and we, looking for ways to meet our regulatory responsibilities more efficiently, decided to piggyback on quality control systems already in place for data on which to base inspection decisions. The use of quality control was a big step because it was a beginning of a trend where industry and government began working together toward a common goal.

The idea of a regulatory agency using industry generated data to make decisions on whether a plant is meeting inspection requirements was a revolutionary concept and one which generated a lot of controversy from all sides. Companies that were not already using quality control claimed setting up such systems would cost too much money. Inspectors claimed they would lose control over the plant's operation by not generating their own data and observing every procedure in the plant.

Senator LEVIN. Doctor, I'm wondering if I could just interrupt you for one moment because we are going to have a scheduling problem here. We have a vote coming up on a cloture petition. You, I understand, have to leave at a certain time as well. Is that correct?

Dr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir. The Department is celebrating its 125th birthday.

Senator LEVIN. Well, for whatever reason.

Senator COHEN. Are you serving Maine lobster or chicken? [Laughter.]

Dr. HOUSTON. I'm sorry?

Senator COHEN. I'm just teasing.

Senator LEVIN. You could pick that up on a replay.

Dr. HOUSTON. Okay. [Laughter.]

Senator LEVIN. Can you quickly summarize. Here's the problem. At 10:25 we're going to recess for five minutes, and each of us would like to have about 5 minutes of questions with you. So if you could quickly summarize, we could then get our total 15 minutes of questions in and then you could leave and then we could go vote. Senator PRYOR. Well, just a minute now. What time does Dr. Houston have to be at the birthday party?

Dr. HOUSTON. Senator, it's important that I be back there, but I think this hearing is more important.

Senator LEVIN. What time do you have to leave, Doctor?

Dr. HOUSTON. I would like to leave at 10:30, but I want to assure the Subcommittee that I will stay here as long as is necessary. I will send someone back to the Department to tell them that I will not be there if that's the case.

Senator LEVIN. That's fine. Can we do this then. If you could bring your testimony to a close now, we'll each take 5 minutes and then at 10:25 we'll decide whether or not to have you stay while we go over and vote. Would that be all right with everybody?

Okay.

Dr. HOUSTON. But I want to assure you that I'll remain here as long as possible for a full line of questioning.

Senator LEVIN. Fine. Thank you.

Dr. HOUSTON. I'll just quickly move then to the last page or page and a half of the testimony and I'll talk about the microbial issues. The issue of microbial control has received much attention in the media lately, and it is an issue that the National Academy of Sci

ences addressed both in the 1985 study and in the study just released this past Tuesday.

The Academy confirms the need to focus more attention on hidden hazards that cannot be detected through traditional inspection procedures. We feel that the second report responds thoroughly to the issues raised concerning how effective the current inspection procedures are in reducing contamination and, with your permission, we would like to submit a copy of the report for the record.1

Senator LEVIN. It will be made part of the record.

Dr. HOUSTON. Despite the recent attention salmonella contamination has received, the issue of microbial contamination is certainly not new. And, in fact, when Senator Stevens was talking about Dr. Daniel Salmon, he goes back to the turn of the century when that organism was isolated and named after him.

Today we know that approximately 3 to 5 percent of beef, 12 percent of raw pork and 35 percent of broilers contain salmonella bacteria. These figures may seem high, but in reality salmonella is difficult to control in raw food.

Scientists from 18 countries who met in 1984 at the International Symposium on Salmonella agreed that all foods of animal origin are potentially contaminated by salmonella and that such contamination levels cannot be expected to change greatly in the near future. In addition, they agreed that the eradication of salmonella in domestic animals is not attainable at this time, except for specific infections.

Even though salmonella receives much of the attention, we know it is not the only microorganism we need to be concerned about. One of the pathogens we are watching most closely is Listeria monocytogenes. Although Listeriosis is rare, it has a 30 percent fatality rate. Although no meat or poultry products have been involved in any reported outbreaks, more than 80 people in California died from an outbreak traced to contaminated cheese.

