Page images
PDF
EPUB

TABLE 11.-Foreign meat and meat food products passed for entry, fiscal year 1965

10,360, 977 3, 536, 233 22,211, 857 75, 286, 812

1,562, 566 1, 262, 057 12, 528

332, 032, 131
2,513, 138

12, 528
26, 453
433, 141
2, 315

14,519, 517
5,976, 603 4,980,597 107, 435, 929

14,015, 267
3,963, 147

966, 537
82, 143, 783

260
103, 534

106, 706
360,061

81, 515

988, 918

12, 021, 051 250, 397 92,148

2,964, 554 1, 170

40, 332, 974
8,883, 420

413, 190
664, 874

5, 661, 985
3, 282

1, 404, 122 279

6,351, 216 46, 920, 131 11, 200

131, 645, 880

21, 451, 119 38, 011

49, 641

167, 900
3,858

13, 334, 229
50, 731, 625

1, 763
937

12,885
64, 478

22, 770
119, 581 101, 122

14, 322, 129

10, 414,287 5,525,899 14,558, 856 11,314, 989 33,543, 670 988, 410, 036

[graphic]

[In pounds)

Fresh meats and edible organs

Cured meats

Canned meats

Country of

origin

Beef and

veal

Mutton
and lamb

Pork

Beef

Pork

Beef

Pork

Other

63, 624

39,088, 461

86, 243

183, 318

9, 181, 348

11, 976, 619

92,042

2,553, 781

945, 976
68, 747, 009

56, 032

239, 168

4, 930 299, 268

301, 522

122, 440
98,071

110, 204

39, 843, 831

271, 221

Argentina
Australia. 309,926, 318 19, 172, 675
Austria
Brazil
Canada.. 39, 686, 005

992,995 43, 205, 679
Costa Rica 14,015, 267
Czechoslovakia.
Denmark,
Japan

260
England.
France.
Germany
Guatemala 11,898, 611
Haiti.

2,616,086
Holland

14, 400
Honduras

8,883, 420
Iceland..

198, 749

214, 299 Ireland. 5, 273, 838

261, 783
Italy
Mexico

40,568, 636
New Zealand 123, 398, 742 8, 234, 627 1, 273
Nicaragua 21,397, 419
Norway-
Northern
Ireland

167,900
Paraguay
Poland
Scotland.
Spain
Sweden.
Switzerland.
Uruguay
Yugoslavia.

Total... 578, 031, 251 28, 628, 996 43, 468, 735

126, 364 147, 144

70, 550

518, 272

53, 700

11, 630

3,670

13, 330, 371 99, 330 38, 163, 980 12, 468, 315

1, 763 11,948

15, 918 14,057, 122 25,789 18, 515 10,079, 184

524,823

FACTORS AFFECTING MEAT INSPECTION WORKLOAD

Mr. WHITTEN. My attention, too, is called to the fact that the Secretary announced on June 23 thatFederally inspected production of red meat in May was down nearly 4 percent from a year earlier, pork and lamb production each are expected to decline substantially this year, down 8 to 10 percent according to recent estimates.

Do you have any information in connection with that? Will that have any effect on your meat inspection here?

Mr. SMITH. Actually you would think that would somehow diminish the demands on the service, but every bit of information we get from the country indicates that there are more slaughtering plants going up and new processing plants coming into existence.

Mr. WHITTEN. I would have thought that would result in a reduction in personnel.

Mr. MEHREN. I think May a year ago was a rather unusual month and I think Mr. Hull would agree. There was a 13-percent increase in beef slaughter a year ago, and this to my knowledge was the only month in which the slaughter in 1965 was lower than that of 1964. But it does not mean an unusual low slaughter. It merely meant that we had substantial difficulties with beef movement in the earlier year.

Beef movement on the long trend is up. Population is up. This is one of the major explanations of why the inspection load goes up. May, to put it mildly, was an unusual month.

Mr. WHITTEN. I can realize that there is not necessarily a close tie between the amount of meat inspection required and the exact number of animals. If a plant is open all day long ituld require inspection even though the volume would go down to some degree. The committee has long realized that the dispersion of the slaughtering industry throughout the country from a few big centers is bound to create manpower problems.

