We urge this Committee to request that FSIS document the proportion of inspectors to agency personnel and the proportion of personnel costs for inspectors to other agency personnel costs. We further urge the Committee to investigate whether a greater proportion of agency resources could not be shifted to the inspectors who actually protect the meat and poultry food supply and away from duplicative management layers. Finally, we urae the Committee to require the Agency to justify the increased level of paper shuffling from such procedures as the monthly reviews under the Inspection System Work Plan.

We want to put in perspective the various "new" inspection procedures which have been introduced, such as Total Quality Control, Partial Quality Control, the Streamlined Inspection System, and the upcoming Discretionary Inspection for processed meats, by identifying the rationale and driving forces behind all of these new procedures. These forces and trends are not encouraging for the American consumer:

Since 1979, the amount of federally inspected poultry has almost doubled to over 24 billion pounds.

Since 1970, the amount of meat federally slaughtered has gone up by some 12 percent to some 37 billion pounds.

Since 1979, federally inspected processed food
production has jumped some 28 percent to almost 124
billion pounds.

At the same time, the federal inspection budget has declined in real terms, and the number of inspectors has declined by over 10 percent.

Farlier in our testimony, we addressed the economic forces

driving the meat and poultry industry. Now we can recognize the

other horn of the economic dilemna, budgetary pressures driving the alteration of the inspection process. Dr. Houston, in 1984 testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, admitted that this was driving FSIS new inspection procedures:

"As the Committee knows, over the past five or six
years, FSIS has undertaken maior initiatives to hold
down the costs of inspection." (Emphasis added)

We maintain that the driving force motivating these new inspection processes are budgetary constraints, not improved inspection and improved public health. While we recognize that changing needs and changing public health problems generate the need to change inspection procedure, changing procedures for budgetary reasons is both shortsighted and dangerous.

Thank you.

SWORN APFIDAVIT

OF STEVE HEUTON

A FOOD INSPECTOR USDA-FSIS-MP

1. I hereby swear the following to be true and correct.

2. My name is Steve Heuton. I have been employed by the USDAFSISMPI for a total о nine (9) years.

3. I am a member of the American Federation of Government Employees-AFLCIO, Local 2323 and have been a member of AFGE for nearly nine (9) years. I am Local 2323's Vice-President. AFGE is the exclusive bargaining representative for the USDAFSISMPI. AFGE is concerned about the morale of the employees and the quality of inspection.

4. I have served the USDAFSISMPI faithfully and never have had a disciplinary action taken against me.

5. I am a 057 food inspector. My job is to conduct post mortem inspections on hog and cattle carcasses, during and after evisceration. I am responsible for fincing diseased and contaminated carcasses. I am also responsible for sanitation and sanitary dressing procedures in my area.

6. I fear that reprisal by management will be taken against me because of this affidavit.

7. BACKGROUND- I was assigned to work at Farmland Foods, Denison, Iowa to inspect hog carcasses in October and November of 1986.

8. VIOLATION- Chunks of rust, paint and rubber coating were falling from overhead areas onto hog carcasses, viscera, head table, lard tank and boxed meat area Con & continuing basis. You could observe this anywhere on the kill floor. The size ranged from specks to chunks approximately the size of quarters. When these chunks hit the carcasses and viscera some would break into pieces. 9. FIRST DAY- I took the following action: Jim Utesch (a USDA-FSIS-MPI inspector) and I stopped production. We notified our supervisor, Dr. Jack Amdor, of our action. Dr. Amdor instructed us to allow Farmland Foods to resume production.

: SEVERAL DAYS LATER- My circuit supervisor, Dr. Dores Ross, was in the plant. I showed him the overhead and told him that contaminants were falling on edible products. I told him that I had notified Dr. Amdor of the violation and that Dr. Andor ordered me not to take any action. Dr. Ross replied, "Yes, it does look bad...but I don't care if the whole ceiling is falling. If your supervisor says to let it go, you let it go."

11. CONCLUSION- In order to correct this situation we had to wait until Dr.s Ross and Amdor were out of the plant.

12. We then stopped production for a day on November 5, 1986, and made Farmland Foods clean up the overhead...

13. Although my action was ultimately backed by the assistant area

supervisor, Dr. Brune, I feel that Dr. Ross has held this action on Farmland Foods against me. He reminded me that I would not be promoted unless he approved it. According to our promotion procedures, Dr. Ross is not supposed to have final say on who is promoted.

TESTIMONY OF VERNIE GEE

on

MANAGEMENT OF U.S.D.A. FOOD INSPECTIONS

before the

SENATE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT

May 15, 1987

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommitte:

Thank you for inviting my testimony today. My name is Vernie Gee. I am a GS-7 Level 10 meat and poultry inspector in the Long Beach area office, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). I've been an inspector on the kill floor for meat and poultry primarily beef and pork since March 3, 1968. I am accompanied by my counsel from the Government Accountability Project, Mr. Thomas Devine.

-

For many years I have been challenging filthy conditions and diseased carcasses at meat and poultry plants that received USDA approval for their products. For too long it has been a lonely struggle. Over the last five years, I know that things have gotten much worse. Over the last few years, more and more people seem to have realized that. In March 1985 I submitted an affidavit to the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture. My affidavit is enclosed as Exhibit 1. I also spoke with members of the press and congressional investigators during that time period. A relevant news article and editorial from the Los Angeles Times are enclosed as Exhibit 2. In 1986 I filed a legal petition with the Secretary of Agriculture, enclosed as Exhibit 3. Thanks to the support of the media and of congressional committees such as your own, the struggle to defend basic sanitation standards and public health in the meat and poultry industry isn't as lonely as it used to be.

I am afraid, however, that the public may get the wrong impression that the problems have been solved. Over the last