Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir. Senator MONDALE. First of all, how many plants did they inspect or look at? Mr. LEONARD. Bob, do you have the figures on that? Mr. SOMERS. In the 1967 survey, they looked at 180 plants. In the 1962 survey, I think the number was close to 1,000. I don't have that figure. Senator MONDALE. So the 1962 survey was more thorough than the 1967? Mr. LEONARD. Oh; yes, sir. Senator MONDALE. It is my impression that the 1962 survey showed that in virtually every jurisdiction the instances of unsanitary meat, unwholesome meat, unsanitary packing conditions, or processing conditions, the introduction of additives such as water and other fillers, and the misleading labeling requirements were rather widely found in all jurisdictions to be beneath the standards of Federal inspection that would be required if they were under Federal inspection? Mr. LEONARD. That is right. Senator MONDALE. And that even in those States where laws had been adopted that appeared to be the same as the Federal law, through administrative inadequacies or through inadequate appropriations, there nevertheless developed practices that were substantially below that required through Federal inspection? Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir. Senator MONDALE. Now, we have in addition to this in the record already, I believe, the fact that a great number of States have laws that are totally inadequate in themselves, and I think in your testimony you testified nearly 10 million head of commercially slaughtered livestock, or 5 billion pounds of commercially processed meat products, are sold without any form of Government inspection, Federal or State. Is that correct? Mr. LEONARD. That is correct. Senator MONDALE. Now, as I understand the theory of the Purcell bill-this is why I think the suggestion by Senator Montoya this morning is so important-it assumes that the way to deal with this inadequacy by which the American consumers can unsuspectingly buy unwholesome meat or meat puffed full of fillers that are designed to cut the cost to the processor, and unsanitary slaughters, and processing conditions, and the rest, would be corrected if grants were made to the States to help them meet the cost of implementing an adequate system. But there is nothing in that proposal that brings about a different kind of remedy if this financial incentive fails? Mr. LEONARD. That is right. There is no stick. Senator MONDALE. Now, are there not in fact many, many reasons why a local plant, even a large substantial local plant, would decide to limit its sales to a single State, in order to avoid the cost of Federal inspection, such as the construction of the plant and the sort of things that must go into a plant that meets Federal standards-proper walls,. nonporous construction, proper cleansing facilities, rest rooms, and the rest, for the workers to keep personally clean, and the other, ante mortem and post mortem, facilities for post mortem and ante mortem inspections. And, secondly, is it not the case that the nonfederally inspected plant can make great savings by taking meat that you call in the 4-D categories-sick and disabled, and the rest-and pass it off on the consumer as wholesome meat; there is tremendous saving there; and, thirdly, there are tremendous savings if you can put these inexpensive additives, such as cereals and water and so on, in vast quantities into these meats and pass it off to the consumer; and also certain advantages if they wish to resort to misleading labeling; so that there are strong competitive reasons why a packing firm, a processing firm that stays out of the clutches of the Federal inspectors, will have cost advantages over his federally inspected counterpart? Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir; there are decided advantages. Senator MONDALE. So, in addition to the cost problem to the States, if a State proceeds to try to adopt meaningful legislation and gets the appropriations necessary to carry out a system comparable to the Federal program, they may still meet enormous resistance in their own States from the local plants that enjoy that competitive advantage? Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir. Senator MONDALE. So, it is not just a competition of financial incentives, and I think you testified directly to this-there is also this competitive advantage that they enjoy. Now, there was some point made that these local intrastate plants are small plants, but isn't it a fact that we now have evidence that many of the largest meatpackers in the world; indeed, the largest meatpacker in the world, Swift, has established intrastate plants outside of the reach of Federal jurisdiction, that are large, that have tremendous quantities of meat being slaughtered and processed, in order to take advantage, presumably, of these competitive costs, if you can stay outside of the Federal program? Mr. LEONARD. The company referred to has many plants that are not federally inspected and, of course, a great many other firms do, too. Senator MONDALE. Do you have figures for the record as to the number and locations of intrastate plants which are subsidiaries of major packinghouse firms that you could submit for the record? Mr. LEONARD. If the committee so desires, yes; we have this information. It is not information that we acquired through the meat inspection program. This is information that we acquired through packers and the stockyards administration. It is information that we have obtained with the agreement that we would hold it confidential. If the committee wants it, we would be happy to comply. Senator MONDALE. I am unaware of those problems, but I must say what bothers me is that Members of Congress have inquired directly by letter to some of the major meatpacking firms and asked to be informed as to the number of locations of their wholly owned subsidiary plants located in intrastate commerce, and they have been refused this information. (The replies referred to are as follows:) CHICAGO, ILL., November 9, 1967. Senator HARRY F. BYRD, Jr., This is to confirm the conversation of Mr. D. M. Jenkins of Swift & Company's Washington Law Office with Mr. Cotys M. Mouser, Chief Clerk of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Mr. Jenkins conveyed my regrets that I had to decline your kind invitation to appear before the hearings on the Meat Inspection Act amendments. Swift & Company as a member of the American Meat Institute, the nation's leading meat packing trade association, supports the views that will be expressed by Mr. Aled P. Davies, Vice-President of the American Meat Institute at tomorrow's hearings in which he advocates adoption by the Senate of S. 2147 sponsored by Senator Montoya with the amendments added by the House of Reprsentatives as incorporated in HR 12144. Speaking further for Swift & Company, we are in favor of this forward-looking legislation and further agree in principle with the suggestion to strengthen the bill as suggested by Senator Joseph M. Montoya of New Mexico. Please make this telegram a part of the record. R. W. RENEKER, President, Swift & Co. PHOENIX, ARIZ., November 6, 1967. Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, JR., U.S. SENATE: I regret that I will be unable to accept your invitation to attend any of the hearings scheduled November 9 through 15. I strongly urge that the Montoya bill No. 2147 be adopted for the best interests of all concerned. The American Meat Institute is acquainted with our views on this subject and their representative will represent our views before the subcommittee. Mr. Corys M. MOUSER, ELIAS PAUL, President, Cudahy Co. AUSTIN, MINN., November 7, 1967. Chief Clerk of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Unable to accept Senator Byrd's invitation to subcommittee hearings on meat inspection bill account prior commitments. Aled P. Davies, vice president, American Meat Institute will testify and present our point of view. GEO A. HORMEL & CO., President. AUSTIN, MINN., November 7, 1967. Hon. B. EVERETT JORDAN, Washington, D.O. DEAR SENATOR JORDAN: As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture you are aware of the fact that the House has completed action on the Purcell Bill. H.R. 12144, passing it by a decisive vote. We are in favor of inspected meat. We think that the public health requires that all meat be subject to good inspection-federal, state or municipal. Recent grossly unfavorable press reports make the passage of improved meat inspection legislation this year particularly desirable. Such publicity is damaging to the entire industry, including companies like our own whose slaughtering operations have been inspected by the U.S.D.A. for many, many years. When the public loses confidence in the integrity of the meat supply, it can't help having an effect on demand which in turn is reflected in prices which can be paid to the livestock producer. It is our understanding that the Purcell Bill (H.R. 12144) was identical to the Montoya Bill (S. 2147) until certain perfecting amendments were made to the Purcell Bill prior to its enactment. We urge that similar amendments be made to the Montoya Bill so that this forward looking legislation may be approved by your committee for immediate Senate action. Sincerely yours, R. F. GRAY, Chairman of the Board, Geo. A. Hormel & Co. Senator MONDALE. It seems to me this is important to us in the deliberations that we have here. I would like to have the information for the record. I suppose this is something that you would have to decide. Senator ELLENDER. Why should such information be held under cover? Mr. LEONARD. As I recall maybe Charlie can bring this