Page images
PDF
EPUB

rejected on the floor of the legislature by a 30 to 1 vote for indefinite postponement. State Senator Maurice A. Kremer, chairman of the Agriculture and Recreation committee and co-sponsor of the bill initiated the move to drop LB-344 after discussing the subject with Dr. Charles Durbin, director of veterinary research, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C.

The traffic in raw meat from fallen carcasses continues throughout Nebraska and so does the controversy.

[ocr errors]

(NOTE. The other articles in the document are on file with the committee.)

Senator BYRD. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. GAUGER, VICE PRESIDENT, LEXINGTON RENDERING CO., LEXINGTON, NEBR., AND CLIFFORD L. JOHNSON, WEST POINT RENDERING CO., LEXINGTON, NEBR.

Mr. GAUGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, gentlemen, in your consideration of an effective and realistic meat control bill, concern for public health safety is obviously the prime motivation. Your concern in this area is very encouraging to Mr. Clifford L. Johnson, owner of West Point Rendering Co. and myself, operator of Lexington Rendering Co. For over a year we have enlisted all our available resources from our two small companies in an attempt to keep dead animal rendering plants, similar to ours, from trafficking raw meat from carcasses fallen otherwise than by slaughter.

Why are we so vitally concerned? Because we in the rendering industry are in a position to see, perhaps better than anyone else except possibly practicing veterinarians, the potential health hazards involved in using this kind of meat. We are in daily contact with animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter. We see and handle animals which have had infections such as botulism, salmonellosis, anthrax, and rabies. Some are victims of poisoning and others of viral diseases. A large percentage have had antibotics and other drugs and are retaining drug residues. Many carcasses have begun to putrefy before being picked up. To stuff this kind of meat in a can scares us. It is not economically feasible to inspect these fallen animals to guarantee rejection of those which should not under any circumstances be used for either human consumption or pet food.

Nebraska's State agriculture department has issued seven permits allowing for the boning, cooling, carting, and canning of this fallen. meat by canned pet food manufacturers. This Nebraska State agency is winking at both Federal and State statutes in its encouragement of this traffic.

The Federal law to which reference is made is the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, part 21, section 402, item 5, which defines food as that which is consumed by man or other animals and further states that such food shall be considered adulterated if it is in whole or in part the product of a diseased animal or an animal which has died otherwise than by slaughter. The State law refers to Nebraska's section 54–744, which raises a presumption of disease in all fallen carcasses and requires such carcasses to be burned, buried, or dry rendered.

Apparently these two statutes have created a vast gray area because Federal agencies appear torpid in their enforcement while my own State's agriculture department winks at State laws. Obviously, Federal legislation directed specifically to this problem is required.

A portion of this Nation's canned pet food is consumed by humans. The economically disadvantaged, particularly those in the South and Southwest-I speak here of the Negro, Indian, and Mexican population-receive little benefit from the small print on the labels of the cans which says, "Not for human consumption." Our moral and medical responsibility to this Nation's 30 million poor demands further protection, especially in view of the current "humanization" approach by the pet food industry in promotional campaigns.

Here I am referring to advertisements which dwell on smell and taste. Surely you all can recall the television ad in which the two women bump into each other while shopping. Upon impact of the two grocery carts, packages of dog food and meat intended for the table fall to the floor. The women then proceed to discuss how difficult it is to distinguish between the two by sight or smell.

You may recall a magazine ad in which the pet food product is placed between two hamburger buns-which I might add is bigger than the baby food industry. It is no wonder that the billion-dollarpet-food industry unofficially admits human consumption of its product.

When rendering plants throughout the Nation are allowed to preserve in coolers any portion of their raw material, it is no wonder that it occasionally is found even at the local meat market sold exclusively for human consumption. Michigan recently convicted 16 individuals and companies for trafficking to human consumption meat originally intended for rendering plants. Colorado and Kansas have had similar experiences.

How many times do pet owners store the unused portion of canned pet food in the refrigerator right alongside the family's next meal? How many times do toddlers enjoy a tidbit from Rover's dish? What are the potential health hazards to humans via pets that consume putrid meat? How many of the Nation's 30 million poor eat canned pet food because of misleading advertisements?

These questions deserve your consideration before concluding the present draft of the meat control bill.

It is our desire and sincere hope that Federal legislation will place the same restrictions upon the use of meat for canned pet foods as it does upon the use of meat for human consumption.

