U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–181 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–916

FOOD SAFETY RECALL PROCEDURES

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SPECIAL HEARING

DECEMBER 11, 2002—BILLINGS, MONTANA

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

JACK REED, Rhode Island

TED STEVENS, Alaska

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director

CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Minority Deputy Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

(ex officio)

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

TED STEVENS, Alaska

(ex officio)

Professional Staff

GALEN FOUNTAIN

JESSICA ARDEN

WILLIAM SIMPSON

REBECCA M. DAVIES (Minority)

LES SPIVEY (Minority)

RACHELLE SCHROEDER (Minority)

Administrative Support

MEAGHAN L. MCCARTHY

WENDI D. DOW (Minority)

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Opening statement of Senator Conrad Burns ....................................................... 1

Statement of John Munsell, Montana Quality Foods ........................................... 2

Statement of John Swanz, President, Montana Stockgrowers Association ........ 5

Statement of Bernard Shire, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs,

American Association of Meat Processors .......................................................... 6

Statement of William C. Smith, Deputy Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture ..................................................... 8

(1)

FOOD SAFETY RECALL PROCEDURES

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL

DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES,

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Billings, Montana.

The subcommittee met at 3:02 p.m., in the Ballroom of the Student Union Building at Montana State University-Billings in Billings, Montana, Senator Conrad Burns presiding.

Present: Senator Burns.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We’ll call this subcommittee to order. This is a

subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. This is Appropriations on Agriculture, and something we’ve been trying to

schedule here for quite a while and—about what I think is a very

important subject. It affects—even though we are going to talk

about meat processors, and we are going to talk about health, and

we’re going to talk about reliability, and the public safety and all

of this, but what it boils down to is if there’s a link broken in the

chain, it is the producers who pay for it.

And we are in the business right now where we can’t afford to

let what we think is a good product—the dollars invested and the

kind of livestock that we like to present to the public—and after

we’re done with it, we lose, completely, control of it. We have no

say. When that animal walks off of our truck, it is in the hands

of somebody else. Even though we’ve spent millions and millions of

dollars producing the kind of an animal that is acceptable to the

public and acceptable to the meat-processing industry and the retailing industry, we lose control of it, and we pay the price for either irresponsibility or turning a blind eye to powerful interests

that have the responsibility of presenting our product to the public.

We know we produce a good product. We try every way that we

can as a producer to give the industry, on down the line, a product

that’s acceptable, is nutritious, and, when it leaves our gate, it’s

healthful. And so that’s what we want to talk about today.

I appreciate—I want to thank Montana State University at Billings here for giving us this facility today, and I want to thank all

the folks here that will testify.

And this is an official hearing. All your testimony that I have

read today, and what you will give here today will be entered in

the record.

2

This is a little bit better than the Authorizing Committee, because we get—we’ve got the purse strings. And so if we can see

where we can help or hinder, we will make that judgment later on

when the appropriations process happens.

I noticed that the order of testimony here today is Mr. Smith,

who is deputy administrator of Food Safety and Inspection Service.

We appreciate you being here today. Are you on any kind of a timeline?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator BURNS. Well, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going

to let the other three go ahead, and let you listen to what they

have to say. I’ve done this two or three times in Washington, whenever we’ve had hearings, and usually the administrator—or the Administration shows up, gives their testimony and then they run

away. And I don’t want to do that today. I want to—I want the Administration to hear the problems and—or, well, problems—perceived problems that we have in this industry.

So I’m going to ask Mr. Munsell to lead off today. And he runs

Montana Quality Foods over at Miles City, Montana. I’ve only

known his dad since dirt. And he’s here today. And it’s good to see

you here.

So, with that—and I want to apologize for being just a couple of

minutes late. It seems like everything didn’t fall together at the

house like it was supposed to when I got there a little while ago.

But nonetheless, thank you for coming today. And, Mr. Munsell,

we’ll hear from you as of this—now, you can either—you can consolidate your statement, or you can pick highlights of it and—or

whatever you want to do, but we look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JOHN MUNSELL, MONTANA QUALITY FOODS

Mr. MUNSELL. Thank you, Senator Burns.

My name is John Munsell, and I operate a small, family-owned

USDA-inspected slaughter and processing facility in Miles City,

Montana.

In January and February of this year, USDA inspectors at our

plant took several samples of our ground beef, four of which were

E. coli positive. Oral and written statements from USDA field staff

which took the samples documented that all four positives originated from coarse ground beef which we had purchased from big

packers. Part of the USDA’s documentation included a handwritten

letter authored and signed by Dr. Daryl Burden and the plant inspector, whose name is Ronald Irvine.

This letter included the following statements, and I quote, ‘‘Review of the three consecutive E. coli 0157:H7 failures strongly suggests a common source of the contaminant—coarse ground product

of a single identified lot received from establishment number 969,

which is ConAgra in Greeley, Colorado. I recommend acceptance of

establishment 7679, which is Montana Quality Foods—I recommend’’—they recommended, ‘‘acceptance of our response and implemented measures and suggest a follow-up investigation of the

source of the product considering the serious public health implications of other possible E. coli adulterated product from the same

production lot,’’ end quote.

3

In addition to the USDA’s own documentation, our company staff

copiously documented the exact origin of three of the four positives,

including the preservation of labels which are taken from the very

boxes of meat which produced the contaminated samples. In spite

of the scientifically thorough trail of evidence compiled in these

cases, USDA hierarchy in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., have

summarily rejected all this evidence. They refer to the letter authored by their own field staff as mere opinion. If the contents of

this letter had coincided with what Washington, D.C., had wanted

to hear, then the letter would have been accepted as conclusive evidence.

So some of USDA’s unscientific policies include the following.

Number one, when a USDA inspector takes a ground-beef sample

for USDA lab analysis, the inspector is prohibited from documenting the origin of the meat which provided the sample. Number

two, E. coli is considered an adulterant only in the form of ground

beef. Therefore, if E. coli exists in boneless trimmings which are

not yet ground, the USDA does not consider this deadly E. coli bacteria to be an adulterant at that point. This means that all responsibility for contaminated ground beef rests upon the establishment

which performs the final grind. Of course, this prevents any meaningful corrective action from taking place, since no trace back to

the source of the contamination ever took place.

The third policy problem I see is USDA Directive 10,010.1 was

designed to reward large packers with several advantages, all of

which imperil consumers. Those advantages are, number one, when

a packer qualifies for this directive, then from that point on, only

the packer performs in-plant sampling. Number two, simultaneously the USDA performs no sampling. Number three, USDA is

denied access to the results of the in-plant sampling since the plant

now claims such important data to be ‘‘proprietary.’’ And I must

say that just within the last month there has been a pronouncement from the USDA that says that no plants anymore will be excluded from sampling, which is certainly a step in the right direction.

An incident which occurred at our plant exposes USDA’s lack of

commitment towards promoting consumer food safety. After our

firm experienced our first positive E. coli sample in January, we

knew that the sample was taken from brand-X coarse ground beef

purchased from outside packers. We had coarse ground beef in our

plant from both of these packers, but we weren’t sure which source

was used for the positive sample. Inspector Dan Ellis also knew

and made the statement in front of four witnesses that the sample

originated from brand-X coarse ground beef, but he was prohibited

from documenting this fact until the Office of Inspector General

interviewed him in late August, a full 7 months after the incident

occurred.

When Compliance Officer DuWayne Hansen investigated the details of this E. coli-positive sample, I offered Mr. Hansen unopened,

intact tubes of coarse ground beef from both sources, which would

have allowed the USDA lab to pinpoint the true origin of the contaminated meat. He refused our offer, replying that USDA policy

didn’t allow him to accept intact chubs of meat previously inspected

and passed by the USDA.

4

It is interesting to note that this procedure was used at

Galligans Wholesale Meats in Denver this summer, directly resulting in the 18.6 million-pound ConAgra recall. So you can see that

this procedure of accepting intact samples directly benefits all meat

consumers.

Now, months later we discovered the full truth why Officer Hansen was prohibited from accepting intact chubs of coarse ground

beef. This truth was exposed on Thursday, August the 29th after

the two OIG auditors—they were at our plant—the two auditors

finished their review of our plant and departed.

Dr. Grady Skaggs, who was the USDA circuit supervisor, remained in our office for a while and visited. He voluntarily made

the statement that Compliance Officer DuWayne Hansen wanted to

accept our offer of intact chubs of brand-X coarse ground beef, but

that John Hopperstad, who is the Minneapolis compliance officer,

instructed DuWayne to reject our offer because the USDA was

afraid that ConAgra would sue the USDA. Dr. Skaggs’ statement

shows that the USDA knew all along that ConAgra was the source

of the contaminated meat, and that the USDA intentionally circumvented its duty to trace back to the origin because of the discomfort and potential legal liability it might experience for admitting the whole truth.

