Mr. WASSERMAN. Since everyone is sitting around a table and talking, and this is not like a third degree in the basement of a police station, I wonder if he is fully protected as to his rights, after all, it's like a hearing notice that the Food and Drug Bureau sends them when they are going to take further action-that kind of thing is different from the one that you proceed with Mr. RANDALL. Could we say, counselor, that it is like a pretrial conference that they have in some States? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; it is. Mr. WASSERMAN. That would be before any other procedure has begun. Mr. CAMPBELL. We have never taken advantage of anyone's right we have never had a complaint. Mr. RANDALL. Can we back up a little. How many of the cases go to appeal? Mr. CAMPBELL. First of all, our office doesn't have anything to do with the appeals-I haven't or don't know of any that have been appealed. Mr. WASSERMAN. Who in the Corporation Counsel's office handles the civil part of that. Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Barton. Mr. RANDALL. Well, we will recess now for lunch. We will recess until about 1:15, and then we will try to get back to work then. Mr. CAMPBELL. Do you have any further questions of me? Mr. RANDALL. We will call you if we need you. We'll resume at 2. Thank you. (Whereupon, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. RANDALL. The House Subcommittee on Special Studies of the House Government Operations Committee will come to order. We have with us this afternoon Dr. Raymond L. Standard, Mr. Hope, Mr. Clark, Mr. Hanlon, and Mr. Beck. STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND L. STANDARD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, Mr. RANDALL. Dr. Standard, you are an M.D.? Mr. RANDALL. And your official title is? Dr. STANDARD. Associate Director, Department of Human Resources and also Department of Public Health. Mr. RANDALL. Since you have so described your title, you are an immediate junior official to Mr. Rutledge, is that right? Dr. STANDARD. Yes, sir. Mr. RANDALL. Is Director of Public Health a newly created position or department or proposed under this reorganization? Dr. STANDARD. No, sir; I would imagine the Director of Public Health is a legal title. It has been in existence quite some time. My predecessor was Dr. Murray Grant, who was Director of Public Health. Mr. RANDALL. We have heard a lot about him. Dr. STANDARD. Although the Health Department has been merged into the new Department of Human Resources there is still the official title of Director of Public Health. Mr. RANDALL. How long have you been there, Dr. Standard? Dr. STANDARD. In an acting capacity from October 21, 1969, until March 6, 1970, at which time I became Director. Mr. RANDALL. This will not be our prime line of inquiry this afternoon but it's one that we left hanging in discussions with some lay witnesses prior to the noon recess. In the matter of adulterations one of the worst offenders, as I recall the description, was a sulphite of some kind. I believe it was Assistant Corporation Counsel Johnson who made reference to that, these laboratory tests. Would you tell us from your knowledge what are the principal adulterations you find through your laboratory examinations. Dr. STANDARD. I would have to defer that question to Malcolm Hope and his staff. Mr. RANDALL. That is not in your jurisdiction? Dr. STANDARD. The program is in my operations but the technical program is managed by Mr. Malcolm Hope and his staff. Mr. RANDALL. All right. Mr. Hope. Mr. HOPE. The primary adulterant that we have found in the meat samples checked out in the laboratory, Mr. Chairman, related to the presence of sulphites. These are adulterants that are used for the purpose of preserving the color of the meat so that it will retain that red, fresh appearance. Mr. RANDALL. In other words, the hamburger which appears so nice and fresh may not really be fresh? It may really be brown and have an odor, but when it's treated with sulphites it looks real nice; is that it? Mr. HOPE. Yes, sir. It keeps the blood, in simple terms, from oxidizing so that it retains the red color for a longer period of time. Mr. RANDALL. That is sulphite? Mr. HOPE. And nitrite, too. They both react the same way chemically. Mr. RANDALL. Do you have a record with you as to how frequently your laboratory tests show this? We had a table here and testimony a day or two ago of how many laboratory examinations were made. In how many examinations did you find this adulteration? Mr. HOPE. We found the presence of sulphite in 17 samples that were analyzed in a laboratory during about the second year of the program. Only one sample has been found to date containing nitrite and nitrates. Mr. RANDALL. By calendar year, you mean 1970? 67-558 O 71 pt. 1 -- 20 Mr. RANDALL. 1971? Mr. HOPE. Right. None in 1971, four in fiscal year 1970, and 13 in fiscal year 1969. Mr. RANDALL. How many tests do you make—that is, 13 out of how many? Mr. HOPE. We are running about 3,000 chemical tests a year so there would have been 3,000 samples that would have been checked for the presence of these adulterants. Mr. RANDALL. I assume the code is the proper terminology, or we would call it an ordinance if any congressional law applied to the District. Is there any clear, concise prohibition against these adulterants or is it by regulation? How do you define these adulterants? Where do you look to see if "X" is an adulterant? Mr. HOPE. Under the terms of our general food regulations which, as you know, are enacted by the city council, there is a specific section in those regulations that relates to the presence of adulterants. It was understood the authority that we have in that particular section, Mr. Chairman, that we were able to proceed legally in the courts and bring the offenders before the judge for action. As I recall, with one exception all the offenders were fined by the courts. Mr. RANDALL. All of the 13 were fined? Mr. HOPE. Yes. Mr. RANDALL. What was the range of fines, do you remember? Mr. HOPE. I don't recall offhand. Mr. RANDALL. $25 or $50? Mr. HOPE. In the neighborhood of $50. Mr. RANDALL. We are back on enforcement again. Mr. HOPE. Yes, sir. Mr. RANDALL. As far as enforcement of this adulteration section, you prosecute, in other words? Mr. HOPE. That is right. Mr. RANDALL. Then that settles that particular violation. You then proceed to take samplings. Does the code call for a different series of fines for a second violation? Mr. HOPE. I think the provisions are that the fines represent a criminal offense and were limited to $300 per separate offense, or 90 days in jail, or both. Mr. RANDALL. And this is tried in the