handles this relatively small fund which finances initial studies of the wholesale and retail markets in these cities and follows up with recommendations as to what they might do in the local community or city to improve the situation. We on this committee, and you in the Department, and HEW, and all the rest, go all out to produce wholesome commodities and wholesome meats. The Government spends $35 million or $40 million a year inspecting meat, grading it and classing it, requiring that it be handled this way and that. We have shipping regulations, and we deal with air conditioning and temperatures and all that. Then we find it is laid out on the street with no air conditioning, and put on sawdust and kept in that condition. Then it gets into retail stores where once again somebody does some inspection and where they would probably be closed up if they ran it like these open-air markets. It was an eye opener in this major city to see this situation. May I say I came back from Russia a few years ago, and I have been to the Philippines and several places, where I was rather critical of what I saw. I just hadn't looked around home. I didn't know we had the same situation here. What good is all we are doing here if in the distribution process you are going to have commodities laying out on the sidewalk for a day, 2 days or 3 days with no protection, no refrigeration, no temperature control, no control from insects? Mr. SMITH. Well, so long, Mr. Chairman, as those transactions remain within the confines of the State, our jurisdiction doesn't apply. It does raise some real questions. I think I know what markets you are referring to. I went through some myself recently. Mr. WHITTEN. It is typical of many other older markets and it is just one of those things that kind of grow up, I want to say again for the record, we were pleased to see the efforts that city is making to correct the situation. Mr. SMITH. It should be very helpful if that whole complex is moved to the new location. Mr. WHITTEN. And handled under different conditions. Mr. WHITTEN. The point I make—and, of course, we all realize it is that once is is out of interstate commerce and once it reaches the wholesale distribution center, what happens from then on is not within the control or surveillance of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. SMITH. Unless some of those establishments engage in traffic across State lines. Mr. WHITTEN. In other words, where they in turn take it and put it back into interstate commerce. Mr. SMITH. That is right. Mr. WHITTEN. The fact that they receive it in interstate commerce does not put it under your surveillance? Mr. SMITH. No. Mr. WHITTEN. Do you play any part in the facilities and transportation studies? Mr. LENNARTSON. It used to be part of the agency and then it was transferred to the Agricultural Research Service. Mr. SMITH. We have close liaison. I get copies of Mr. Crow's weekly reports that he submits to his superiors. 53-537-65-47 USDA STUDIES OF COMMODITY TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETS Mr. WHITTEN. I think Mr. Crow does a very fine job and he is very much sold on his work and I think the benefits have been tremendous. This committee is very much interested in it. We have provided funds for this type of study in Boston, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and other cities. You might place in the record at this point, if you will, the points where these funds have gone to make those studies. (The information requested follows:) During the past 5 years studies on terminal markets which included meat and meat product facilities have been completed or are underway as follows: Mr. WHITTEN. Once the studies have been made, it is up to the local people as to whether they utilize them and go forward. EXTENSION OF INSPECTION SERVICES TO NEW PLANTS You mentioned that you already have several new plants. Mr. SMITH. On these new plants, Mr. Chairman, we projected in connection with the fiscal year 1965, and we found at the end of June 30, this year, we were in 15 more plants than we had anticipated being in. Then actually, so far this fiscal year, we have gone into 26 new plants and there are at least an additional 32 that we referred to in my statement that are still pending for service. This is out of quite a backlog of applications and as of now these will be in need of the service. These plants are exclusions of the additional needs for expanded coverage in existing plants and 186 exempted plants intended to be serviced with the requested funds. Mr. WHITTEN. How many additional people will you employ with this $2.6 million and in what classification? Are they all at the working level? Mr. SMITH. There would be 420 positions on an annual basis. These would all be at the working level with necessary supportive staff in the field to handle such things as analysis of samples, necessary records, et cetera. In connection with that $2.6 million, the total number of man-years in 1966 would be 332. Mr. WHITTEN. You might supply the committee with a list of the new plants and locations and the number of people you intend to provide at each plant. (The information is as follows:) The supplemental fund request would provide inspection service in three types or categories of establishments as follows: 1. Pending applications for new or expanded establishments Of the 373 applications for inspection on hand August 30, 1965, it is estimated that about 73 will be provided Federal inspection before the end of fiscal year 1966-32 more than was estimated in the 1966 budget. In addition, there are about 136 plants at some 50 locations throughout the country which will require additional inspectors to provide for expanded plant operations and to further tighten up inspection procedures. In 1966, 192 man-years would be needed to provide this additional service. 2. Plants supplying public feeding establishments The present meat inspection regulations provide that certain plants selling directly to consumers such as airlines, restaurants, hotels, and other public feeding establishments are exempt from Federal inspection even though the meat may move in interstate commerce. A change in regulations would require inspection in all such plants handling a weekly volume of 50,000 pounds of meat, live weight, or 20,000 pounds of processed meat products. This would bring about 186 additional plants under inspection. These plants are generally clustered within the States thus reducing the inspection manpower which would otherwise be required. About 61 man-years are needed in 1966 for this service. 3. Other processing and storing establishments At least 357 processing plants are now performing deboning and associated services that can qualify for inspection service. In order to tighten surveillance over the meat supply, the funds requested would provide Federal inspection for about 40 of the larger and more important plants in 1966. In 1966, 73 man-years would be required to provide this additional inspection service. The different categories of plants which may be subject to, or in which inspection will be expanded, are listed by State on the attached table. Establishments subject to initial or expanded Federal meat inspection NOTE.