A similar situation occurred when I called Compliance Officer

DuWayne Hansen and requested a copy of his interview with Inspector Dan Ellis in which Mr. Ellis would have identified coarse

ground beef as the origin of the positive January sample. Officer

Hansen replied that although he did interview Mr. Ellis, he, Mr.

Hansen, did not ask or document information regarding the origin

of the meat. Mr. Hansen then stated, and I quote, ‘‘If I had recorded such information, I would be walking down the street,’’ end

quote.

All consumers, as well as the entire cattle industry, deserve an

explanation from the USDA as to why a compliance officer would

lose his job if he was so audacious as to document the whole truth

about the origin of contaminated meat.

This sordid scenario which occurred at our plant this year will

undoubtedly be repeated many times across America until USDA

willingly adopts major policy changes. The large volume of recalls

will continue unabated for the same reasons.

Now is the time for consumers, the cattle industry, meat processors, and especially our elected officials to demand that USDA

eliminate its woefully inadequate and ill-intentioned policies and

establish safe food as its number one objective regardless of the

discomfort that the USDA will experience as it requires big packers

to accept sanitary procedures. A contemporary example of this is

improvement is the slower chain speed recently implemented at the

former ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado, which now operates

under the Swift name.

In summary, not only does the existing policy imperil meat consumers and the viability of the final grinding plants or the processing industry, but it jeopardizes the cattle industry, which will

have the most to lose as consumers lose confidence in beef, which

diminishes not only demand, but also eventually diminishes cattle

prices.

5

Thank you.

Senator BURNS. Thank you.

Let’s go to John Swanz. John represents the Montana

Stockgrowers Association, has been associated with the cattle industry since day one, and we look forward to hearing your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JOHN SWANZ, PRESIDENT, MONTANA

STOCKGROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. SWANZ. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Burns. Thank you

for the opportunity to testify here today.

My name is John Swanz. In addition to being the incoming president of the Montana Stockgrowers, which represents 2,500 cattle

producers throughout the State of Montana, I am also a fourth-generation rancher of Judith Gap, which is in Central Montana.

As a producer of cattle, the raw commodity that ultimately

passes through the beef production chain before reaching consumers, we have a vested interest in the beef inspection practice

in place through the USDA FSIS. Food safety issues are of the utmost concern to us as producers because we are reliant on a strong

market that is driven by consumer attitude and perception. If there

is a perception, no matter how slight, that inspection practices are

not adequately protecting U.S. beef supply, the market suffers irreparable damages and affects ranching families around the country, including mine. We cannot afford to take these risks.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, of which Montana

Stockgrowers is a state affiliate, spends an average of $2.5 million

a year on food safety research and technology. Techniques resulting

from this research include steam-vacuuming beef carcasses, which

effectively removes E. coli 0157:H7 and other harmful bacteria.

Thermal pasteurization, a rinse for beef carcasses with 180-degree

water and a mild organic solution, have also proven to reduce

pathogens.

More than 85 percent of the research projects beef producers, like

me, have funded with their beef checkoff dollars have directly and

immediately led to the implementation of technology and procedures that increase beef safety.

As a beef cattle producer, we know we have the responsibility to

be part of the solution to the E. coli problem in the U.S. Current

checkoff-funded E. coli 0157 safety research on live cattle centers

is developing a testing and cattle-cleaning system, and experimenting with cattle feed additives to reduce pathogen incidence on

the ranch and in the feed lots before the cattle are shipped for processing.

Additionally, beef safety research is working on an intervention

system for subprimals and trimmings, finding more statistically

valid ways to sample and test for our beef E. coli 0157:H7, examining the impact of environmental factors such as equipment,

water, and air on E. coli and beef products, and reviewing beefsafety research on non-intact beef products.

But our concern as cattle producers is that these measures are

meaningless if the infrastructure within USDA FSIS does not exist

in the name of ensuring a safe, pathogen-free product to the consumer. I am pleased that John Munsell, of Montana Quality Foods

6

in Miles City, is here today to share his story. While we’d like to

believe his experience with regard to USDA FSIS testing and recall

procedures is an isolated incident, the fear remains that the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., is not protecting the consumer by

doing everything possible to ensure adequate food safety inspection

and recall system.

In line with the Montana Stockgrowers Association’s grassroots

policy, we are calling for immediate approval of active steps to reduce the incidence of pathogen occurrences in meat, which includes

ensuring that meat recall protocol within the USDA is not only

swift and science-based, but holds all meat processors to similar

standards, regardless of size. Our ultimate goal must be to reassure the beef consumer that we will not settle for anything less.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Swanz. I appreciate that very

much.

We have with us today Bernard Shire, who is director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, American Association of Meat Processors. Mr. Shire, thank you for making the trip today, and we appreciate that very much. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD SHIRE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS

Mr. SHIRE. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Burns.

My name is Bernard Shire. I am with the American Association

of Meat Processors. We’re a trade association with members across

the United States and Canada and several foreign countries.

Our members are meat and poultry slaughterers, processors,

wholesalers, retailers, caterers, home food-service companies, and

suppliers and consultants to the meat and poultry industry. Most

of our members are small, very small, and medium-sized businesses. Many of them are family-owned operations. And we have

a number of members here in the State of Montana.

The small meat- and poultry-slaughtering and processing industry is impacted in a very negative way by product recalls conducted

by USDA, for many reasons. These recalls are eroding the confidence of small meat-plant operators that they can survive, and I

will detail some of these reasons for you.

As you know, there have been more and more recalls of ground

beef for E. coli, a deadly pathogen. Many of our small members

grind beef. In many cases, they buy the raw materials to use in

grinding, such as trimmings, from the very largest meat packers in

the country, the big slaughterers.

E. coli generally gets onto the meat, the carcasses, from fecal material. Some large plants may not be taking the time to do the evisceration properly, or the plant may fail to take other interventions

to make sure, as much as possible, that there isn’t any E. coli on

the trimmings that go to the grinder.

But no one can guarantee 100 percent that all E. coli will be removed from the processing system. All the plants can really do is

try to reduce it as much as possible. The large plant is the logical

place to do this because most other processors, large and small, buy

their materials from the large slaughter plants.

7

A major reason for the problems that do exist is the tremendously fast line speeds used in the huge meat-packing plants when

they are killing the cattle and converting them to carcasses. Unfortunately, speeds sometimes don’t allow a very good job of trimming

or other interventions to make sure that no fecal material, the

source of the E. coli, remains on the carcasses. But a major problem is that the bung breaks or is punctured rather than being removed in an intact state. That’s one major problem.

The other major problem, we believe, is that there is a shortage

of slaughter inspectors, so at the very high line speeds in the big

packing plants, the fewer inspectors have a harder time seeing

what’s going on. That’s the reason for USDA’s experimental

HACCP-based Inspection Models Project which would allow plant

employees to do more of the inspection in plants where young animals are slaughtered. We think, instead, that FSIS needs to study

ways to attract more slaughter inspectors to the agency.

What happens then is that the carcasses are cut into primal,

subprimals, and trimmings and shipped to the grinder. If there is

E. coli on those raw materials that come into a grinding plant,

there is no way they can be removed because the grinding plant

is basically a fresh-meat-in/fresh-meat-out operation. There is no

‘‘kill step’’ in the grinding plant to remove pathogens or bacteria.

So the grinder grinds the beef. But if USDA, through its random

testing, finds E. coli in the grinding plant, or possibly in ground

beef at the grocery store, the next step in the food chain, who is

responsible for doing the recall? The grinder, not the supplier or

the originating packing plant where the pathogen originated. So

grinders, especially small ones, are being put in the position of

being the regulators and accepting the blame for a problem that

they did not create.

Why does this happen? Well, one reason is that USDA policy

really discourages trace-back to the original large packing and

slaughter plant. Even the new—USDA’s new policy on E. coli encourages suppliers to look for the pathogens, but it doesn’t require

them to. Why not? Grinders will be forced to ask suppliers for a

letter indicating that they have taken steps to remove E. coli from

the raw materials they are grinding. But there is nothing requiring

the big packers to provide assurances. What if they don’t?

And that brings us to the next question, What does the USDA

inspection mark mean? Does it mean anything anymore? The raw

meat that is shipped from the big packers for further processing

has already been inspected by USDA inspectors at the originating

plant. The USDA ‘‘inspected and passed’’ mark of inspection has

been put on it. Doesn’t that mean that the meat is okay? Why does

the small processor or grinder have to get additional assurances

about the meat? When we asked the USDA people in Washington

about this, they just shrugged their shoulders. If the USDA mark

of inspection doesn’t mean anything anymore, then why is our

meat going through this extensive inspection process to begin with?

A major problem with recalls is uncertainty with USDA about

what circumstances should or should not lead to a recall. There are

often disagreements between people inside the USDA Recall Division about the necessity of a recall. And this results in USDA giving confusing information to a plant about the recall, not telling a

8

plant all the information that it should know, and a conflict between protecting the public health versus ‘‘let’s make sure we have

all the facts right before we go ahead with this.’’