superior court, the municipal court? Mr. HOPE. That is right. Mr. RANDALL. Counsel will have a lot of questions relating to some things that we have heard in the last 3 days. Before we embark on this general question of adulterants, is there any prohibition at the present time and I ask this because I know this has created illness all night long following eating against the use of what is called tenderizer on the food, or do you have any knowledge of that? Do you check that for adulteration or is that regarded as an adulteration? Is there anything in the code about tenderizers? Mr. HOPE. There is nothing in the code and, so far as I know, Mr. Chairman, it is not considered an adulterant. There was one instance that occurred recently in the District of Columbia where there was a mislabled product on the market identified as a tenderizer which in fact was practically 100 percent sodium nitrite. Mr. RANDALL. That is what we are talking about-100 percent sodium nitrite? And that was a wholesale establishment or a retail? Mr. HOPE. We found it in this particular establishment which was a retail food establishment, yes. It was primarily a cocktail lounge where the proprietor prepared a meal for one of the patrons who liked garlic bread. The tenderizer, as you know, contains some seasoning; so he liberally sprinkled the bread with what he thought was tenderizer with seasoning, which should not have had any toxic effect, but as a result of being sodium nitrite, the individual died of hemoglobanemia. The blood was left in such a condition that it could no longer absorb oxygen and the patient died. Mr. RANDALL. I had not heard of any death but I have heard of serious illness as a result of this. We had some testimony this morning at one point about one offender-I believe it was the sulphites or the nitrites-where it all went back to one wholesaler. Are you familiar with that? Mr. HOPE. Yes. Mr. RANDALL. Is that true? Mr. HOPE. Yes, sir. Mr. RANDALL. Have steps been taken against that wholesaler? Mr. HOPE. Yes. This was handled under the Food and Drug Administration. We acted as their agents. Mr. RANDALL. The Federal FDA? Mr. HOPE. Maybe there is a little confusion on my part, Mr. Chairman. I was still referring to this incident where I described the use of a tenderizer that had been mislabeled. Mr. RANDALL. No. This is a different issue. Mr. HOPE. All right. Mr. RANDALL. This is either the sulphites or the nitrites. We won't take the time to read back the record, but it was all traced back to one wholesaler. Mr. HOPE. Could I ask Mr. Beck to reply to that particular question, sir? Mr. RANDALL. Yes. Mr. BECK. I forget what the question was. Mr. RANDALL. We had some interesting testimony this morning that two or three or four of the cases were where the retailer used the same source of supply. One source of supply, with no names mentioned, was one wholesaler. This is from the Corporation Counsel that we learned this. This is not from the health people at all. Mr. BECK. Yes, sir. We were the ones that determined that the product came from the wholesaler. We did not have any way to determine whether the product was contaminated by the wholesaler. Our regulations say no person shall sell a product containing such items and we took the individuals who sold the product to court and referred the other information to the Department of Agriculture for their action, because the wholesaler is under inspection by the Department of Agriculture. Mr. RANDALL. You submitted that to the USDA? Mr. BECK. We worked closely with them. Mr. WYDLER. In other words, if I understand what you just told us, nothing happened to the wholesaler? Is that the idea? Mr. BECK. Under our regulations we had nothing against the wholesaler. It was not proven one way or the other in the cases that we took to court that it was the wholesaler who put it in. Mr. WYDLER. What is the name of the wholesaler? Mr. BECK. Dekelbaum. Mr. WYDLER. Is he a District of Columbia concern? Mr. WYDLER. If he were the person who put the prohibited substance in the meat, you would have responsibility for it? Mr. BECK. We did not build a case in that direction, sir. All we are saying is that the meat that was received-and this was so noted in our records that the meat that was on hand was purchased from Dekelbaum. This was referred back to the Department of Agriculture, by their investigators, and we worked closely with their investigators. In fact, one of their investigators was in the court during all the cases where these individuals were prosecuted. Mr. WYDLER. I am talking about your responsibility now. Some day we may have the Department of Agriculture here, and we can ask them a similar type of question. What I am asking you now is suppose, as might well have been the case here, the meat was contaminated or adulterated by the wholesaler. Then it was sold to some retailers whom you picked up, quite properly, and started to question about how this meat got into their market. It would seem to me, if you began to suspect that it came from one wholesaler, you would have a responsibility to go and find out. Mr. BECK. Yes, sir. We exercised our responsibility, I think, by no longer finding sulphites in the product when these cases were brought to court. We have not found any sulphites in it since. We do not know whether the Department of Agriculture took-I don't personally know whether the Department of Agriculture took action against that establishment. I don't know if they built up a case or could build up a case. Mr. WYDLER. I don't know either. I am just saying that somebody should be doing those things. In other words, everybody just seems to pass the buck and nobody does anything. Mr. BECK. No, sir, it did not stop there. We were in constant communications with the Department of Agriculture. Mr. WYDLER. What were your constant communications? What did they do? Mr. BECK. There are no more sulphites being put into the meat. The place where we found the sulphite in the meat, those people were prosecuted. That is the only place Mr. WYDLER. From what you told me they could well be innocent. Mr. BECK. All we took them to court for was the fact that they sold a product. We did not try to say that they put it in there because we could not prove that they put it in there. But they were in violation of the law and in that there was sulphite in the meat. The only way we could bring it out is to take those people to court. Mr. WYDLER. I am not blaming you for doing that. Determining their guilt or innocence is a matter for the court. It seems to me if you had what looked like circumstantial evidence that meat was contaminated at a different source you would have the responsibility |