we all endorse we are concerned here with what we can emerge with from this Congress, from this session of Congress. It is late in the session. The House has spoken on one version of meat inspection and I am trying to improve upon it, and to give my version acceptability so that in conference we can have a consensus ad item, a meeting of the minds. I am afraid that if we go further than that that we will hit an impasse and emerge with no legislation at all. And that is my concern as of this moment because if you were to ask me whether I was for outright Federal inspection I would say "Yes," but another thing that concerns me is that traditionally-and this is as it should bethe police power under the Federal Constitution rests with the States. This is primarily a police power function which the Federal Government has assumed under the semblance of regulation of interstate commerce. Now, constitutionally, the Federal approach and the premise upon which the Federal approach is based is sound, but we have quite a few Members in the Congress who are very jealous of the Federal Government assuming strictly State functions. My bill is designed to effectuate a compromise-a middle approach, to tell the States, in other words, you assume your police powers in behalf of the consumer in partnership with us we will give you the benefit of our know-how, our advice. We will help you financially to assume that police power in conformity with standards that would meet the high standards that we have set for ourselves, or else we will step in and take over your police power under the interstate commerce clause. That is what my bill does. I wanted to make that clear for the record, Miss Furness, so that from this colloquy will emerge a complete understanding that I am trying to do what is possible under the circumstances and not trying to have a principle put in and then having it broken down in the lateness of the session. Miss FURNESS. If I may reply to that, I think a very interesting thing has happened in the last few months. Each bill that has been suggested seems to be ahead of the one before it. Now, the Purcell bill, goodness knows, is a great deal better than no bill at all. It is a move in the right direction. I again favored the Smith-Foley bill over the Purcell bill. And I think that you are to be greatly complimented for the fact that your bill is away ahead of either of those. And I am sure that your motives and your sense of being realistic are both tried and true. I must, however, still say that I favor the Mondale bill, simply because of the time element involved. I think that 60 years has been plenty long enough to wait and I do not think that we should all be looking askance at frankfurters and sausages for the next couple of years. Senator MONTOYA. After I heard Senator Mondale explain the composition and the component parts of frankfurters, I have not ordered any frankfurters. [Laughter.] Senator BYRD. Are you finished? Senator MONTOYA. Yes, sir. Thank you. And thank you, Miss Furness. Senator BYRD. Before calling on the Senator from Minnesota, may I ask you this, Miss Furness? You mentioned 60 years. This is a long time. In your judgment have the States made determined efforts to bring about and have enacted adequate and strong meat inspection laws, and, if so, how many States? Miss FURNESS. Well, there are a lot of States that have meat inspection laws. Twenty-nine States have mandatory laws; 11 have voluntary laws and it breaks down where two States have very limited statutes about meat inspection-that is only about meatpacking. I think that the problem is that even some of the States that have the laws have not enforced them very well, so that we have a hodgepodge of situations where the laws vary, the inspection varies, the conscientiousness of the inspection varies, and as I stated, in some States the inspectors are even hired and paid for by the companies whom they inspect, and that is always, you know, well, an open question. Senator BYRD. I assume, though, that a good many States do have effective, strong laws. Miss FURNESS. Yes, they do, but you know I am for consumers in every State and I cannot say "Peachy" for this State, but I am going to ignore the others, because a few are doing well. I do not think that this is a case that we can fool around with. Senator BYRD. Do you happen to know this-and if you do not I would not blame you at all-how many additional employees would be required by the Department of Agriculture to enforce the Mondale bill, assuming it were enacted. Miss FURNESS. I am sorry-I simply do not know that. Senator MONDALE. I am, of course, most grateful to you for the endorsement of my proposal, and also the President of the United States and to this administration for what I think is an important and courageous position. As one who served on the old Consumers Advisory Council that was created by President Kennedy, and as one of those who proposed originally to the new President, Mr. Johnson, that there be created a special adviser to the President on consumer matters, today's performance, which I think is very impressive, by you, fulfills the hopes and the dreams that we had that there might be at the highest level in the American Government an effective spokesman for the American consumer. I think it is long overdue. I think it is a high water mark and I think the focus of your statement today is a magnificent one and from it will flow, I am sure, true protection for the consumer. I was particularly pleased with the emphasis that you placed on the fact that the consumer today, apart from limiting himself or herself to meat sold with the Federal inspection stamp, has no way of knowing the quality, the wholesomeness of the meat, nor does he