What effect does this have on the small meat-processing business? Well, many of the small meat processors are becoming scared

to death to make certain products, whether it’s ground beef or

ready-to-eat products. The USDA attitude, ‘‘It may not be your

fault, but it is your problem,’’ may result in more and more plants

giving up grinding beef, or giving up making the ethnic and specialty products for which we—they are well-known, leaving more

and more meat products—processing in the hands of the big meat

packers. Are these recalls going to mean the end of the small meatprocessing industry in the United States?

And there’s one other point I want to make. The closing of small

meat and poultry processing plants poses a serious threat to the

economy in the rural areas of the United States, in States like

Montana. A plant shutdown would put many people out of work in

these small, rural communities, places where it’s hard enough for

their residents to find jobs. In many cases, a small processing plant

is an important employer in a small rural town. Also, small livestock producers in rural areas, like Montana, are dependent on

small local slaughterers and processors—are markets for their animals. If these plants go out of business, what will these—what will

these producers and herdsmen do with their animals?

What is the answer to the recall situation? The meat-processing

industry, especially the small industry, is looking for cooperative

recalls as the most effective way to protect public health by removing product from the marketplace that may be harmful to the public, but not to punish the plant that inadvertently manufactured

product that is carrying bacteria.

Thank you.

Senator BURNS. We thank you, Mr. Shire. I appreciate your making the trip all the way out here.

And we really appreciate William Smith, who is deputy administrator of Food Safety and Inspection Service. And we appreciate

you making the trip, and we look forward to your testimony. And

I hope you’ve heard we do an awfully good job of identifying the

problem. Now maybe can—maybe we can hear some solutions and

some steps that the USDA is taking, or should take. Thank you for

coming.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. SMITH, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD

SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the opportunity to discuss food

safety today.

I am Bill Smith, the Deputy Administrator for Field Operations

at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection

Service, FSIS. As Deputy Administrator, I manage the regulatory

activities carried out daily in meat, poultry, and egg product establishments by more than 7,600 food inspectors, consumer safety officers, and veterinarians. I have been with FSIS for more than 25

years, serving in many positions within the Agency, including inplant food inspector in Pennsylvania, acting regional director of the

Northeast region, executive director of District Inspection OperVerDate 21-JUN-2000 13:47 Apr 30, 2003 Jkt 086181 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\01HEAR\2003\86181.XXX DORISJ PsN: DORISJ
9

ations, and, most recently, as the Associate Deputy Administrator

for Inspection Operations.

FSIS’ mission is to ensure meat, poultry, and egg products are

safe, wholesome, and accurately labeled. This goal has not changed

during my years at FSIS, though I have seen agency policies and

procedures evolve to best address emerging public health issues

and improve food safety. When Dr. Garry McKee arrived at FSIS

this fall as the new administrator, he brought with him a clear vision of making FSIS the Nation’s premier regulatory public health

agency.

While great advancements have been made over the last century,

the most dramatic evolutions have occurred in recent years with

the implementation of the science-based Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, HACCP, inspection system. The HACCP system is a tool for preventing contamination before it occurs.

All slaughter and processing establishments are required to

adopt a system of process controls designed to prevent food safety

hazards. Under HACCP, plants identify critical control points during their processes where hazards such as microbial contamination

can occur. They establish controls to prevent and reduce those hazards, and maintain records documenting that the controls are

working as intended. HACCP is representative of FSIS’ efforts to

continually improve Agency programs and now serves as the cornerstone of the Agency’s current inspection system.

The issue of E. coli 0157:H7 in ground beef emerged in the

1990s, and FSIS’ microbiological testing program to detect E. coli

0157:H7 in raw ground beef began in October 1994. Since then,

nearly 54,000 raw ground-beef samples have been analyzed. Each

month, a random sample of approximately 1,700 establishments

that produce ground beef under Federal inspection and 100,000 retail stores that grind beef on a regular basis are sampled for sample collection. So far in 2002, over 6,000 samples have been analyzed for E. coli 0157:H7. Since FSIS’ E. coli 0157:H7 testing program began, it has been continuously amended to incorporate the

most up-to-date data and technologies.

An outbreak of illness in Midwestern States this summer that

was caused by E. coli 0157:H7 is one example of why our testing

program is so critical in helping to keep contaminated products out

of the marketplace. Our ultimate goal is to prevent outbreaks from

happening in the first place. Testing ground beef samples to remove contaminated products from the marketplace helps to minimize cases of foodborne illness.

Now that I’ve explained our HACCP program and testing program for E. coli 0157:H7, let me specifically discuss recent events

at Montana Quality.

On January 23rd, 2002, FSIS collected a routine, raw groundbeef monitoring sample for E. coli 0157:H7 from Montana Quality

Foods and Processing in Miles City, Montana. The sample was analyzed in FSIS’ laboratory and was confirmed positive for E. coli

0157:H7 on January 28th. As a result, the establishment initiated

a Class 1 voluntary recall of approximately 270 pounds of fresh

ground beef.

The purpose of a recall is to remove meat or poultry from commerce when there is a reason to believe it may be adulterated or

10

misbranded. All recalls are voluntary and may be initiated by the

manufacturer or the distributor of the meat and poultry plants, or

at the request of FSIS. A Class 1 recall indicates that there is a

reasonable probability that the product will cause serious adverse

health consequences. Contamination of product with pathogenic

bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat product or

E. coli 0157:H7 in raw ground beef would be a Class 1 recall.

As a result of the positive E. coli 0157:H7 sample on January

28th, FSIS issued to Montana Quality Foods two non-compliance

records. Non-compliance records are documentation produced by an

inspector that the establishment has failed to meet HACCP requirements. As a standard practice following all product recalls,

FSIS inspection program personnel conduct a set of 15 consecutive

follow-up samples to verify that the establishment’s corrective actions are effective.

FSIS initiated follow-up sampling at Montana Quality Foods on

February 12th. Samples collected on February 19th, February 20th

and 21st tested positive for E. coli 0157:H7. Since these samples

were taken as follow-up samples, Montana Quality Foods was required to hold the product, pending test results. As a result, none

of the product that tested positive for 0157 in follow-up sampling

was released into commerce. FSIS advised the establishment that

these positive results indicated that there was a problem with their

food safety system, which required more corrective action.

On February 26th, FSIS issued a Notice of Intended Enforcement

(NOIE) to Montana Quality Foods, notifying the establishment of

the Agency’s intent to suspend the assignment of inspectors for its

raw ground processes. FSIS’ actions were based on an inadequate

HACCP system for the establishment’s raw ground process and

three positive E. coli 0157:H7 samples found in February.

Montana Quality Foods management contend that the source of

the E. coli 0157:H7 problem did not originate in their establishment. Rather, they stated that the problem was coarse ground beef

from one of Montana Quality Foods’ suppliers, another federally-inspected establishment.

After the NOIE was issued on February 26th, FSIS compliance

officers found that Montana Quality Foods had purchased frozen

ConAgra coarse ground beef. And on March 4th, 2002, compliance

officers attempted to locate additional intact samples of the

ConAgra coarse ground beef that Montana Quality Foods had

named as the source of the E. coli 0157:H7 contamination. However, since this lot of coarse ground product in question was produced on August 30th, 2001, no fresh or frozen coarse ground products remained for testing. As a result, FSIS could not confirm the

link between Montana Quality Foods’ product and the supplied

product.

FSIS actions related to Montana Quality Foods were consistent

with established policies and procedures. FSIS is a public health

regulatory agency that must act when a regulatory sample tests

positive for pathogens.

And as you well know, in the summer of 2002, an intensive investigation by numerous Federal and State agencies ultimately

linked an outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 illnesses to product from a

ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado. As a result of this—the invesVerDate 21-JUN-2000 13:47 Apr 30, 2003 Jkt 086181 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\01HEAR\2003\86181.XXX DORISJ PsN: DORISJ
11

tigation, ConAgra recalled millions of pounds of ground-beef products and trimmings.

And as I said earlier, HACCP is not a static system. As information becomes available, we adjust. For instance, information from

the ConAgra investigation combined with data from the Agricultural Research Service and the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, as well as FSIS’ draft risk assessment of E. coli

0157:H7, indicates the E. coli 0157:H7 is more prevalent than previously believed. The combination of these events led FSIS to further strengthen its E. coli 0157:H7 policies and implement additional safeguards to increase food safety.

In July 2002, FSIS initiated a new policy regarding supplier notification of E. coli 0157-positive samples. Under the new policy, if

a sample taken from a grinding facility is found to be positive, the

grinding facility’s suppliers will be notified both orally and in writing. This policy will allow FSIS and those involved in the meat distribution chain to respond more quickly to indicators of potential

problems.

Additionally, in October of 2002, we published a Federal Register

notice with a series of new measures designed to reduce the incidence of E. coli 0157 contamination in raw ground beef. All facilities handling raw ground beef will now have to consider E. coli

0157:H7 in their HACCP plans as a pathogen reasonably likely to

occur.

