Date: 1984-07-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 5223. This bill would provide an exemption from Federal meat and poultry inspection requirements for restaurant central kitchens that prepare readytoeat food for sale to individual consumers at restaurants owned or operated by the same person. Currently. USDA does not inspect kitchens which distribute products to only one restaurant. If the central kitchen distributcs food products to two or more restaurants. though. the central kitchen must be inspected. Restaurants. per se. are exempt from Federal inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Restaurant central kitchens. however. under USDA requirements. are inspected on the same basis as meatpacking plants and processing operations and must met the same regulatory requirements for . sanitation. equipment. and facilities. In the view of the committee. exempting restaurant central kitchens from Federal inspection would alleviate regulatory burdens upon the industry and minimize taxpayers expense. At the same time. consumers would continue to be assured that they will receive wholesome. unadulterated. and properly labeled meat and poultry products. The adulteration and misbranding provisions of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts would continue to apply. notwithstanding the exemption from the inspection requirements. In addition. operations at central kitchens would continue to be subject to local health inspection. The committee belves that the rationale that served as a basis for exempting restaurants from the Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts should apply as well to central kitchens serving restaurants owned or operated by the same person. In the past. restaurants purchased raw ingredients for their menu items and prepared them on site at each restaurantin essence a decentralized food service system. The quality of the product could vary from one restaurant to another depending on the ingredients. personnel. equipment. and so forth. In addition. these decentralized operations were becoming costly in terms of labor and equipment costs. With the use of standardized recipes and new preparation procedures. the food service industry began to centralize its purchasing and preparation of food products. The advantage of centralized food service systems is that. first. quality of menu items is uniform from one restaurant to another. and second. dollar savings are realized by buying in large bulk quantities and reducing food labor costs. This is essentially a technical amendment to include the term "restaurant central kitchen" in the exclusion for "restaurants" under the Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts. since they are the same thing. Since central kitchens were not specifically excluded. USDA expanded its jurisdiction to include them when inspecting meat processors and packing plants. These facilities are not meatpackers nor processors. They are restaurant kitchens differing only in location. They cook with products that have been inspected at several levels in the packing/processing stage. and the kitchens themselves are inspected by State and local health departments the same as any other restaurant kitchen. Although only about 20 restaurant central kitchens nationwide are currently inspected. the regulations themselveswritten for meatpacking and processing plantsprevent small restaurant owneroperators from expanding and competing. Most small operators cannot build kitchens with aisles as wide and counters as high as processing plants. They cannot afford specialized equipment. They cannot provide specials rooms for inspectors and pay their overtime. In March 1983 the Food Safety Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture published a study entitled "An Analysis of Exemption Provisions of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Laws." Among the various issues studled was USDAs policy on inspecting central kitchens. and specifically. the question considered was: Should central kitchens which distribute meals or entrees to their owned or operated restaurants be exempt from inspection? The Food Gafety Inspection Service report concluded: Central kitchens producing food products for their own restaurants encounter many regulatory burdens when under inspection. These central kitchens were established to insure that uniform quality products are served to their clientele regardless of which restaurant serves the product. With the numerous State and local health codes. Federal inspection of these operations has marginal benefits to the consumer. Exempting central kitchens which provide meat/poultry food products to their own restaurants would eliminate the different inspection policies for central kitchens and caterers. and insure a consistent. fairer policy for both. Other adequate considerations. such as local health and inspection requirements. still insure that consumers would receive wholesome. unadulterated products. However. central kitchens offering their products for resale should remain under inspection. The amendment is strictly limited in scope. It does not exempt any central kitchens that provides any food for a restaurant or facility that is not owned by the owner of the central kitchen. even if most of the meat food products so prepared are served in restaurants owned by the same person that owns the central kitchen. This means. for example. that food prepared in central kitchens for sale to airlines would not be covered by the exemption. Likewise. those central kitchens which cook food to be sold in packaged form would continue to be inspected. The effect of the amendment is that restaurant central kitchen facilities that comport with the foregoing requirements would be exempt from Federal inspection. regardless of whether its operations were intrastate or interstate. It had been my hope that this matter could be resolved administratively. However. the Office of General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a legal opinion that an exemption for restaurant central kitchens from Federal inspection can be brought about ortly through statutory amendment. My bill will help bring about this much desired reform. "he Department of Agriculture reconanends this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.