or she know or have any way of knowing what kind of additives are included in the meat, how much water, how much cereal, how many other cheap fillers are in there—and cheap as you put it to the packer but expensive to the consumer-and no way of knowing of the truthfulness of the label. More than that, yesterday it was disclosed that there is no comfort in purchasing at a large, reputable chainstore or a large, reputable grocery store or even buying nationally branded items, because they, too, have been shown, upon laboratory analysis, to have resorted to practices that would never be accepted if they were federally inspected. And, of course, the person that goes to a restaurant has no way of telling, because even not a Federal label is there to which they can refer. In fact, I think that that point has not been well known in this country. I think it is better known today. It argues, I think, in a compelling way for the need of a total solution of this problem so that the consumer can be sure of wholesome, unadulterated meat, and that the packages tell the truth. The second point that I think that you made and it is peculiar that those of us who have traditionally taken the consumer's point of view, find ourselves arguing that we should be more fair to the large packers. And I was perplexed by why any substantial packer, selling across State lines and subject to Federal regulation, would not immediately come forward and ask, because of competition involving the same costs, that these others be required to assume the same responsibility, because one of the first principles of trade regulations is uniformity, fairness. If you impose high standards on A, we should impose those same high standards on B and quite apart from public protection, wholly on a fair competitive basis. I am glad that you made that point. But I think now we know why that is true. Because we had initially assumed that these large packers were only selling in interstate commerce. We now know that they have 95 plants that they have established as wholly owned subsidiaries that operate exclusively in intrastate commerce, and thus they are able to resort to these reduced standards. And inspections by Federal inspectors have shown that in some of those plants-I do not think that we have the total numberbut in some of them they have resorted to practices which would never be permitted in their federally inspected plants. And, finally, I want to express my appreciation to you for pinpointing the problem and the need for immediate application of these rules. Why should an intrastate plant be given 2 more years to stuff their hams with 30 to 40 percent water? What reason is there for that? Or other kinds of cheap additives, adulterants. We had testimony yesterday of the use of ascorbate which I call a healthy formaldehyde. It makes the meat rosy and pleasant and healthy looking. Actually it is stale meat. It is another form of misrepresentation which you can resort to if you are out of the clutches of Federal inspection. Why should that continue for 2 more years? And for all of these reasons I just want to express in the strongest of terms my appreciation to you for the courage you have displayed and for your leadership in this field. Miss FURNESS. My pleasure, Senator Mondale. Senator MONDALE. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator BYRD. Have you finished, Senator Mondale ? Senator MONDALE. Yes. Senator BYRD. I asked a moment ago if you had information as to the number of additional employees that would be required by the Department of Agriculture to enforce the Mondale proposal if it were enacted and you stated that you did not have it with you. Could you supply it for the record? Miss FURNESS. I will be happy to get that figure for you. (The information referred to follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. BETTY FURNESS, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, DEAR MISS FURNESS: In response to your question as to the number of inspectors needed under the Mondale Bill-our estimates are that about 4,000 additional inspectors would be required to staff the approximately 15,000 plants brought under the Federal inspection program. I would point out that under the Mondale Bill all slaughter and processing plants would come under the Federal system of inspection. Only as the individual States developed and met the standards of the Federal program could they become eligible to conduct their own intrastate inspection programs. This would require the Department to obtain enough inspectors initially to cover all intrastate plants. Sincerely yours, RODNEY E. LEONARD, Senator BYRD. Thank you. I think that I might say at this point in the proceedings that I personally feel that it is very important that some legislation in this field be enacted at this session of the Congress. And the committee this morning authorized the Chair to consult with Senator Mondale and Senator Montoya in an effort to arrive at the earliest possible time at which the committee could report this legislation to the floor. There are some difficulties involved as to the timing of it, but the committee will make an effort to act as rapidly as possible on one or more or a variation of the proposals that have been submitted. And we want to thank you again for your joining us today. Miss FURNESS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very heartened indeed to hear that you really do want to get a bill at this time, because I think that there has been so much talk and fuss that I do not think that the housewife will understand if there is no bill. Senator BYRD. So far as this committee is concerned, I think that the committee as a whole feels that some legislation should be enacted, and that it