Our new policy also addresses some of the concerns of grinders

such as Montana Quality Foods. Establishments that receive product for grinding may determine that no additional steps are necessary at grinding facilities to address E. coli 0157 if appropriate

purchase specifications are built into their food safety systems.

These specifications must require that all suppliers have one or

more validated critical control points to eliminate or reduce E. coli

0157 below detectable sampling levels, and some means to ensure

that these specifications are met. For example, grinders may choose

to have a third-party audit done to ensure that their suppliers are

complying with FSIS regulations.

FSIS has provided guidance materials along with the Federal

Register notice to assist the industry in implementing the effective

control steps. The FSIS guidance is based on three points. First,

grinders and suppliers should address hazards such as E. coli

0157:H7 in their raw materials. They are responsible under

HACCP to identify and address all hazards reasonably likely to

occur. Second, grinders and their suppliers should realize that they

are in an excellent position to implement process and distribution

controls that address public health hazards associated with ground

beef. And third, there must be an emphasis throughout the production and distribution chain on maintaining the records that are

necessary to identify, trace, and retrieve from commerce any

ground-beef products that may pose a public health problem.

To ensure compliance with the Federal Register notice, FSIS inspection program personnel have begun determining whether reassessments are being conducted. They are also assuring that establishments that have not yet reassessed their HACCP plans do so

by agency deadlines. Large plants, those with 500 or more employees, were required to comply by December 6th, 2002. We now have

12

consumer safety officers throughout the Nation beginning to verify

in those reassessments. Small plants need to comply—and those

are plants with less than 500 or more than ten employees—will be

required to comply by February 4th. Very small plants—those

fewer than ten employees or annual sales of less than $2.5 million—will be required to comply by April 7th, 2003.

FSIS is also modifying its current E. coli 0157 sampling and testing programs to include all plants. In the past, FSIS did not typically collect raw ground-beef samples at establishments that conduct their own E. coli 0157:H7 tests. However, FSIS has recently

found, in spite of this testing, some of these establishments have

had problems with E. coli 0157 contamination. In response, FSIS

is revising its current directive to discontinue exemptions from

FSIS sampling and testing for E. coli 0157:H7.

FSIS is also developing a risk-based verification program that

takes into account factors such as volume of production, effectiveness of interventions in determining testing frequencies. In addition to continuing to test for E. coli 0157 in ground beef, FSIS is

considering testing E. coli 0157:H7 testing in trimmings and other

intact materials used to make ground beef, and beef carcasses and

parts that will be processed in the ground beef. We believe the controls that reduce the risk of 0157 on intact product may be one of

the most effective ways to control the hazard overall. We believe

that these changes are critical to protecting public health.

As our Administrator, Dr. Garry McKee has made clear, protecting the public health is the Agency’s highest priority. He has

repeatedly stated that FSIS will strictly enforce HACCP, holding

the industry and ourselves responsible. Industry is responsible for

fully implementing HACCP, and for validating the effectiveness of

HACCP plans. FSIS is responsible for making sure that this is

done. We each play a role in ensuring that meat and poultry products are produced safely.

For its part, FSIS has recently strengthened its internal program

and policy review capacity. This allows for an ongoing, more timely

assessment of how effectively program improvements are working.

This will also allow managers to recognize where changes need to

be made.

At FSIS, employee training is a key priority for improving food

safety. We will be providing more adequate and thorough field

training. This effort with our inspectors will help us to more consistently and effectively implement science-based policies and programs within FSIS by increasing the scientific knowledge available

to our front-line workers.

While the Agency is holding industry accountable for producing

safe products, we are also holding ourselves accountable for improving and safeguarding public health.

Ensuring food safety is an ever-evolving process. For this reason,

we constantly reassess our policies and procedures to ensure that

strong prevention and enforcement programs are in place to best

protect consumers from potential adulterants such as E. coli 0157.

Protecting the public health is FSIS’ number one priority. Therefore, the Agency will continue to work to ensure a strong food-safety system and to thoroughly examine ways to enhance its programs

13

through the best available scientific resources, and the implementation of sound policies.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome your

questions.

Senator BURNS. Thank you.

I think we’ll go back to our little dialogue at the table today. And

it seems like that’s when I learn more than me asking questions

and you responding.

I would say, though, in your changes, the points that Mr.

Munsell brought up in his testimony regarding the unscientific

policies, and the points that he made in his testimony, have you

looked at those questions? And can you respond—can you respond

to this? ‘‘When a USDA inspector takes a ground-beef sample for

the USDA lab analysis, the inspector is prohibited from documenting the origin of the meat which provided the sample.’’ Can

you—is there—in your changes—and can you respond to that and

why that has to happen?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I don’t believe it does happen. The regulations—and these particular regulations have been in effect for well

over 50 years—require the plant to maintain those records. I can

supply those regulations for the record.

[The information follows:]

TITLE 9—ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

CHAPTER III—FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

PART 320—RECORDS, REGISTRATION, AND REPORTS—TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sec. 320.1 Records required to be kept.

(a) Every person (including every firm or corporation) within any of the classes

specified in paragraph (a) (1), (2), or (3) of this section is required by the Act to keep

records which will fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his or its

business subject to the Act:

(1) Any person that engages, for commerce, in the business of slaughtering

any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines, or preparing,

freezing, packaging, or labeling any carcasses, or parts or products of carcasses,

of any such animals, for use as human food or animal food;

(2) Any person that engages in the business of buying or selling (as a meat

broker, wholesaler, or otherwise), or transporting in commerce, or storing in or

for commerce, or importing, any carcasses, or parts or products of carcasses, of

any such animals;

(3) Any person that engages in business, in or for commerce, as a renderer,

or engages in the business of buying, selling, or transporting in commerce, or

importing, any dead, dying, disabled, or diseased cattle, sheep, swine, goats,

horses, mules, or other equines, or parts of the carcasses of any such animals

that died otherwise than by slaughter.

(b) The required records are:

(1) Records, such as bills of sale, invoices, bills of lading, and receiving and

shipping papers, giving the following information with respect to each transaction in which any livestock or carcass, part thereof, meat or meat food product

is purchased, sold, shipped, received, transported, or otherwise handled by said

person in connection with any business subject to the Act:

(i) The name or description of the livestock or article;

(ii) The net weight of the livestock or article;

(iii) The number of outside containers (if any);

(iv) The name and address of the buyer of livestock or article sold by

such person, and the name and address of the seller of livestock or articles

purchased by such person;

(v) The name and address of the consignee or receiver (if other than

the buyer);

14

(vi) The method of shipment;

(vii) The date of shipment; and

(viii) The name and address of the carrier.

(ix) In the case of a person belonging to the class specified in paragraph

(a)(1), and engaged, for commerce, in the business of slaughtering any

swine for use as human or animal food, the name and address (including

the city and state, or the township, county, and state) of each person from

whom the person belonging to the class so specified purchased or otherwise

obtained each swine, and the telephone number, if available, of the person

from whom the swine were purchased or otherwise obtained, and all serial

numbers and other approved means of identification appearing on all test

swine selected at antemortem inspection by FSIS representatives for residue testing.

(2) Shipper’s certificates and permits required to be kept by shippers and

carriers of articles under part 325 of this subchapter.

(3) A record of seal numbers required to be kept by consignees of inedible

products shipped under unofficial seals under Sec. 325.11(b) or (e) of this subchapter, and a record of new consignees of inedible products diverted under Sec.

325.11(e) of this subchapter.

(4) [Reserved]

(5) Guaranties provided by suppliers of packaging materials under SEC. 317.20.

(6) Records of canning as required by subpart G of this subchapter A, 9

CFR chapter III.

(7) Sample results and calculation results as required by processing procedures to destroy trichinae in Sec. 318.10(c)(3)(iv) (Methods 5 and 6).

(8) Records of nutrition labeling as required by subpart B, part 317, of this

subchapter.

(9) Records as required in Sec. 318.23(b) and (c).

(10) Records of calcium content in meat derived from advanced meat/ bone

separation machinery and meat recovery systems as required by Sec. 318.24 of

this subchapter.

(11) Records of all labeling, along with the product formulation and processing procedures, as prescribed in Sec. 317.4 and Sec. 317.5.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0583–

0015)

[35 FR 15603, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 36 FR 12004, June 24, 1971; 37 FR

1229, Jan. 27, 1972; 43 FR 30793, July 18, 1978; 47 FR 746, Jan. 7, 1982; 47 FR

17274, Apr. 22, 1982; 49 FR 2235, Jan. 19, 1984; 51 FR 45633, Dec. 19, 1986; 53

FR 40387, Oct. 14, 1988; 57 FR 27877, June 22, 1992; 58 FR 675, Jan. 6, 1993; 58

FR 41152, Aug. 2, 1993; 59 FR 6897, Feb. 14, 1994; 59 FR 62562, Dec. 6, 1994; 60

FR 67456, Dec. 29, 1995; 64 FR 745, Jan. 6, 1999]

Sec. 320.2 Place of maintenance of records.