Mr. Smith. It is true on the processing side. That is where the great increase in the number of plants comes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITTEN. That comes back to the question whether Congress should have required as much inspection of processing as they have, but we deal with a fact and not with a theory. It is the law and we have to live with it.

Mr. Morris.

SURVEYS OF INSPECTION SYSTEMS IN COUNTRIES EXPORTING TO THE

UNITED STATES

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Smith a question. On the last page of your statement, you state that you recently completed surveys in foreign countries exporting meat to the United States. You are proposing in this supplemental that you use some of these funds to hire additional inspectors in foreign countries?

Mr. SMITH. No not in foreign countries.
Mr. MORRIS. Not in foreign countries.

Mr. Smith. They would be on our staff and we would put them on a circuit through these countries on a more frequent basis than has been the case heretofore.

Mr. Morris. This would be their primary job.

Mr. Smith. The primary job would be to survey the adequacy of inspection systems in countries shipping meat to the United States.

Mr. MORRIS. Could you separate that from your cost in other meat inspection in the United States?

Mr. Smith. Yes. For the balance of this fiscal year we estimate in our request the equivalent of 6 man-years and a total cost of a little over $100,000.

MEAT INSPECTION USER FEES

Mr. MORRIS. Did we have a proposal before the committee this year, or not too long ago, about a fee for the meat inspection?

Mr. WHITTEN. My recollection, and I will let the witness testify, is that similarly to the $20 million that was recommended for repayment on the soil conservation activities, that there was a recommendation from the executive branch that the meat inspection charges be passed back to the packers. But as far as I am aware it was altogether a recommendation and never did get off the ground as far as anybody introducing a bill, or any hearings being held, or anything of that sort.

Mr. LENNARTSON. The bill has not been introduced yet. It would require legislation.

Mr. Morris. Would it require legislation to charge the people importing the meat for inspecting it?

Mr. LENNARTSON. It would, because the act reads "interstate commerce, including foreign commerce."

ACTIVITIES TO INSURE WHOLESOME MEAT SUPPLY

Mr. MORRIS. Till the fraudulent movement—what do you call itillicit meat, where is all this taking place?

Mr. SMITH. We have conducted a very extensive survey the country over on the possible sources of this unwholesome meat, and the diversion of horsemeat intended for pet food which might be diverted and some of which has been diverted to human food purposes. At this juncture I would have to say I do not know of any area of the country that is exempt, although the product tends to concentrate in the populated areas of the Northeast and Middle West, and some in the South and Southwest.

Mr. MORRIS. Isn't the disclosure of this important to enforcement?
Mr. LENNARTSON. Public disclosure.
Mr. MORRIS. Yes.

Mr. LENNARTSON. There will be criminal action taken where we find it.

Mr. MORRIS. Have you found any and taken any criminal action?
Mr. SMITH. Yes. There are a number of cases.
Mr. LENNARTSON. We have had grand jury hearings in some of the

cases.

Mr. MORRIS. Have some of them been brought to trial? Mr. LENNARTSON. I do not know if any of the cases have come to trial. There are grand jury investigations getting ready for criminal action.

Mr. Smith. Indictments, but not consummated in court.

Mr. MORRIS. We are conducting this hearing and this is in the record and yet we have not come up with any cases where we have prosecuted anyone under the statute.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Morris, if you will yield, in years past this subcommittee has been very careful and tried to be careful that we do not use names in law violations because, just by carrying the name, it could do damage when it should not be. By the same token, we have demanded that we have full information. I would like to ask, in line with the gentleman from New Mexico's question, that you supply the committee with full and detailed information on all of the activities. At the present time the subcommittee would not have any intention of publicizing it. But we need all the information and from that point decide what to do.

Mr. MORRIS. I am not talking about publicizing it. I am not making any judgment on that. You justify additional inspectors on the basis of a fraudulent movement of 4-D meat. You are bound to have somebody working on those problems now.

Mr. LENNARTSON. We do.

