There was an interim period when the Bureau of Food and Drugs handled part of the problem and then Public Health Engineering handled part of the problem and there is the present situation where Public Engineering handles it all.

Mr. RANDALL. About the present, when was this consummated. Mr. HOPE. February 5, 1971, sir.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Beck said was that at the time the market was built this was all in the hands of Public Health Engineering, Mr. Baker had that function? Subsequently, part of that function went into the Bureau of Food and Drugs?

Mr. BECK. Right.

Mr. WASSERMAN. And the question is, what function went into the Bureau of Food and Drugs and Mr. Hope's answer would indicate that it went back into Public Health Engineering on February 18,

1971.

Mr. HOPE. February 5th.

Mr. WASSERMAN. That is part of that reorganization.

Mr. HOPE. Part of the reorganization, yes, sir.

Mr. WASSERMAN. What was the function that came out and went back in again after 2 years, 3 years, whatever that period was?

Mr. BECK. I am not too sure whether I-it was not my responsibility to put it in or take it out but primarily as I saw it, plan review was conducted in the Bureau of Food and Drugs for routine license operations. Institutions and primarily institutions were not done in-that's the dietary now

Mr. WASSERMAN. Yes.

Mr. Clark, what was-was that function something that went into Food and Drug or the Field Inspection Service?

Mr. CLARK. Which function, sir?

Mr. WASSERMAN. The function Mr. Beck says came out of Public Health Engineering.

Mr. CLARK. I am not so sure how much came out of Public Health Engineering but I know how much went into the field services.

Mr. WASSERMAN. How much came into field services?

Mr. CLARK. The review and approval of all plans for all food operations for licensed premises such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, delicatessens, food products.

Mr. WASSERMAN. Without giving us a catalog, did you review all the plans for construction of all types of food establishments which were the types that you inspected?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Mr. WASSERMAN. All right. And if they were of the types you didn't inspect like hospitals and nursing homes and convalescent homes or personal care homes, then you didn't inspect their plans?

Mr. CLARK. Did not review the plan and did not inspect their establishment.

Mr. RANDALL. I think counsel for the minority may have a question or two that may be helpful. I thought we had simplified it and had it pinned down on February 5, 1971, which was after the fact as far as Farmers' Market is concerned but it may not be that simple.

Go ahead.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Maybe I will belabor this just for a moment: What happens today, right now, once the city learns that a builder wants to build a food establishment such as this? Are the plans of this building approved by the city with the knowledge, concurrence, and input from all those different departments concerned-to buy-off on that plan? Does it require that the builder submit a plan for approval by various departments in the Government?

Mr. HOPE. Yes, let me say it's a shared responsibility of the general food regulations. There is a provision that when a food establishment is constructed or remodeled, plans shall be prepared and reviewed. To fill you in a little on the details, the focal point for the receipt of engineering plans and specifications, architectural plans and specifications is in the Department of Economic Development.

They have a broad responsibility as it relates to saying the structure meets the requirements of the fire codes and plumbing codes and so on. We have a man on detail. Anything that comes in in the way of a plan that would relate in any way, shape or form to a food operation will then come over to the Bureau of Public Health Engineering. Through the mechanism of Mr. Hanlon we make a review of the plan.

He is in a position to call on any other resources not only within that Bureau but within the total directorate. At that point in time we make a decision as to whether the plans do or do not, in fact, meet the requirements of the health departments, and that recommendation then is conveyed back to the Department of Economic Development.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Do I understand correctly that this is the way it operated since the February 5 date?

Mr. HOPE. That is right.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Does this effectively eliminate too many independent inputs that we discussed before?

Mr. HOPE. What it does frankly, sir, is to use our staff to a little bit. better advantage. I would point out for example that in the field of air pollution when these plans come in it may be a food establishment, it would relate, however, if they were proposing to install an incinerator we would want to call in the staff competencies involved in incinerator design to review those plans.

We would want to look at the heating plant because of the air pollution problems. So it means a welding together of the competencies in the directorate to give us a total environmental plan in question and hopefully produce the best type of structure we can for the fewest number of dollars required. Very good?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Thank you.

Mr. HOPE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. The only thing that the Chair must question is we started out down the line awhile back and we said there was no licensing of a market like Farmers Market. But there are still building permits,

I guess.

Mr. HOPE. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about building permits.

Mr. HOPE. Right.

Mr. RANDALL. If I understood the gentleman correctly he said we make a decision whether we approve the plans. Well, are we talking

about something that we go out here and do a little work and then we say we look at the plans or do we say there will be plans before you start?

Mr. HOPE. There will be plans before you start. In fact, an owner or a builder would be ill-advised to proceed with any construction until he has our assurance and approval of the plans as it relates to our areas of interest. This, then, does constitute a commitment as you know, that if the construction is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, the owner then has assurance it will continue to meet the health regulations.

Mr. RANDALL. Yes, but all this happened since February 5, 1971. Mr. HOPE. Well, not quite. Not quite. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the procedures since February 5, 1971, are much improved and better coordinated than they were previously.

Mr. RANDALL. All right.

Mr. HOPE. And we have better communications between the several persons involved.

Mr. RANDALL. It's 4 o'clock. We will have to suspend here. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. RANDALL. I think we can excuse our witnesses because we are committed to hearing Mr. Bower. And we hope to have you with us. again at some later date, thank you.

Mr. HOPE. Thank you.

Mr. RANDALL. Are we privileged to have with us Mr. Bower this afternoon?

Mr. BOWER. Yes.

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Bower and Mr. Fritz.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. Are you with District of Columbia or with the Department of HEW?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. You were with the District at one time?