Every person engaged in any business described in Sec. 320.1 and required by this

part to keep records shall maintain such records at the place where such business

is conducted except that if such person conducts such business at multiple locations,

he may maintain such records at his headquarters’ office. When not in actual use,

all such records shall be kept in a safe place at the prescribed location in accordance

with good commercial practices.

Sec. 320.3 Record retention period.

(a) Every record required to be maintained under this part shall be retained for

a period of 2 years after December 31 of the year in which the transaction to which

the record relates has occurred and for such further period as the Administrator

may require for purposes of any investigation or litigation under the Act, by written

notice to the person required to keep such records under this part.

(b) Records of canning as required in subpart G of this subchapter A, 9 CFR

chapter III, shall be retained as required in Sec. 318.307(e); except that records required by 4Sec. 318.302 (b) and (c) shall be retained as required by those sections.

[35 FR 15603, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 45633, Dec. 19, 1986]

Sec. 320.4 Access to and inspection of records, facilities and inventory;

copying and sampling.

Every person (including every firm or corporation) within any of the classes specified in Sec. 320.1 shall upon the presentation of official credentials by any duly authorized representative of the Secretary, during ordinary business hours, permit

such representative to enter his or its place of business and examine the records

required to be kept by Sec. 320.1 and the process schedules, facilities and inventory

15

pertaining to the business of such person subject to the Act, and to copy all such

records and to take reasonable samples of the inventory upon payment of the fair

market value therefor. Any necessary facilities (other than reproduction equipment)

for such examination and copying of records and for such examination and sampling

of inventory shall be afforded to such authorized representative of the Secretary.

[35 FR 15603, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 64 FR 745, Jan. 6, 1999]

Mr. SMITH. As I have said, now—and starting—not now, but on

July 15th, 2002, what we were doing is, when we take a sample,

if we have a presumptive sample result—and when you say,

‘‘That’s not confirmed, only presumptive,’’ because 80 to 90 percent

of those sample results that are presumptive aren’t confirmed positive—we notify the suppliers and then start collecting the distribution information. So if there is recall, we can move into action

quickly. We can also then—on a positive, notify the suppliers both

verbally, and in writing that their product—and they’re not always

the only ones—there’s usually a combination of products that are

made in to ground beef. So we will notify them so they can start

checking their products and their programs. And our people would

be verifying, upon that notification, those plants that the systems

are producing safe product. And that, we put in place in July 2002.

We have a database of all the suppliers that we’ve notified, and

we’re constantly watching that database also to make sure that we

have supplier names that have frequent entries, that we have conducted a food-safety investigation in those facilities. And we have

a number of those that we have done through this also.

Senator BURNS. Upon notification—in other words, there’s documentation that we’ve got a problem here—and you notify the

supplier——

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator BURNS [continuing]. In other words, it’s been determined

that it’s—the problem is coming from that particular lot of whatever is to be ground——

Mr. SMITH. We don’t specifically know—sorry—we don’t specifically know that it came from that plant, typically. They, a plant,

uses a mixture of ground beef; more than a single source. And so

we notify all the suppliers that their product that a particular

grind has been associated with an E. coli 0157 positive.

Senator BURNS. Okay, now what about—now, let me ask it in another way—what if the grinder has proof perfect and documented

that it came from this lot, can you call that supplier? You can’t do

that?

Mr. SMITH. We have a policy of trace-back on a sole-source single

supplier, and have been doing that since—I can think of numerous

instances in 1998 and 1999 when we did that. When we have the

ability to trace back to a single supplier, we will do that.

Senator BURNS. Then what?

Mr. SMITH. In the case here, again, on the January sample—the

recall division also reports to my office—and we filed a recall worksheet. The ConAgra supplier—or ConAgra product was not identified on that worksheet in that information supplied by the manufacturer as the source of material in the January positive.

In the February positive, as I said, on March 4th, we initiated

an investigation—a trace-back because of the statements from the

company at our headquarters. What we have to do is coordinate

that, because that’s another district. And so we coordinated the inVerDate 21-JUN-2000 13:47 Apr 30, 2003 Jkt 086181 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 U:\01HEAR\2003\86181.XXX DORISJ PsN: DORISJ
16

vestigation and compliance officers going to the distribution facility

in ConAgra. And so in that scenario, we had a single. We had that

information, we did trace back that product. We couldn’t find them

in common to do a follow-up sample.

Senator BURNS. Then what happens if—you say you go back, and

it’s been documented, and you find a problem at ConAgra. Then

what happens?

Mr. SMITH. Well, we had a real-life scenario of that this year in

our plant—that very scenario, similar condition. We had a random

sample, with the suppliers who initiated our random sample not

associated with ConAgra, and the follow-up sampling through the

documentation and having product on-site intact, unopened, we

then took those samples contained in that product, sent it to the

lab, found it was positive, initiated the recall. And, at the same

time, I led a food-safety investigation team into ConAgra in Greeley, Colorado. And, from that, we took enforcement action and we

expanded the recall based on that.

Senator BURNS. Give me the time-line. How long did it take you?

From the time that—the time that you—from the time you collected it, how much time in the lab—give me some kind of a—of

how much time was involved.

Mr. SMITH. I believe we found product to contain—on the 20th.

We shipped off on the 24th. You have 5 days. You can certainly

have 5 days until we can confirm the positive. I believe the recall

was on the 30th of June. We initiated a recall. That was when the

first recall occurred. At the same time, we were working with State

and other Federal agencies, because we had outbreak information.

The week of July 10th, I assembled a team. And when I assembled

the team, I had to get microbiologists, epidemiologists, compliance

officers. And we were there at ConAgra on July 15th.

Senator BURNS. In other words, there are, what—10 plus 15–25

days elapsed.

Mr. SMITH. June 30th, the sample was determined to be positive.

We were there 2 weeks later.

Senator BURNS. But 5 days in the lab work.

Mr. SMITH. No. The sample was taken on the—submitted on the

24th.

Senator BURNS. Okay.

Mr. SMITH. It takes 5 days. We had to overnight ship it to go out

for culture to perform the methodology, but to confirmation, it’s a

5-day process, yes.

Senator BURNS. Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I think that

involved, what, around 16 million pounds? Is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. The initial recall was 350,000 pounds, based on that

sample. After the food safety investigation, it was expanded another 15 million, yes. After we went there and collected our information and did our assessment, yes, it was expanded.

Senator BURNS. Can you tell me, or—you may not have this information—but could you tell me, of the amount of pounds that

were involved, how many pounds of those made it back to the packer?

Mr. SMITH. I wouldn’t want to guess on that, but I can get you

that information. I can submit it to you.

[The information follows:]

17

1The ‘‘Maximum Slaughter Rates’’ figures listed in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section for one

(a) and two (b) inspector kills are overstated because the time required to walk from one inspection station to another is not included. To determine the proper adjusted maximum slaughter

Continued

FSIS’ focus during a voluntary recall is to provide oversight to ensure that customers receiving the recalled product have been notified. FSIS field compliance officers conduct effectiveness checks to ensure that the establishment is making all reasonable efforts to retrieve the recalled product. Upon compliance, the firm is officially notified by letter that the recall is completed and no further action is expected. The ConAgra recall from July 19, 2002 has not been completed and the total

amount of recalled product recovered has not been supplied by the establishment.

Senator BURNS. Because it seems like, in that—in that amount

of time, you didn’t—you couldn’t stop the consumption. It was already out there. I would imagine they move this meat pretty rapidly. And I’d just like to know, on—that amount of time.

Tell me about your—Mr. Shire made the point that more inspectors are needed. Can you respond to that?

Mr. SMITH. I sure can. The staffing of slaughter plants in this

country is defined by line speed. And the line speed then dictates

how many FSIS inspectors are on the line. The establishment cannot work unless we have our full complement of people there. So,

in some plants—if there’s not a full complement, then they either

have to slow the line down, or they wouldn’t work. So they have

to have the full complement of on-line inspectors in order to be able

to slaughter. A shortage of inspectors would not result in a plant—

in a daily shortage—let’s say, a snow storm, traffic, and people—

if they don’t have the full complement there—they cannot run at

full speed until we have a full complement in place. And those line

speeds and those inspector configurations associated with those

line speeds are in the regulations, and we can provide those, also.

[The information follows:]

TITLE 9—ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

CHAPTER III—FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

PART 310—POST-MORTEM INSPECTION—TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sec. 310.1 Extent and time of post-mortem inspection; post-mortem inspection staffing standards.

(a) A careful post-mortem examination and inspection shall be made of the carcasses and parts thereof of all livestock slaughtered at official establishments. Such

inspection and examination shall be made at the time of slaughter unless, because

of unusual circumstances, prior arrangements acceptable to the Administrator have

been made in specific cases by the circuit supervisor for making such inspection and

examination at a later time.