-Staffing requirements for the meat inspection service are developed by predetermined criteria various categories or types of plants, based on size of establishments, estimated workload volume, hours of operation per day, and plant location. The specific plants which will enter the service cannot be specifically identified until applications are approved. Mr. WHITTEN. Also supply the committee with any information you have in connection with fraudulent movement of illicit meats and the sale of meats. I asked you to supply it to the committee. There is a question in my own mind as to whether we will put it in the record. But we would be glad to have the information. (The information was supplied to the subcommittee.) Mr. HULL. What is the volume of production in these plants? Mr. SMITH. They would all be above a 50,000 pound live weight weekly basis or a 20,000 pound processed weekly basis. Mr. HULL. Do you have a number of smaller plants? Mr. LENNARTSON. These are the large ones. Mr. HULL. How many small plants are exempt? Mr. SMITH. One of the items we refer to in our request is that we have now about 800 plants that are exempt. We find about 186 of those are now, because they have grown in this volume, to a level of 50,000 pounds live weight weekly. The balance as far as we have been able to ascertain still have volumes of less than that. Then in addition, of course, there are many strictly intrastate plants over which we have no jurisdiction under the act. Mr. HULL. Do you think you will eventually cover some of these smaller plants? Mr. LENNARTSON. As they become larger, I think we are going to be compelled to. Mr. HULL. I did not mean if they became larger. I do not know what size some of these smaller plants are, but I would think there could be quite a few of them. Mr. LENNARTSON. At any given time there will be quite a group which, from the standpoint of funds required. it would not be practical to attempt to provide complete inspection. This is the risk we have to take. Mr. HULL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U.S. MEAT IMPORTS Mr. WHITTEN. I notice you state that you import meat from about 30 countries. I would like for you to supply us with the names of the countries, the type of meat, the volume, and indicate under what type of international agreement or other arrangements this has come into the United States, together with figures showing the amounts over the last period of years. Mr. SMITH. What period of years? Mr. WHITTEN. Whatever is convenient, four or five. Mr. LENNARTSON. Five will give a pretty good picture. (The information requested follows:) The attached section 27.2 of the regulations describes the eligibility of foreign countries for import of product into the United States. Specifically, the program is to determine if a foreign system has a program organized and administered by the National Government requesting eligibility; review the legal authority and regulations of the foreign system to ascertain if they have adequate requirements as to the inspection and handling of meat and meat food products; and conduct a factfinding review by observing the foreign meat inspection system in operation. [Agricultural Research Service-CFR Amendment 63-37] TITLE 9-ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS CHAPTER I-AGRICULTURAL RSEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUBCHAPTER A-MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS PART 27-IMPORTED PRODUCTS Eligibility of Foreign Countries and Establishments On February 13, 1963 there was published in the Federal Register (28 F.R. 1374), as F.R. Doc. 63-1573, a notice of a proposal to amend § 27.2(a) of the Federal Meat Inspection Regulations 9 CFR 27.2(a)), pursuant to section 306 of the Act of June 17, 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1306), to specify criteria for the determination of the eligibillity of foreign meat inspection systems for approval under the regulations; to provide for determination and certification, by the foreign governments, of foreign establishments which meet the requirements of the regulations; and to provide for physical reviews of the foreign meat inspection systems in operation and observation of the establishments certified as meeting the requirements. After due consideration of all relevant matters, and pursuant to the authority cited above, the amendment as set forth in said notice is hereby adopted, to become effective upon publication in the Federal Register, as follows: § 27.2 Eligibility of foreign countries for importation of product into the United States. (a) Whenever it shall be determined by the Administrator that the system of meat inspection maintained by any foreign country is the substantial equivalent of, or is as efficient as, the system established and maintained by the United States and that reliance can be placed upon certificates required under this part from authorities of such foreign country, notice of that fact will be given by including the name of such foreign country in paragraph (b) of this section, and thereafter products prepared in establishments in such foreign country, which are approved in accordance with subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, shall be eligible for importation into the United States from such foreign country after applicable requirements of Parts 1 through 29 of this subchapter have been met. (1) The determination of acceptability of a foreign meat inspection system shall be based on an evaluation of the foreign program in accordance with the following requirements and procedures: (i) The system shall have a program organized and administered by the national government making the request for eligibility; (ii) The legal authority for the system and regulations thereunder shall make adequate requirements with respect to: (a) Veterinary ante mortem inspection of animals for slaughter; (b) Veterinary post mortem inspection of carcasses at time of slaughter; (c) Controls over establishment facilities; (d) Requirements for sanitary handling of product; (e) Supervision of all operations to assure wholesomeness of product and freedom from adulteration; (f) Other matters as provided in applicable Parts 1 through 29 of this subchapter. (iii) A review of the foreign meat inspection system in operation shall be made at stated times by an official representative of the Department after the system has been found to meet the requirements of subdivisions (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph. (2) Official establishments operating under the foreign system will be approved for purposes of this section if they are determined and certified to the Department, by a responsible official of the foreign meat inspection organization, as fully meeting the requirements specified in subparagraphs (1) (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, but subject to review by the Department (including observation of the establishments by Division representatives at stated times). Product from foreign countries not listed in paragraph (b) of this section is not eligible for importation into the United States, except as provided by § 27.18. The listing of any foreign country under this section may be withdrawn whenever it shall be determined by the Administrator that the system of meat inspection maintained by such foreign country is not the substantial equivalent of, or is not so efficient as, the system established and maintained by the United States, |