Wyoming is a good example of this. They now incorporate this. Surely it is not unreasonable to insist that society's more fortunate economically exercise their full responsibility to those less advantaged. Just very briefly, I want to go into something else. We went to the expense of polling Nebraska's 320 veterinarians on the practice which our State now refuses to stop. We have thus far had 29 percent response from the poll, and we are still getting results.

Seventy-three percent of these doctors are opposed to dead animal rendering plants maintaining coolers and/or freezers in which to store this meat. The tendency in human nature is quite obvious in this respect.

Seventy-two percent of these doctors think that storing this raw meat in quantities will increase the possibilities for channeling it into human consumption.

I will not go through all of these, but there are a couple of major points.

Only 3 percent of these doctors believe that it is possible to determine beyond doubt that these fallen carcasses are free from disease, harmful drug residues, toxins, and insecticides. And yet 88 percent of all of the doctors polled considered such inspection determination absolutely necessary for all products from fallen carcasses, chilled,

et cetera.

Seventy-eight percent of these doctors considered the most effective control and the least expensive to enforce of this traffic to be specifically prohibited.

I want to make it very clear that the human consumption concern that we have, which the gentlemen from Georgia might well have brought this into their testimony is contained in an article in the Fremont Tribune of Sunday, September 9, 1967, by Tom Tiede, entitled "Dog Food Treat To Some," and he states:

Processed dog food has long been a popular item on the shelves of many backland grocery stores in this area of the nation.

It has nothing to do with pet population.
The Negro folk eat it all of the time-

Explains a shopowner.

They mix it with grits or oatmeal. Sometimes they just spoon it from the can. It may sound bad but, believe me, it's better than some things they eat. We question that.

(The complete article is as follows:)

[From the Fremont (Nebr.) Tribune, Sept. 9. 1967]

DOGFOOD TREAT TO SOME

(By Tom Tiede)

KNOXVILLE, GA. (NEA).-Processed dogfood has long been a popular item on the shelves of many backland grocery stores in this area of the nation. It has nothing to do with the pet population.

"The niggerfolk eat it all the time," explains a shop owner. "They mix it with grits or oatmeal. Sometimes they just spoon it from the can. It may sound bad but, believe me, it's better than some things they eat."

Impoverished families here have been known to swallow the dead meat of almost anything. Small children of the poor sometimes search the sides of roads for slaughtered cats, snakes and forest varmits.

The reason for it all is simple: Hunger hurts.

It hurts the 1,300 Americans who die annually from malnutrition. It hurts the 2 million southerners who are on some kind of U.S. food assistance plan. And it hurts others who hunger anonymously and privately.

Today, in Georgia alone, hunger is hurting an incredible number of people. State Welfare Director Robert Burson estimates that "at least 116,000 men, women and children go to bed hungry here every night."

Heller Reese is one of them. He's 62 and says he can't remember when he had money in his pocket or "my own grocer' meat" on his table.

Ruth Gibson is another. She's 29, has seven kids, no husband, and admits to eating "lots of peaches" because they can be stolen from trees.

Prentice Forbes is a third. He's eight and, according to his mother, "don't know more'n eight or nine words" because he lives on hogshead, pigtails and other garbage that fails to nourish his growing mind.

These three-and the thousands of other-live in the 69 counties of Georgia which have no programs for feeding the starving. Despite the federal money available (up to 75 per cent of food plan costs), and despite constant state urging, the counties refuse to co-operate.

Although Negroes suffer more publicly in the South, the white population has no immunity to hunger-poverty.

One pitiful example is Louis Bunn, 51, an illiterate who resides in the timbered area of Crawford County. Bunn has 10 children, no job and, he says, has "been living on the state since nineteen and forty-two."

Bunn stays in a two bedroom shanty which is near a highway. Tourists often stop, stare dumbfoundedly, shake their heads and dash off in disgust.

Because he is disabled ("I got the grippe real bad"), Bunn is given $205 a month in aid to dependent children. "We eat a lot of dried peas," he says, to stretch the cash, "but if something ever happens, I hurt."

Recently, something did happen. There was a pregnancy in the family and the attending physician demanded $150 cash before he would handle the formalities. Bunn had no alternative but to starve his family.

"The grocer helped out," he says, "but it weren't much."

Bunn is only one of many woebegones in Crawford County-white and black. Over one-fourth of the area's 5,000 population exists on welfare checks and officials feel half of them are in need of food assistance.