Our strategy in the area of microbial contamination has been a three-pronged approach that combines research regulation and consumer education. In the area of research salmonella has been our top priority since 1981. We have pursued this research in virtually all phases of livestock and poultry production, slaughter and processing.

In the area of regulation we are developing a proposal that would allow companies to use special labeling if they operate microbiological control programs that use approved techniques to reduce contamination in raw products. Companies would have to identify areas in production and processing where microbial hazards exist and decide where in the system controls need to be applied to prevent food from being contaminated.

Recognizing that the Government and consumers are partners in protection, USDA has had an extensive program to educate consumers about food safety for almost 20 years. In 1986, for example, almost 3 million of the agency's food safety publications were dis

1 See p. 255.

tributed. The agency's Meat and Poultry Hotline was made toll free in 1985 and has responded to about 30,000 inquiries since then. We also educate those who prepare food for large groups, such as hospital and nursing home patients. We are now developing a new, comprehensive educational program for food service workers to improve safe food handling in commercial kitchens.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and Dr. Crawford and I will be happy to answer questions.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Several European countries have significantly reduced contamination in their meat and poultry products by issuing a tough standard on the bacterial count in animal feed.

I'm wondering whether or not we should imitate that success story?

Dr. HOUSTON. That is certainly a critical control point in the control of salmonella, and it is one of the points that was elaborated on in the academy study which came out Tuesday. The Academy developed a full study of the poultry production processing system and pointed that out as a point that needs better control.

While that does lead to a decrease of course of salmonella in the feed supply, I don't know that it can be totally eliminated. The countries which you are talking about are mostly-

Senator LEVIN. Well, just briefly, are you going to be taking a position on that as an agency and making recommendations? Dr. HOUSTON. We will be.

Senator LEVIN. When will you be doing that?

Dr. HOUSTON. I'm not sure. It might be as early as June in another round of hearings that will be held.

Senator LEVIN. Would you send to this Subcommittee your recommendation on that when you've arrived at it?

Dr. HOUSTON. Yes. A point I wanted to make here though. I think you are alluding to Sweden and some of the work that has been done there. They have some rather rigid control systems in place over cattle herds and also poultry and they have spent enormous sums of money in indemnifying farmers when they have destroyed herds or when they have destroyed flocks of poultry. So it has been very costly.

But the point I want to make is that I believe Sweden's population, if I recall correctly, is around 8 million people. Yesterday I looked at the reported cases of salmonellosis in Sweden for I think it was fiscal year 1984 or 1985 and it was 2,700 cases. If you take that and project that to the cases here in the United States, it would be more than is reported here in the United States projected on a population basis.

Now I know that there may be different reporting mechanisms. In fact, we looked at the UK, we looked at Canada, we looked at the United States and-▬

[Dr. Houston confers with staff.]

Dr. HOUSTON. The U.S. had 56,000 reported cases and Sweden had 2,700. If you project that to the U.S. population, it would be 88,000 cases. The UK reported 12,000 cases, and if you project that to the U.S., it would be 60,000 cases using our population as a base. And, finally, Canada reported 9,000 cases, and that would come to

116,000 cases based on that. Now I realize that there may be different reporting systems.

One other thing, Sweden claims that most cases of salmonellosis in their citizens arises from other countries, that they travel out of Sweden and then bring the organism back with them and then they get ill.

Senator LEVIN. Doctor, I believe your agency cut back the inspector work force last year by about 400 or so inspectors and that vacant jobs were left unfilled. I'm wondering if that is true and why they were left unfilled. Is that an OMB directive or what, if in fact that's accurate?

Dr. HOUSTON. That is accurate and we changed our inspection procedures and therefore did not need to fill those vacancies.

Senator LEVIN. Was that an OMB directive that authorized that positions not be filled or was that some other reason that you didn't fill them?