should be enacted at this particular session of the Congress. Miss FURNESS. I am delighted to hear that. Thank you. Senator MONDALE. I have a statement for the record submitted by the commissioner of agriculture, Mr. Russell G. Schwandt, for the State of Minnesota and attached to it a list of the meat advisory board. Senator BYRD. The statement will be received and made a part of the record at this point. (The documents referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF RUSSEL G. SCHWANDT, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF MINNESOTA, ST. PAUL, MINN. I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Mondale and the members of this committee for this opportunity to express my views as Commissioner of the State Department of Agriculture of Minnesota relative to Federal-State meat inspection. The objectives of the meat industry and the regulatory authorities (local, state and federal) are identical. It is our responsibility to ensure that we have wholesome meat products, processed under sanitary conditions, and that the product is truthfully and informatively labeled. The industry and all agencies involved in meat inspection have an important function to perform in any program that is designed to accomplish the above objective. The role of states in meat inspection is a vital one. The Federal law applies to products moving in interstate commerce. The state is responsible for products in intrastate commerce. In addition to the work that is performed by the Department of Agriculture in Minnesota, many of the larger muncipalities have developed strong regulatory programs and cooperate very closely with our Department in the administration of our laws, rules and regulations relating to meat inspection. The wisest and most economical way to guarantee quality meat products in all stages of processing and marketing channels is to coordinate Federal and State programs. We are in favor of a Federal meat inspection program which provides a method of comprehensive meat inspection without having the Federal Government preempt the jurisdiction of the states over intrastate commerce. The processing of meat is a major industry in Minnesota. Of all animals slaughtered, 97.3% is under Federal inspection which accounts for more than 71⁄2 million animals. We have adopted a program which is known as the "Minnesota Approved". Processed meat carrying this legend means among other things that all of the meat that was used in this further processing was Federally inspected. This accounts for better than 175 million pounds annually at the present time. It would be libelous to imply that the 2.7% that is not Federally inspected is not wholesome. As Commissioner of Agriculture in Minnesota, charged with the enforcement of the food laws of our State, I am proud of the job which has been done by the employees of the State Department of Agriculture, who in cooperation with the municipalities have done a most outstanding job in protecting the consumer. Our meat industry, which in addition to the larger packers is composed of many small locker plants, sausage makers, and some 406 slaughtering establishments, is to be commended for the keen interest which they have shown in doing a good job. Minnesota consumers can be confident that the meat they purchase from reputable dealers who are duly licensed in their community is wholesome. The meat industry has been seriously injured by being subjected to an undue degree of unfavorable publicity. Today many consumers are deeply concerned about the quality of their meat. There is a wave of hysteria which all concerned must ignore in the development of sound legislation. In Minnesota we recognize the need to extend compulsory meat inspection to all slaughter plants. To accomplish this objective about two years ago I established a Meat Advisory Board. This board is composed of 22 eminently qualified members from the total industry. Attached you will find a list of the members of this Board. The membership includes representatives of large packers, sausage manufacturers, small slaughter establishments, frozen food companies, Minnesota Veterinary Medical Association, USDA and the University of Minnesota. This has been a very active group. At a meeting held in St. Paul on November 9, 1967, the board voted unanimously to support S.F. 2147. They also voted to support the amendment which would impose Federal inspection on any State which did not adopt a satisfactory meat inspection program within a reasonable length of time. I am attaching to this report a copy of the wire which was sent to Senator Mondale and signed by Mr. Ray Schweigert, President of the Schweigert Meat Company and chairman of the Minnesota Meat Advisory Board. In this wire the board requested that the time limit be extended to a minimum of four years. In Minnesota we have biennial legislative sessions. It will take some time to fully implement a mandatory inspection program in our state. Our meat processing plants are widely scattered. Many are part time or small volume operations. This additional time is essential to properly provide a complete program of inspection in each and every meat processing and slaughtering plant. A mandatory meat inspection bill has been prepared by a special task force. This was presented to the full board on November 9, 1967, and received unanimous support. This proposal will be presented to our next session of the legislature. We have had assurance from many of our legislators that they will give this legislation vigorous support. I am confident that the 1969 session of the Minnesota legislature will adopt compulsory meat inspection. After its adoption it is obvious that it will take an additional two years to fully implement the program. |