(b)(1) The staffing standards on the basis of the number of carcasses to be inspected per hour are outlined in the following tables. Standards for multiple inspector lines are based on inspectors rotating through the different types of inspection

stations during each shift to equalize the workload. The inspector in charge shall

have the authority to require the establishment to reduce slaughter line speeds

where, in his judgment, the inspection procedure cannot be adequately performed

at the current line speed because of particular deficiencies in carcass preparation

and presentation by the plant at the higher speed, or because the health condition

of the particular animals indicates a need for more extensive inspection.

(2) CATTLE INSPECTION.—For all cattle staffing standards, an ‘‘a’’ in the ‘‘Number of Inspectors by Stations’’ column means that one inspector performs the entire

inspection procedure and a ‘‘b’’ means that one inspector performs the head and

lower carcass inspection and a second inspector performs the viscera and upper carcass inspection.1

18

line speed, paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section for one inspector kills or paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B)

of this section for two inspector kills must be used along with their accompanying rules.

(i) INSPECTION USING THE VISCERA TRUCK.—

STEERS AND HEIFERS

Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour)

Number of inspectors by stations

Head Viscera Carcass

1 to 27 ............................................................................................................................... a a a

28 to 56 ............................................................................................................................. b b b

57 to 84 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 1

85 to 86 ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 1

87 to 143 ........................................................................................................................... 2 2 1

COWS AND BULLS

Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour)

Number of inspectors by stations

Head Viscera Carcass

1 to 27 ............................................................................................................................... a a a

28 to 55 ............................................................................................................................. b b b

56 to 77 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 1

78 to 81 ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 1

82 to 134 ........................................................................................................................... 2 2 1

(A) Rules for determining adjusted maximum slaughter rates for singleinspector kills considering walking distance according to the table in this

subdivision: Determine the distances the inspector actually walks between

the points shown in columns 2 through 14 of the following table. For each

column, determine the deduction figure opposite the appropriate number of

feet in column 1. Compute the total of the deduction figures for columns

2 through 14. The adjusted maximum rate is the maximum rate in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section minus total of the deduction figures. If the resultant number is not a whole number, it must be rounded off to the next

lowest whole number.

19

20

(B) Rules for determining adjusted maximum slaughter rates for twoinspector kills considering walking distance according to the table in this

subdivision: Determine the distances the inspectors actually walk between

the points shown in columns 2 through 9 of the following table. Column 9

is used only if the condemned brands and tags the viscera inspector uses

are kept at a location other than at the washbasin- sterilizer. For each column, determine the deduction figure opposite the appropriate number of

feet in column 1. Compute the total of the deduction figures for columns

2 through 9. Divide this total by 2. The adjusted maximum rate is the maximum rate in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section minus the number calculated above. If the resultant number is not a whole number, it must be

rounded off to the next lowest whole number.

21

22

(ii) INSPECTION USING VISCERA TABLE, TONGUE-IN PRESENTATION OF

HEADS.—

STEERS AND HEIFERS

Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour)

Number of inspectors by station

Head Viscera Carcass

1 to 32 ............................................................................................................................... a a a

33 to 58 ............................................................................................................................. b b b

59 to 84 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 1

85 to 86 ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 1

87 to 143 ........................................................................................................................... 2 2 1

144 to 171 ......................................................................................................................... 3 2 1

172 to 198 ......................................................................................................................... 3 3 1

199 to 226 ......................................................................................................................... 3 3 2

227 to 253 ......................................................................................................................... 4 3 2

254 to 280 ......................................................................................................................... 4 4 2

281 to 306 ......................................................................................................................... 5 4 2

307 to 333 ......................................................................................................................... 5 5 2

COWS AND BULLS

Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour)

Number of inspectors by station

Head Viscera Carcass

1 to 29 ............................................................................................................................... a a a

30 to 56 ............................................................................................................................. b b b

57 to 77 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 1

78 to 81 ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 1

82 to 134 ........................................................................................................................... 2 2 1

135 to 159 ......................................................................................................................... 2 3 1

160 to 187 ......................................................................................................................... 3 3 1

188 to 213 ......................................................................................................................... 3 4 1

214 to 234 ......................................................................................................................... 3 4 2

235 to 264 ......................................................................................................................... 4 4 2

265 to 289 ......................................................................................................................... 5 4 2

290 to 314 ......................................................................................................................... 5 5 2

(iii) INSPECTION USING VISCERA TABLE, TONGUE-OUT PRESENTATION OF

HEADS.—

STEERS AND HEIFERS

Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour)

Number of inspectors by station

Head Viscera Carcass

1 to 32 ............................................................................................................................... a a a

33 to 58 ............................................................................................................................. b b b

59 to 86 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 1

87 to 103 ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 1

104 to 156. ........................................................................................................................ 2 2 1

157 to 186 ......................................................................................................................... 2 3 1

187 to 216 ......................................................................................................................... 3 3 1

217 to 246 ......................................................................................................................... 3 3 2

247 to 275 ......................................................................................................................... 3 4 2

276 to 304 ......................................................................................................................... 4 4 2

305 to 333 ......................................................................................................................... 4 5 2

334 to 362 ......................................................................................................................... 5 5 2

363 to 390 ......................................................................................................................... 5 6 2

23

COWS AND BULLS

Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour)

Number of inspectors by station

Head Viscera Carcass

1 to 29 ............................................................................................................................... a a a

30 to 56 ............................................................................................................................. b b b

57 to 79 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 1

80 to 98 ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 1

99 to 147 ........................................................................................................................... 2 2 1

148 to 174 ......................................................................................................................... 2 3 1

175 to 205 ......................................................................................................................... 3 3 1

206 to 233 ......................................................................................................................... 3 4 1

234 to 256 ......................................................................................................................... 3 4 2

257 to 288 ......................................................................................................................... 4 4 2

289 to 316 ......................................................................................................................... 5 4 2

317 to 343 ......................................................................................................................... 5 5 2

(3) SWINE INSPECTION.—The following inspection staffing standards are applicable to swine slaughter configurations. The inspection standards for all slaughter

lines are based upon the observation rather than palpation, at the viscera inspection

station, of the spleen, liver, heart, lungs, and mediastinal lymph nodes. In addition,

for one-and two-inspector lines, the standards are based upon the distance walked

(in feet) by the inspector between work stations; and for three or more inspector

slaughter lines, upon the use of a mirror, as described in Sec. 307.2(m)(6), at the

carcass inspection station. Although not required in a one-or two-inspector slaughter

configuration, except in certain cases as determined by the inspection service, if a

mirror is used, it must comply with the requirements of Sec. 307.2(m)(6).

TABLE 1.—ONE INSPECTOR—STAFFING STANDARDS FOR SWINE

Distance walked 1 in feet is

Maximum inspection rates (head per hour)

Market hogs (heads attached (heads

detached) Sows and boars (heads detached)

Without mirror With mirror Without mirror With mirror

0 to 5 ............................................................................ 140 150 131 143

6 to 10 .......................................................................... 134 144 126 137

11 to 15 ........................................................................ 129 137 122 132

16 to 20 ........................................................................ 124 132 117 127

21 to 35 ........................................................................ 120 127 113 122

26 to 30 ........................................................................ 116 122 110 118

31 to 35 ........................................................................ 112 118 106 114

36 to 40 ........................................................................ 108 114 103 110

41 to 45 ........................................................................ 105 110 100 106

46 to 50 ........................................................................ 101 107 97 103

51 to 55 ........................................................................ 98 103 94 100

56 to 60 ........................................................................ 96 100 91 97

61 to 65 ........................................................................ 93 97 89 94

66 to 70 ........................................................................ 90 95 87 92

71 to 75 ........................................................................ 88 92 85 89

76 to 80 ........................................................................ 86 89 82 87

81 to 85 ........................................................................ 84 87 80 85

86 to 90 ........................................................................ 82 85 79 83

91 to 95 ........................................................................ 80 83 77 81

96 to 100 ...................................................................... 78 81 75 79

1 Distance walked is the total distance that the inspector will have to walk between work stations during one inspection cycle (e.g., between viscera, carcass, head, and wash-basin).

24

TABLE 2—TWO INSPECTORS—STAFFING STANDARDS FOR MARKET HOGS

Distance walked 1 in feet by inspector B is

Maximum inspection rates (head per hour with heads attached or detached)

Line configuration

Carcus, 2

head

viscera 3

Viscera, 2

head

carcass 3

Head, 2

Head

carcass 3

Without Mirror

0 to 5 ......................................................................................................... 151–253 151–271 151–296

6 to 10 ....................................................................................................... 151–239 151–255 151–277

11 to 15 ..................................................................................................... 151–226 151–240 151–260

16 to 20 ..................................................................................................... 151–214 151–227 151–244

21 to 25 ..................................................................................................... 151–204 151–215 151–231

With Mirror

0 to 5 ......................................................................................................... 151–253 151–303 151–318

6 to 10 ....................................................................................................... 151–239 151–283 151–304

11 to 15 ..................................................................................................... 151–226 151–265 151–289

16 to 20 ..................................................................................................... 151–214 151–249 151–270

21 to 25 ..................................................................................................... 151–204 151–235 151–254

1 Distance walked is the total distance that Inspector B will have to walk between work stations during one inspection cycle (e.g., between

viscera, carcass, and washbasin). 2 Inspector A.