The county, however, is relucant to give them anything more. Crawford taxpayers spend $10,000 a year on welfare as it is. A good program, they insist, even a small emergency one, would break their fragile bank.

"Besides," says county commissioner clerk Homer Seagler, "Most of them hungry people... it's their own fault. Why don't they get jobs?"

In all, the southern states have 17 million citizens in economic crises, but only 2 million of them are being helped at the dinner table.

"Anybody can find some kind of food," explains a Georgia motel operator. "It may not be prime beef or like that, but it'll be good enough."

Obviously, that Georgian has never tasted dog food.

Mr. GAUGER. And then from Heloise-from her article headed, "Hints from Heloise"-and I think most of us are aware of her column, she describes a way in which to prepare dog food-for the pet, of course.

I do not wish to mislead you. Let me read this:

Now, here's what I call a dilly of an idea. When you wish to heat a partially used can of dog or cat food which has been refrigerated, let me tell you how to save washing a pan.

After tearing off the label, I set the can over the pilot light on my gas stove. Then, if I have any leftover vegetables (which most pets need), I dump them in the can also, and cover it up and leave it until the can gets warm.

This is just like feeding a baby-not ever too hot, yet it has warmth to it. And it sure beats washing another pan, eh?

The point that we want to make is the proximity of this product to human consumption foods, and the fact that it is a common food among the Nation's 30 million economically disadvantaged. We suggest very strongly that some consideration be given to imposing similar restrictions on the canned pet foods products.

I think that we will not at this time propose any definite language for such an amendment. I think that every Senator and Congressman who shares our concern is in a better position, adequately to make such a draft.

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Gauger. Your attachment will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The attachment, entitled "Poll", above-referred to, follows:)

POLL

(Of all DVM's polled 29% responded as of this compilation-Returns still coming in, November 14, 1967)

1. Are you opposed to dead animal renderers maintaining coolers and/or freezers in which to store meat from fallen stock in 40,000-pound quantities in its raw state?

Yes 73 percent.

No 19 percent.

8 percent no answer.

2. Do you think storing this raw meat in quantities will increase the possibilities for channeling into human consumption despite elaborate control?

Yes 72 percent.

No 15 percent.

13 percent no answer.

3. From your experience what is your estimate of the time lapse between death of an animal and removal of carcass to the processor?

1 to 96 hours.

4. Can farmers and feeders consistently and accurately determine the exact time of death?

Yes 7 percent.
No 90 percent.

3 percent no answer.

5. Do you have any medical reservations regarding this traffic as it relates to human or animal health hazards?

Yes 87 percent.

No 8 percent.

5 percent no answer.

6. In all cases do you believe it possible and practical to inspect the carcasses from fallen animals and determine beyond doubt their freedom from disease, harmful drug residues, toxins, and insecticides?

Yes 3 percent.

No 96 percent.

1 percent no answer.

7. Do you consider such inspection determination absolutely necessary if raw meat from a fallen carcass is to be boned, chilled, stored, carted, and canned as pet food?

Yes 88 percent.

No 3 percent.

9 percent no answer.

8. Would you as a practicing veterinarian be willing to place your professional reputation on the line by participating with a local boning facility in offering inspection services?

Yes 19 percent.

No 70 percent.

11 percent no answer.

9. How much money would you want for such services? $8.00 to $100.00 per hr. (one said $50.00 per animal). One doctor commented that his conscience was not for sale.

10. Could you sincerely recommend to your customers canned pet food containing the product in question?

Yes 9 percent.

No 80 percent.

11 percent no answer.

11. Consider the impact on demand for beef trimmings from packers that average 40¢ per pound when renderers supply red meat at 12-15¢ per pound. Do you believe the livestock market will be hurt if it is flooded with raw meat from animals fallen otherwise than by slaughter?

Yes 66 percent.

No 18 percent.

16 percent no answer.

12. Do you consider the most effective control (and least expensive to enforce) of this traffic to be specific prohibition?

Yes 78 percent.

No 11 percent.

11 percent no answer.

Remarks: All original returns are on file at West Point, Neb., with West Point Rendering Co., and are available for inspection. Contact Donald L. Johnson, phone 402/372-2427.

Please mail to P.O. Box 157, West Point, Nebraska 68788.

(Signature)

Mr. JOHNSON. I just want to point out, as Mr. Gauger stated, that since March 1 of 1958—I have been associated with the removal and disposal of dead animals for 40 years and 17 years of this time I put

« PreviousContinue »