants operated by Hygrade Food Products Corp., that are not federally inspected, that process and fabricate meats. For the 52-week period, ending October 28, 1967, the total tonnage of all meat products produced by all Hygrade plants not under Federal inspection (all listed in my reply to your telegram of November 9, 1967) is 57,000,632 pounds. This is 6.95 percent of total tonnage of all meat plants operated by Hygrade Food Products Corp. However, of total of 57 million pounds over 65 percent of this tonnage was federally inspected meats received for further handling.

WELLS E. HUNT,

Vice President, Hygrade Food Products Corp. Senator BYRD. I have a letter from Senator Hart dated November 15, 1967, which I should like to insert into the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:)

U.S. SENATE.

Washington, D.C., November 15, 1967.

Hon. B. EVERETT JORDAN,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation,
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Senate Office Building, Wash-
ington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to see that consideration is being given to meat inspection legislation by your Subcommittee and I appreciate this opportunity to share my thinking with you.

Earlier this year I joined in cosponsoring Senator Montoya's bill, S. 2147. Since then I have studied Senator Mondale's bill, S. 2218, which he introduced subsequently and most recently I have followed the debate in the House of Representatives.

To my mind, the proponents of the Smith-Foley amendment, H.R. 12145, made convincing arguments for their point of view. Their approach embodies all the features of the House-passed bill, H.R. 12144, which in essence is the Montoya bill. The one difference is that even though a meat plant's products are sold entirely within the state in which they are processed, the plant would fall within the interstate commerce definition if its yearly sales were more than $250,000.

I believe a clear case can be and has been made that a meat packing plant or slaughterhouse grossing this amount of money is inextricably bound up in interstate commerce and should be considered as such. This, incidentally, is in no way a departure from present practice with respect to defining what constitutes interstate commerce in other areas. For instance, with both labor laws and minimum wage law, the determination of whether a plant is in interstate commerce is made according to volume of business and not just its flow across a State line. This classification goes to the very heart of the issue and I believe is basic to any consideration of adequate meat inspection legislation. The limitations that occur from using our present interstate commerce definition were forcefully enumerated by Representative Neal Smith during House consideration of the bill on October 31. He said:

66

‘... we have a very, very peculiar definition of interstate commerce in this meat inspection law. The definition is with reference to who sells across State lines, no matter if the cattle come from 1,000 miles away and across 10 States, if the meat is sold in the same State where it is slaughtered, it is not subject to Federal inspection. This is true regardless of how large the plant is.

"In other words, the buyer can have the largest chain of stores and supermarkets in the world but they can still sell meat that does not come under the Federal inspection law.

"Mr. Chairman, this is a very peculiar definition that does not exist in any other major Federal law."

I am in complete agreement with Representative Smith's position respecting what should legitimately constitute interstate commerce. And by expanding the definition of interstate commerce to include those plants whose intrastate transactions amount to more than $250,000 annually, 97 percent of all meat slaughtered and processed in our country would come under Federal inspection. This is in sharp contrast to our present situation where 15 percent of slaughtered meat and 25 percent of processed meat is not federally inspected and is subject in some instances to only a haphazard kind of State and local inspection or none at all. By making this logical extension of what constitutes interstate commerce, the remaining provisions of the House-passed bill make even more sense. It is indeed appropriate that there be a cooperative Federal-State inspection system to assist the States in meeting their responsibilities by offering both technical aid and financial assistance up to 50 percent of the total cost of the State's program.

It is equally important to remember that H.R. 12144, the legislation passed by the House, requires nothing from the States in terms of their inspection procedures. It only attempts to facilitate further inspection by providing financial and technical incentives, but it is up to the State to decide whether it will in fact avail itself of this assistance. In contrast, the use of the expanded definition for interstate commerce will guarantee that 97 percent of the meat slaughtered and processed in the United States will be effectively and uniformly inspected. This is no minor distinction, I might add, for the plants not presently covered by Federal inspection but which would come under this expanded definition of interstate commerce-just those plants alone-annually produce not less than 8.7 billion pounds of meat products and slaughter 19 million head of livestock. In other words, this isn't peanuts we're talking about.

And I would go one step further with respect to the 3 percent of the meat that would remain non-federally inspected. Where both H.R. 12145 and the Housepassed H.R. 12144 left it to the State's discretion as to whether it would participate in this program, I fully concur with the additional stipulation that Senator Montoya has suggested-if a State fails or refuses to take action to protect its consumers, then Federal action will be taken.

Clearly the adequate inspection of all meats and meat products is too important to leave to chance. And just as clearly the record has shown. over the past 60

« PreviousContinue »