[Senate Hearing 107-916]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        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

                                 ______











                       U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-181                          WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800  
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001








                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina   THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada                   MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island              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                     THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        TED STEVENS, Alaska
  (ex officio)                         (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)






                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   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


                     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.
    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 time-line?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 beef-safety 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 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.
    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 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 meat-processing 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 in-plant food inspector 
in Pennsylvania, acting regional director of the Northeast 
region, executive director of District Inspection Operations, 
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 
ground-beef 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 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 
investigation, 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 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 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);
                    (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 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 investigation 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:]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The ``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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of inspectors by
                                                     stations
Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour) --------------------------------
                                            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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of inspectors by
                                                     stations
Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour) --------------------------------
                                            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 single-inspector 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. 

                
                
                    (B) Rules for determining adjusted maximum 
                slaughter rates for two- inspector 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. 
                
                
            (ii) Inspection Using Viscera Table, Tongue-In Presentation 
        of Heads.--

                           STEERS AND HEIFERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of inspectors by station
Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour) --------------------------------
                                            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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of inspectors by station
Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour) --------------------------------
                                            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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of inspectors by station
Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour) --------------------------------
                                            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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             COWS AND BULLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of inspectors by station
Maximum slaughter rates (head per hour) --------------------------------
                                            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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum inspection rates (head per hour)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Market hogs (heads attached        Sows and boars (heads
         Distance walked \1\ in feet is                  (heads detached)                    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).


                           TABLE 2--TWO INSPECTORS--STAFFING STANDARDS FOR MARKET HOGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Maximum inspection rates (head per hour with
                                                                            heads attached or detached)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                Line configuration
          Distance walked \1\ in feet by inspector B is          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                    Carcus, \2\    Viscera, \2\
                                                                   head viscera    head carcass   Head, \2\ Head
                                                                        \3\             \3\         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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum inspection rates (head per hour)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Line Configuration
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
  Distance walked \1\ in feet by inspector B is     Carcass,\2\     Viscera,\2\      Head,\2\        Head,\2\
                                                       head            head           viscera         viscera
                                                    Viscera,\3\     carcass,\3\     carcass,\3\     carcass,\3\
                                                  heads detached  heads detached  heads detached  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of inspectors by station
Maximum inspection rates (head per hour with heads attached) ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                  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
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 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 three-
paragraph 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.
    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.
    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 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.
    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.]

                                   - 