Mr. MORRIS. We have not come up with good enough evidence to convict anybody, which leads me to believe that maybe the problem is not quite as great as it might sound from reading the statement.

Mr. WHITTEN. We might go off the record for the moment. Proceed.

(Discussion off the record.)

MEAT INSPECTION SURVEYS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. WHITTEN. In connection with one question which Mr. Morris raised, this matter of inspection of foreign countries, you know this committee did not go along with inspection insofar as importation of azaleas from certain countries to be sure they wer( free of disease when they came here. Do I understand you correctly that what you are doing is sending somebody to check their system of inspection rather than conducting the actuai detailed inspection themselves?

Mr. Smith. That is right.

Mr. LENNARTSON. It is not an inspection job. It is a check on their system so that their producers are confronted with the same rigorous inspection that our producers in this country are.

Mr. MEHREN. We also look at plants, which has not been done in some prior years. But now it is not merely the law and the basic system of the country exporting to the United States, but we want our people also to see the specific plants and the numbers thereof so that we can identify a load that reaches an American port with respect to the plant from which it originated. We want our people to have actually seen and been through that plant to know what it is like. There are many countries with beautiful systems and very poor plants.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Michel.

BUDGETING FOR PROGRAM EXPANSION

Mr. MICHEL. You say your estimates were off to the point where 32 additional plants will need inspection. What was the original 1966 budget increase for so far as additional plants were concerned?

Mr. HOLMAAS. The 1966 budget estimated providing inspection in 1,842 plants.

Mr. MICHEL. Which was an increase over 1965.

Mr. HOLMAAS. Over 1,760 that was estimated under the 1965 budget. That would be up 82.

Mr. MICHEL. You are now asking for 32 more, which indicates your estimates were really lousy. They were 30 or 40 percent off. How can you be off so far in your estimate?

Mr. HOLMAAS. I think there are a number of things involved in this. One is the number of withdrawals from the program. There are plants coming in and coming out. Apparently less plants withdrew than had been estimated.

Mr. MICHEL. What would cause a plant to withdraw?

Mr. LENNARTSON. They could go bankrupt, they could go out of business, they could be bought by some other company and discarded.

Mr. MEHREN. Or go back into intrastate business.
Mr. MICHEL. That would be a very small number.

Mr. Smith. Some do not like to face up to the rigors of Federal inspection. As long as they can confine their business to intrastate movement, they would not be subject and could withdraw.

Mr. MICHEL. Were your original estimates in this field cut back by the Bureau of the Budget; that is, in 1966?

Mr. HOLMAAS. If I recall correctly, they were, although this was under ARS at that time.

Mr. MICHEL. How many or how much? Would it be the full amount of this supplemental, do you suppose?

Mr. SMITH. No; it is not.
Mr. MICHEL. Half of it?
Mr. SMITH. Cut back about $1,400,000.

INDUSTRY EXPANSION

Mr. MICHEL. I see on your chart here the curve rises from 1960 to 1965 and then between 1965 and 1966 made a decided upturn. How do we account for this in 1 year's time?

Mr. LENNARTSON. These are industry decisions, Mr. Michel. I do not think there is a man in the Department who could have estimated or comprehended the explosion that has occurred just in the State of Iowa in 1 year's time in the number of plants that are being built out there.

Every chamber of commerce is wanting a packing plant in the State of Iowa. This is quite similar to the upsurge that occurred in the broiler plants at one time. This has just been a phenomena. It is likely that the industry can become overcapacitated. There is another influence in terms of efficiencies because of the labor situation, old plants being discarded, and new plants being added, and when they are added, they are usually larger than the old ones. These are the impacts.

INSPECTION PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS Mr. MICHEL. We could get by using fewer inspectors if the plants were bigger in volume of production, could we not?

Mr. LENNARTSON. Depending upon the layout of the plant. If it is a slaughtering plant, that is one thing; if it is a continuous line operation where the product goes into processing, needs expand. Any time you start processing a new type of food there is a new checkpoint or inspection point established because the meat is being rehandled.

« PreviousContinue »