Mr. FRITZ. I was at one time. Yes.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. BOWER, CHIEF, FOOD SERVICE AND SANITATION BRANCH, DIVISION OF FOOD SERVICE AND MILK SANITATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK FRITZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FOOD SERVICE AND MILK SANITATION

Mr. RANDALL. All right, we can go 5 or 10 minutes here.

We have Mr. William F. Bower to testify, and he has a prepared statement which I must say the Chair had not had an opportunity to

review.

We would not be losing anything but a little time here and it would have to be put in the record anyway but if you want to read it and comment on it, OK.

Mr. BOWER. My name is William F. Bower, Chief of the Food Services Sanitation Branch, Division of Food Services and Milk Sanitation, Office of Food Sanitation, Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. With me also is Mr. Jack Fritz, Director of the Division of Food Services and Milk Sanitation.

Mr. RANDALL. Yes, all right.

Mr. BOWER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to speak before this subcommittee to discuss our recommendations on food service sanitation. We wish to emphasize at the beginning that our role in this matter is advisory and not regulatory. Perhaps the best way to discuss our recommendations would be to relate the background of this program.

In 1934, the Public Health Service undertook the development of an ordinance for the sanitary control of food prepared and served in public eating establishments. In 1935, a tentative draft of such an ordinance was published for the guidance of state and municipal health authorities. A tentative code of compliance based upon satisfactory practices and procedures was then developed and published in 1938. After field trials, this ordinance and code was revised and published in 1940 under the title, "Ordinance and Code Regulating Eating and Drinking Establishments-Recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service." A further revision of this ordinance and code was published in 1943.

It became evident in the 1950's that advances in the field of food technology, together with a distinct change in the social pattern of living in this country, had perceptibly altered the eating habits of the American people and, concurrent therewith, the types of food service operations being employed in public food service establishments. In recognition of these changes, the Public Health Service, with the assistance of qualified experts representing both public health and the industry, developed the Food Service Sanitation Manual including a model Food Service Sanitation Ordinance and Code, 1962 Recommendations of the Public Health Service. This manual sets forth the need, purpose, and scope of a food protection program, and suggests ways and means whereby effective programs may be implemented.

While the ordinance and code has been designed specifically for the public health protection of food served in food service establishments, its technical provisions are equally applicable to the protection of potentially hazardous food wherever it is prepared, served or displayed. Therefore, it has been recommended that the technical provisions are equally applicable to the protection of potentially hazardous food wherever it is prepared, served or displayed. Therefore, it has been recommended that the technical provisions of the ordinance, and code be applied to such establishments as commissaries, hospitals. schools, employee cafeterias and dining rooms, churches and other such facilities.

As an aid to the various regulatory agencies that have adopted a law based on these recommendations, certain forms and program guides have been developed that will aid in carrying out the program. The inspection form is but one of these. This form was designed as a check list to aid the regulatory personnel in doing a thorough, uniform inspection of the establishments. Demerit points were assigned to each item, with those items having the most public health potential having six demerits assigned, with items of lesser potential, four, two, or one demerit. In addition, we develop interpretations of these recommendations if there are points needing clarification.

We believe the key to good food service sanitation is strong state and local programs. Consistency and uniformity is also one of the fundamental blocks in building a good program. For these reasons, we have promoted the adoption of laws based on this code throughout the United States.

We have also developed a "Procedure for Evaluating Food Service Sanitation Programs" that is used when we are requested to evaluate State programs, and that is recommended for the states to use in evaluating local programs. As an adjunct to this, so that evaluations are performed in a uniform manner, we have developed a "Procedure for the Standardization and Certification of Food Service Sanitation Survey Officers.”

As previously stated, this is a voluntary program, not a regulatory one. The work with States and local areas is solely advisory and stimulatory in nature. We urge the States to adopt uniform laws or regulations and to follow a course of uniform interpretation and equitable enforcement, and we assist them in identifying and solving problems. We would be pleased to discuss our recommendations in the 1962 Food Service Sanitation Manual, the inspection sheets or other facets of the program of interest to the subcommittee.

Mr. RANDALL. Thank you, Mr. Bower.

You were patient to wait for us this afternoon. We hate to schedule witnesses and not be able to get to them.

We thank you, too, Mr. Fritz for coming over.

As I say, we have not had an opportunity to wade through the Food Services Sanitation Manual. I can't help but observe there pops out at page 76 an inspection report for food services establishments that I may be able to refer to but pending that, I would have some questions of your testimony here.

When you say that your role is advisory and regulatory, you mean exactly that, that you simply give suggestions and nowhere does the Public Health Services do any enforcement or regulation of anybody, Federal, State, or local?

sir.

Mr. BOWER. In the food services sanitation program, this is correct,

Mr. RANDALL. You say all this started out back in 1934. You undertook development of an ordinance and you got around in 1935 to drafting it and it was finally published in 1938. And then there were field trials; what does that mean?

Mr. BOWER. This means whenever you publish anything which would have an effect on whether it is a code or a procedure, you want to field test this to try it out to find out if you really have what you want to use. Because sometimes we draw up theoretical programs but they do not prove practical when applied to field application. So we need to test these in the field to see if they are practical in application.

Mr. RANDALL. You go out and look at a situation to see if you can apply this to a given instance; is that correct?

Mr. BowER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. This was published in 1940 and last revised in 1943 and that is the last-no, that is not the last because you show 1968. Mr. BOWER. No, 1962.

Mr. RANDALL. Revised in 1943, and then altered during the 1950's. Mr. BOWER. Yes, this is the result of 1962.