« 上一頁繼續 »
these sources of infection. This work is as much a public function as the quarantining of individuals with communicable diseases.
Several Members of Congress commented on this editorial. On March 25, Senator Roman L. Hruska stated on the Senate floor: "It is fallacious and spurious to assume that the meat industry is the sole or even the major beneficiary of meat inspection. Federal meat inspection has the sole purpose of insuring that every American who eats meat-and I daresay that includes virtually our entire population-buys only wholesome, disease-free meat products when he shops at his meat market or grocery store. If anything, Federal meat inspection imposes financial burdens on the meatpackers and others who fall under the scope of the Federal activity. They must maintain high standards of cleanliness in their operations that are costly.. Yet those costs are willingly absorbed to insure that the consumer receives the highest quality meat and meat products. It is the consumer who receives the benefit of the Federal meat inspection, not the industry." There have been many similar statements.
Within the Department of Agriculture itself, there appears to be no doubt about the fundamental nature of the program. As this committee is aware, responsibility for the meat inspection program was recently transferred from the Agricultural Research Service to a newly organized Consumer and Marketing Service. In the debate that preceded this change, the American Meat Institute took a strong position in opposition. We felt that putting meat inspection under a marketing service would lead to a deemphasis of the health protection aspects of the program. Our recommendations were not followed. The transfer was made. However, in the press release announcing the decision, the following significant statements were made: “The Secretary noted that the reorganization provides for the transfer of the inspection functions to a newly appointed Deputy Administrator for Consumer Protection. Thus, the status of the inspection service as a function primarily designed for the protection of the American public is explicitly recognized.'
Shortly after his appointment as Deputy Administrator for Consumer Protection, Dr. Robert K. Somers made the following statement about meat and poultry inspection: "I believe the meat and poultry inspection programs are among the most important consumer protection activities of USDA. Almost every trip the consumer makes to the market involves purchase of meat or poultry products. Assurance of wholesomeness and safety of these products is provided through inspection programs, which today are applied to more than 85 percent of all meat and poultry produced commercially. In addition to the requirements for cleanliness and wholesomeness of the food products, the programs assure consumers that labels on meat and poultry products packed under Federal inspection are both informative and accurate."
On the subject of package and label control, many persons do not appreciate the extent to which the meat industry is regulated. Most food products come under the general provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and, for the most part enforcement action requires the enforcing agency to prove a violation of law. In the case of meat and meat food products, every label and package is approved prior to use, and unless the Meat Inspection Division is satisfied that the public interest is adequately protected, approval is withheld. This is just one of the many phases of Federal meat inspection, which in its entirety operates on the principle of prior approval. Before a plant can obtain inspection, the Division must be satisfied that its construction and layout will permit the production of clean, wholesome products. The livestock are inspected before and after slaughter, and every stage of processing operations is under the eye of a Federal inspector.
Even with a comprehensive program of this sort, problem areas do develop, and it is highly essential that sufficient funds be provided so that these problems may be kept under control. One such problem area is the criminal traffic in unwholesome meat. Newspaper accounts in New York and Chicago have, during the past several months, shocked many members of the public who have tended to take meat inspection for granted. Just within the past month, a representative of the Meat Inspection Division appeared at a hearing conducted by the Illinois Senate to investigate alleged malfeasance in office by inspectors of the State Division of Foods and Dairies. One of the points emphasized was that the Federal inspection is supported by appropriated funds and that the public need have no fear concerning the independence and impartiality of the inspection force. We think this is important and we would add that the priation should be commensurate with the size and importance of the done.
Another problem area has to do with chemical and biological residues. I would like to assure this committee that the Meat Inspection Division is fully cognizant of the extent of this problem and has a comprehensive program for dealing with it. However, it requires adequate financing on a continuing basis. I feel confident that the committee has been made aware of these and other problems through testimony of Department witnesses, who are in much better position to provide a full explanation of what has been done and what is planned for the future.
I would simply like to indicate in conclusion that the American Meat Institute is in full accord with the purpose of the Meat Inspection Division to assure the American public of wholesome meat and meat food products, processed under the most sanitary conditions and truthfully and informatively labeled.
We urge that the budget request for meat inspection be approved to insure that this program will be carried forward.
CONSUMER AND MARKETING SERVICE BUDGET REQUEST Senator HOLLAND. All right. You may proceed to summarize it.
Mr. Davies. And, in summary, we are supporting the budget request for meat inspection program of $35,705,000, which is an increase of $2,440,000 over last year. But it also is colored by an increase of 100 new establishments, plus the increased costs which would be brought about some by increases in wages and salaries of Federal employees.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO
COSTS TO INDUSTRY
As usual, the Meat Institute supports this request of the Department. We also want to take note of the fact that the President has indicated in his budget message that he would like to transfer the cost of meat inspection on the industry, which we, of course, oppose.
And we would like to point out that even the Department of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture in his statement announcing the transfer of meat inspection service, said that the Secretary noted that reorganization provides for the transfer of the inspection function to a newly appointed Deputy Administrator for Consumer Protection; thus the status of the inspection service as a function primarily designed for the protection of the American public is specifically recognized.
We want to say again that this is a consumer service, and that it has worked well through the years, and should be paid for from the general tax funds.
May I leave this statement here, Mr. Chairman?
Senator HOLLAND. Won't the consumer pay for it, regardless of whether it is paid for by the industry or by the Government?
Mr. DAVIES. Well, it depends on the livestock supplies. If there are ample livestock supplies, then the cost would be transferred to livestock producers.
Senator HOLLAND. For instance, in our citrus inspection in Florida, we charge a fee, against the packer. But it is well understood to be something that the packer will pass on, necessarily, either to the producer or to the consumer. And wouldn't that be the case?
Mr. DAVIES. No; there is a slight difference here, Senator.
I think that we must recognize that the meat inspection service is primarily a police action to regulate the health and sanitation of the product, and it is for the consumer protection on a health basis.
Senator HOLLAND. Isn't that true for all food inspection?
Mr. Davies. Well, I don't think so. I think most of it is voluntary. This is mandatory.
Senator HOLLAND. All right, sir.
Senator HOLLAND. We are glad to have your statement in the record.
The hearings will go over until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
(Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Monday, April 26, 1965, a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 27, 1965.)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1966
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1965
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1114, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Spessard L. Holland, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding:
Present: Senators Holland and Young.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL GRAIN MARKETING RESEARCH LABORATORY AT
MANHATTAN, KANS. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK CARLSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF KANSAS
Senator Young. The subcommittee will come to order. I under stand we are honored this morning to have as our first witness, my friend from Kansas, Senator Carlson, who has been working on one particular laboratory out there for several years. I hope you succeed this year, Senator.
Senator CARLSON. I appreciate very much those encouraging words.
Mr. Chairman, as always it is a pleasure to appear before this distinguished committee in behalf of funds for the establishment of a National Grain Marketing Research Laboratory at Manhattan, Kans. Every time I return I have to ask for more money, and I can assure you I will continue to do this until such time as the Grain Marketing Research Laboratory is a reality.
LOGICAL LOCATION FOR LABORATORY
The logical location for this laboratory is Manhattan, Kans., where considerable milling, baking, and feed processing facilities have been established at Kansas State University through the cooperation of the grain industry.
At this location, the laboratory would have access to other research disciplines and the library facilities of the university. The logic of this location has been recognized by industry groups and by representatives of experiment stations in the North Central States.
In fact, back in December of 1963 at a meeting of the experiment station directors of the 13 North Central States, they voted unar