out Mr. Bucy. The provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act with respect to reports and investigations are made applicable to the Packers and Stockyards Act, and this information would be obtained under the Packers and Stockyards Act, and the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act provide that this information shall not be made public unless the Commission-and in our case, the Secretary-made an affirmative determination that it was in the public interest for this information to be released. No employee of the Department could release it short of that, without placing himself subject to prosecution and dismissal from service. Senator MONDALE. If the company itself, however, would waive that, you could disclose this information? Mr. Bucr. Yes. The provision in the law is for the protection of the person giving the information and, therefore, if they waive it, there would be no problem. Senator MONDALE. Could I ask if the Department would check with the concerns involved and ask for a waiver, and if they will waive it, submit it for the record, because I think it is important? Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir. Senator MONDALE. I think if we could possibly have the volume of meat being processed and packaged and slaughtered, that would be helpful, if they would agree to turn it over. Senator ELLENDER. Under that process, is it possible for, let us say, Swift & Co. to make its favorite hams in Chicago and send it all over the country on a certain brand? Mr. LEONARD. Well Senator ELLENDER. And then have another plant within a State where the same labor would be used, and yet the ham is adulterated somehow? Mr. LEONARD. They could. Senator ELLENDER. I would be surprised at that, for a company with such a reputation as that, and I don't see why they would object. (The information is as follows:) ARMOUR & Co., Chicago, Ill.: The Senate committee considering meat inspection legislation has requested the Department to ask you if you would provide a list of the intrastate meat establishments you operate. These would be those establishments not operating under Federal inspection and should include any establishments doing slaughtering and/or processing. We indicated we would contact you. Otherwise they may request the Secretary to provide this information from other sources. R. K. SOMERS, Deputy Administrator Consumer Protection, Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (Identical wire sent to following 10 addresses :) Hygrade Food Products Corp., 11801 Mack Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. Oscar Mayer & Co., 1241 North Sedgwick Street, Chicago, Illinois. Mickelberry's Food Products Co., 801 West 49th Place, Chicago, Illinois. (The replies are as follows:) R. K. SOMERS, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AUSTIN, MINN., November 13, 1967. All Hormel slaughtering plants are federally inspected. All Hormel branches conducting processing operations are federally inspected except for those located in Atlanta, Birmingham, Montgomery, Ala., and Chattanooga. Three of these four branches are using meat from federally inspected slaughtering plants exclusively. The fourth from time to time uses some meat from a State-inspected plant. Three of these branches are in leased facilities, and all are operated in compliance with all State and local requirements processing at Atlanta and Birmingham will be consolidated in major new federally inspected plant to be completed in Atlanta in 1968. More than 99 percent of meat products sold by Hormel comes from animals which have been subjected to federally inspected slaughter. GEO. A. HORMEL & CO. AUSTIN, MINN., November 13, 1967. R. K. SOMERS. Deputy Administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture In listing nonfederally inspected Hormel processing branches we overlooked Gartner meatpackers in Orlando. This nonfederally inspected establishment which we took over late this summer uses 100 percent federally inspected meat in its processing operations. Mr. R. K. SOMERS, Deputy Administrator, GEO. A. HORMEL & CO., CHICAGO, ILL., November 10, 1967. Consumer Protection, Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.: All Wilson & Co. slaughtering is done in plants under Federal inspection. Processing of hams and sausage is conducted under Federal inspection at Shreveport, La., branch. Limited processing of hams and sausage is conducted under State inspection at following branches: Birmingham, Ala. Atlanta, Ga. Pittsburgh, Pa. Scranton, Pa. Wilson, N.C. Allentown, Pa. Chattanooga, Tenn. Parkersburg, W. Va. Limited processing of hams only conducted under State inspection in branch houses: New Orleans, La. Worcester, Mass. Paterson, N.J. Rochester, N.Y. Syracuse, N.Y. Mineola, Long Island, N. Y. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. |