Dr. HOUSTON. We didn't fill them because we no longer needed them. We changed our inspection procedures and reduced the need for inspectors and therefore we did not need to fill those positions. Senator LEVIN. So as far as you're concerned, you have enough inspectors?

Dr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir.

Senator LEVIN. Now, if you had a choice between using 10 inspectors looking at every single carcass on a line or using those 10 inspectors back in the production line where there is a problem plan, for instance, observing the washing process, testing the feed and examining the overall handling of the product from start to finish, which would be preferable? How would you use those 10 inspectors if you really had a choice, carcass by carcass or look for the problem areas and take those 10 inspectors and do a more qualitative job on the processing issue?

Dr. HOUSTON. Well, what you just described, the latter point, is exactly what the National Academy is recommending. Senator LEVIN. But what would you do?

Dr. HOUSTON. That is what I would do, too. May I read something out of

Senator LEVIN. No, because I'm going to run out of time I'm afraid, and we will probably have to have you stay over. So then you could read that on my second round, but I just have one more minute, and we're going to divide this time three ways before we

recess.

How many inspectors do you have working in the processing plants right now roughly?

Dr. HOUSTON. Eight thousand.

Senator LEVIN. And of those 7,000 inspectors that are on the lines, how many of them are doing the visual inspection carcass by carcass by carcass and how many of them are doing the qualitative look into the process issue?

Dr. HOUSTON. Well, we have about 2,000 that are further processing inspectors, and the other 5,000 to 6,000 are on the slaughter lines, both the red meat and poultry.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you.

Senator Cohen.

Senator COHEN. Dr. Houston, you've indicated you've got enough inspectors. Are you taking into account the so-called third generation system of line speeds?

Dr. HOUSTON. Oh, that is not operational yet. That's still in a pilot test.

Senator COHEN. Assuming that becomes a reality, I'm told that that would be about 180 birds a minute, about three birds every second. Do you think any human being can do effective job looking at three birds a second?

Dr. HOUSTON. First of all, I think we need to point out what the Academy says, and that is that the bird-by-bird inspection is offering no public health significance.

Senator COHEN. When why have it?

Dr. HOUSTON. That's a good question. I've been asking that question for the last five years and I've been trying to change the system. It's why I asked for the National Academy report and that's why the National Academy has concluded that we ought to do away with bird-by-bird inspection and go to an improved system. Senator COHEN. Let's stop there. So your recommendation is that we abolish all inspectors?

Dr. HOUSTON. No.

Senator COHEN. Why have any?

Dr. HOUSTON. Because there are a number of diversions that we can make to improve the quality of our food supply and do away with this current bird-by-bird that has no public health signifi

cance.

What we need to do is to use those resources to improve our control over residues and to improve our control over microbiological hazards. You can't see residues and you can't see salmonella.

Senator COHEN. I understand that. Why have inspectors on the line that might have to inspect three birds a second? Does it make any sense?

Dr. HOUSTON. Yes.

Senator COHEN. Why?

Dr. HOUSTON. Because what we need to do is take the esthetic defects, which is what we are now removing, and put that responsibility on the plant. We are talking about broken wings, we are talking about bruises and we are talking about some diseases that have no human health significance, but those are important and we need to remove those defects from the poultry supply. Our inspectors through a sampling program, can be sure that that is done.

Senator COHEN. And they can handle that at three birds a second?

Dr. HOUSTON. As far as I'm concerned, we don't even need to do that. If we have a good intensive sampling program, as the National Academy has recommended, we don't even need inspectors on a line.

Senator COHEN. Well, that's what I asked you before. So we don't need any inspectors on the line. And if Gramm-Rudman-Hollings is adhered to again this year, then one of your recommendations would be to eliminate those on-the-line inspectors.

Dr. HOUSTON. I can't do it because the law says we have to have every bird inspected.