3 Inspector B.

Note: In multiple-inspector plants, the inspectors must rotate between all inspection positions during each shift to equalize the workload.

TABLE 3.—TWO INSPECTORS—STAFFING STANDARDS FOR SOWS AND BOARS

Distance walked 1 in feet by inspector B is

Maximum inspection rates (head per hour)

Line Configuration

Carcass,2

head

Viscera,3

heads

detached

Viscera,2

head

carcass,3

heads

detached

Head,2

viscera

carcass,3

heads

detached

Head,2

viscera

carcass,3

heads

attached

Without Mirror

0 to 5 ............................................................................ 144–248 144–254 144–267 144–267

6 to 10 .......................................................................... 144–235 144–240 144–253 144–253

11 to 15 ........................................................................ 144–222 144–227 144–239 144–239

16 to 20 ........................................................................ 144–211 144–215 144–226 144–226

21 to 25 ........................................................................ 144–201 144–205 144–214 144–214

With Mirror

0 to 5 ............................................................................ 144–248 144–292 144–305 144–292

6 to 10 .......................................................................... 144–235 144–273 144–291 144–280

11 to 15 ........................................................................ 144–222 144–256 144–272 144–268

16 to 20 ........................................................................ 144–211 144–241 144–255 144–255

21 to 25 ........................................................................ 144–201 144–228 144–240 144–240

1 Distance walked is the total distance that Inspector B will have to walk between work stations during one inspection cycle (e.g., between

viscera, carcass, and washbasin). 2 Inspector A.

3 Inspector B.

Note: In multiple-inspector plants, the inspectors must rotate between all inspection positions during each shift to equalize the workload.

TABLE 4.—THREE INSPECTORS OR MORE—STAFFING STANDARDS FOR SWINE

Maximum inspection rates (head per hour with heads attached)

Number of inspectors by station

Head Viscera Carcass Total

Market hogs:

319 to 506 ........................................................................... 1 1 1 3

507 to 540 ........................................................................... 1 2 1 4

541 to 859 ........................................................................... 2 2 1 5

860 to 1,022 ........................................................................ 2 3 1 6

1,023 to 1,106 ..................................................................... 3 3 1 7

25

TABLE 4.—THREE INSPECTORS OR MORE—STAFFING STANDARDS FOR SWINE—Continued

Maximum inspection rates (head per hour with heads attached)

Number of inspectors by station

Head Viscera Carcass Total

Sows and boars:

306 to 439 ........................................................................... 1 1 1 3

1 306 to 462 ........................................................................ 1 1 1 3

440 to 475 ........................................................................... 2 1 1 4

476 to 752 ........................................................................... 2 2 1 5

753 to 895 ........................................................................... 3 2 1 6

896 to 964 ........................................................................... 3 3 1 7

1 This rate applies if the heads of sows and boars are detached from the carcasses at the time of inspection.

Note: In multiple-inspector plants, the inspectors must rotate between all inspection positions during each shift to equalize the workload.

[35 FR 15567, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 47 FR 33676, Aug. 4, 1982; 50 FR

19903, May 13, 1985]

Senator BURNS. In other words, on that—say your line speed is

hampered some way or other, can you shut a line down?

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. For sanitary dressing procedures, direct

product contamination, environmental contamination—the online

people at each of their stations have that ability, and then we have

alternating people—usually in a beef plant, a high-speed beef

plant, we have head inspectors, we have eviscera inspectors, and

we have slaughter inspectors. And we have off-line people, off-line

inspectors, that are verifying the fabrication, the grinding, and also

are looking at the final rail product. And then we have a veterinarian there who’s in charge of the supervision. And he is—he or

she is also there to do the disposition of carcasses, because inspectors cannot condemn an animal. Only veterinarians can do that.

Senator BURNS. Mr. Shire, would you like to respond to that?

Mr. SHIRE. Well, I—our understanding is that—in situations that

have existed, that the high line speed has contributed to some of

the problems in the plant. Recently, the problems with trim at

Swift have been—have been put to that very—for that particular

reason.

The other thing about the line speeds is that—what Mr. Smith

says, that in cases where the inspectors have been taken and put

on the line in large plants, what—in small plants, they’ve ended up

being—well, they’ve been ended up pulling off of the lines in small

plants, and small plants are facing situations then where they can’t

do as much slaughter as they would like to do. If they have a normal course of 2 or 3 or 4 days a week of slaughter when the—there

have been instances where a lot—where the inspectors have been

taken and put onto the line in larger plants, and then the small

plants have to cut back on the amount of slaughter that they’re

doing, or they have to shut down.

Senator BURNS. Mr. Munsell, would you like to comment?

Mr. MUNSELL. I have several comments, if I may.

Senator BURNS. You may.

Mr. MUNSELL. Okay. First of all, you asked Mr. Smith a question

about when does the USDA inspector document information regarding the source of meat-based sampling for an E. coli analysis.

I argued with the USDA for many, many months about this, that

they should be documenting that on the day that the sample was

taken. HACCP is supposedly scientific, and that—to me, that’s the

only scientific way to do it. However, that was not proper procedure

26

for them to document the information on the day the sample was

taken.

But on July 29th, they sent out—the USDA sent out a threeparagraph memo to all their field staff explaining that starting in

their—the field staff were to start documenting that information on

the day the sample was taken. A great step forward.

I think it was in September that improvement, that new policy,

was rescinded. The new policy now says that when the—when the

sample is determined to be a presumptive positive, then at that

point in time the inspectors must go back to the plant management

and say, ‘‘What was the origin of that meat?’’

I attended a meeting in Great Falls in early October that was

hosted by Dr. Nathaniel Clark, who is the district office manager

of the Minneapolis USDA office. So I asked him that question in

front of everyone else who was in that room, so they could document whether I’m telling the truth or not. I said, ‘‘What—what is

the current status? Is the inspector to document the origin when

he takes the sample, or 3 days later?’’ Because that’s—it takes 3

days before that presumptive positive is made. Dr. Nathaniel Clark

gave me the comment, and I quote, ‘‘For legal reasons, it has been

decided to wait until the presumptive positive determination has

been made,’’ so—end quote. So I asked, ‘‘For legal reasons, who

would possibly legally challenge the USDA if they instructed their

inspectors to document the origin of meat when they took the sample?’’ Well, I need for you to fill in the blanks on that one. It had

to be someone who had something to lose.

Now, it’s my contention that it should be done jointly, that—the

day that the sample is taken, it is my contention that both the inspector and the plant management should work together and fully

document all that information so that, in the future, 3 days later,

if it is presumptive-positive, there can be no question. The plant

can’t lie and say, ‘‘Well, nope, it came from somebody else,’’ nor can

the USDA make false accusations to the plant, saying, ‘‘Well, it

was your meat.’’

In our case, February 19th and 20th, 21st, as Mr. Smith said, we

fully documented all that information. It was observed by the inspector. He knew that all that documentation was correct. And for

that reason, both he and his supervisor, the veterinarian, signed

that letter that was seen on NBC Nightly News in which they identified ConAgra as the source.

Well, I’d just ask everybody in this room, even if the USDA did

go back to the policy of instructing that all that documentation be

prepared on the day the sample is taken, that documentation

means nothing, whether we take it or whether the inspector takes

it, yet the hierarchy in Washington, D.C. has the authority to summarily reject it all and call it mere ‘‘opinion.’’

Senator BURNS. Mr. Smith, do you want to respond to that?

Mr. SMITH. Again, I’m not sure what we’re saying was that we

rejected any opinions. What I do know is the regulations that required plants, for decades, to be responsible for documenting product coming into the plant and where it goes out of their plant. So,

therefore, it is a matter of when we need to collect this information,

we go to the plant to ask them for those required records.

27

We—as I said, we do 54,000 samples to this point. We’ve already

done 6,000 this year. The number of positive 0157:H7s is less than

10 percent of those ever confirmed. We’d be collecting an awful lot

of information when we could have inspectors doing more important things.

We also know that those records are available to us, because

they’re required by regulation. Plants need to document their incoming products, what they make—that’s required by regulation; I

can give you the regulations sites—and where they distribute them

to. Those records are available to us, and those are the records we

would then use to make those determinations.

What we are doing with the supplier notification process is—because I said we had a high probability on presumptive positives,

that it seems, would get a jump upon getting those distribution

records together. But what does that mean? That means we go to

the plant owner and ask him for those records that he or she must

maintain in order to get that information so we can send a notification out, should it become positive.

We can be much clearer. I mean, we’re happy to make that clearer for our inspectors if we need to, but those are the regulations,

those are the records, and those are the way I’ve been operating,

as far as I know, since I’ve been in this agency for 25 years.

Mr. MUNSELL. But why—but why can’t—once you accept a sample and—why can’t you put on that sample the documentation of

where that meat comes from at that time rather than waiting 2 or

3 days or whatever before your determine—presumptive determination?

Mr. SMITH. Again, I think that’s something that we can look at.

I think that needs to be vetted in a public process, because a number of packers would also be very upset about us collecting information on negative findings. And so I just think, in fairness to everybody, that we should do a meeting. We should discuss that. We

have meetings every month with industry and the consumer

groups, and that’s certainly a topic that Mr. Shire could bring up,

and we could certainly vet that in a public process.

Right now, we feel we have sufficient record-keeping requirements to be able to get that information. And to this point, it has

been very effective both for Salmonella testing, for red meat. All

our testing programs are the same way.

Senator BURNS. All right. Well, I would say that—maybe the

large packer may have some complaints about that, but that’s

tough.

Mr. Munsell?

Mr. MUNSELL. Mr. Smith says that, ‘‘in all fairness to all the

packers’’—and, you know, the system has to be fair to all the packers—it also has to be common sense. The Wholesome Meat Act, the

primary recipient—the primary beneficiary of the Wholesome Meat

Act is the consumer. To me, every decision that—every policy that

the USDA makes, I believe, should have, as its primary goal, safe

food for consumers. So instead of saying, ‘‘Let’s be fair to all packers,’’ I say, ‘‘Let’s be fair to consumers.’’ If food safety is our number one goal, every policy that the USDA and that plant management follows must be geared toward safe food, not protecting the

big packers.

28

Mr. SMITH. May I respond to that?

Senator BURNS. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I agree that our number one priority is food safety.

And when I said ‘‘packers,’’ I didn’t just say ‘‘large packers.’’ I said

‘‘all packers.’’

And I also know—and so maybe this will help clarify—that we

extensively train our compliance officers to do record investigations

and trace-back. We send them to Justice Department training in

New Mexico. We have further training for them in that we have

contracted with Sam Houston University in law enforcement. Our

people are well-trained and able to have assess records, trace-back

records, just so when an outbreak or an incident occurs, we can

quickly protect the consuming public.

Senator BURNS. Tell me about the inspector’s mark. What is it,

what’s it look like, and when it is applied?

Mr. SMITH. The mark of inspection is a shield. It says, ‘‘Inspected

for wholesomeness’’——

Senator BURNS. Whenever you roll the carcass? Is that when

you——

Mr. SMITH. No—it goes on the carcass. It also is a required labeling feature on every label of meat and poultry product, and egg

products, also.

What does the mark of inspection mean? It means—my version

of what it means, and I believe it’s the Agency’s version of what

it means, is that those products have been produced in facilities

that are safe, constructed a safe environment for producing product, that the equipment is designed to not adulterate the product,

that the water supply coming into that product—that plant is potable, that the sewage systems in that plant cannot cross-contaminate. It means that the plant has sanitation operating procedures

which are required to ensure the products are not directly contaminated or adulterated. It means that the products are produced

under process-control systems, HACCP, so that microbiological,

chemical, and physical hazards are either controlled, reduced, or

eliminated. It means that products are verified that they’re not economically adulterated, and that when they go out the door, they

are properly labeled as to net weight and content.

Senator BURNS. Now, I’ve forgotten exactly what it says on that

roll. I guess it says, ‘‘USDA inspected.’’ And also, is the grade put—

applied at the same time with regard to the carcass? Not in regard

to the trimmings or——

Mr. SMITH. Grading is a voluntary service. Any marketing service is responsible for that. We do not apply the grade marks. We

only apply the mark of inspection.

Senator BURNS. Okay. I—there’s another mark here somewhere.

I’ve got a terrific memory, but it’s short.

I think—Mr. Munsell, do you have anymore questions of USDA

here, while we’ve got him here——

Mr. MUNSELL. I may.

Senator BURNS [continuing]. That we should make part of the

public record?

Mr. MUNSELL. When I earlier made the comment about the fact

that the—that July 29th policy change had been rescinded in regards to when is information documented as to the origin of the

29

meat being sampled—I was wondering if Mr. Smith could define

what Dr. Nathaniel Clark meant when he said, ‘‘For legal reasons,

it’s been decided to wait until 3 days later when the presumptive

positive has been determined.’’ So what did he mean by ‘‘legal reasons’’? What kind of legal ramifications would this have to the

USDA?

Mr. SMITH. Honestly, I do not. Not being in that conversation,

I’m not sure. I can tell you the policy did not change. The policy

was published in a press release on July 15th and said we will notify suppliers when we have a positive result. We collect the information when we have presumptives because, again, there’s a high

probability that a presumptive will confirm. It’s an 80-percent

chance. So whether he was referring to maybe we should collect it

when it’s potential, and then potential you have a 10 percent

chance of confirming—I don’t know what his thinking was at the

time.

I’m telling you the policy was published on July 15th, 2002, an

FSIS press release, and I’m not aware of any changes to it since.

Mr. MUNSELL. I’m sure that—I have a copy in my briefcase of the

July 29th three-paragraph memo that specifies that they are to

begin documenting that information on the day they collect the

sample. And included with that was a form that appeared on the

Web site that showed the information. So, Mr. Smith, are you

aware of that three-paragraph memo, plus the chart that they were

supposed to use to document the information?

Mr. SMITH. Again, we always are putting up information to help

our people document and collect information. The policy, again, was

made when we announced we were going to notify suppliers, on

July 15th. If there’s a July 29th, then I’m not—I’m just not familiar

with it right now. If it’s there, my guess would be, it’s instruction

to our inspectors on how to document, especially if it was a worksheet. That would make sense that we would do something like

that to help them document. I don’t know how that would have

changed any policies. And it was instructions to document and collect information.

Senator BURNS. Mr. Smith, give me a—give me some kind of idea

of—on whenever you redo policy and policy changes, if you—if

it’s—you say that every 30 days you have a working team that reviews changes, or suggested changes.

Mr. SMITH. Well—how often?

Senator BURNS. How often?

Mr. SMITH. We meet with our constituents pretty much on a

monthly and never less than every-other monthly basis, and questions either the consumer groups have or the industry have on our

executing policy, we discuss. And then if there’s changes needed,

we try and do that in a public arena, just like—for instance, we’re

having a recall meeting tomorrow in Washington, D.C., to go over

some of the issues that Mr. Shire brought up, and that’s, we feel,

a very good way to get input on the execution of how we do things.

And if there’s changes needed, then that can be brought forward

in the public process, and everybody can weigh in and talk about

it, and then we hopefully can make the best decision.

30

The only time we would not wait for that would be, of course, if

we have a food emergency. We will act first, and discuss any associated issues after we control the food safety issue.

Senator BURNS. Well, I know that—and you can hear the frustration here among producers and everybody else, because it just affects all of us. And your procedures, sometimes, I would imagine,

has to stand scrutiny and review all the time, because there is—

let’s face it, there are new ways of doing things. And of course,

science turns up new things.

I would—I know there’s some more questions out there, and I’m

going to leave the record open for more questions and—to all of

you. We have a—I know two other Senators that don’t—that are

interested in this issue, because they have facilities in their States,

and also producers in their States. So I have no more questions.

I think we’ve pretty well covered the policy end of it, and I think

probably that you’ll see the Senate take a closer look at or maybe

a review with the department on those things. And I would imagine you could expect some hearings in Washington, D.C. I don’t

think this is the end of this, because it causes lots of heartburn

whenever these situations happen.

So I’m going to leave the record open for 30 days. I’m going to

allow other Senators to—if they have questions, I’ll have them send

to you for clarification and your response, and you can respond

both to the committee and to the Senator. I would appreciate that

very much.

If there is anything else that could come before this—I do think

that right now our biggest problem is a lack of communication between, say, an operation like Mr. Munsell runs in Miles City, Montana, and also—but it looks like if his records are complete and the

documentation is there, I’m not much concerned about what a larger packer might think is an inconvenience to them. I’m more concerned about taking care of the problem and doing it now, because

we have the consumers to be concerned about and also the—and

also, if that documentation also clears a lot of people down the line.

It looks like the—if the dead meat’s documented, whenever it goes

to the lab it should say where it comes from. And—now if you want

to put a—if you want to put an embargo on the information of that

until after the—until after the tests are run, I see no problems

with that, but I think it should be on there so that we know how

to react, and react in a proper and speedy manner. And now that’s

my opinion. Of course, I may be a minority here, but that’s what

I think.

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

So I’m going to—I’m going to close these hearings. I’m going to

leave the record open for 30 days for questions. And if you can respond to those, I—it would be muchly appreciated.

So as of right now, this session is recessed.

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., Wednesday, December 11, the hearing

was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene

subject to the call of the Chair.]

Æ