[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          MEAT INSPECTION LAWS

                                 ______


                            HON. PAT ROBERTS

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 4, 1994

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's meat inspection system has 
come under attack in the media as allowing unsafe meat and poultry 
products to be sold to the consumer. Many of these attacks have little 
foundation in fact. Our Nation's meat is safe. Our inspection system is 
sound. But it could be better.
  The E. Coli outbreak in the Pacific Northwest was a tragedy. But what 
we sometimes forget, the deaths that occurred were the result of a 
restaurant chain not following basic health standards--and more 
importantly, USDA's rules--on proper cooking and handling procedures 
for meat.
  The news media and certain public officials blamed our Nation's 
system of inspecting meat. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention reports that 97 percent of food-borne illness results from 
mishandling food--77 percent in food service and 20 percent in the 
home. That's right--less than 3 percent of food-borne illness can be 
traced back to a breakdown in our inspection system.
  Our meat inspection system does produce a safe product. But we can do 
better. We need to move beyond a meat inspection system that relies on 
visual examination of each carcass and instead relies on a system that 
is based on sound science. In fact, the meat industry would like to 
make changes and move to a sounder scientific approach.
  They have repeatedly asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
adopt a hazard analysis and critical control point [HACCP] inspection 
system that relies on microbial testing to check for pathogens. Instead 
of approving HACCP, the Department last year installed the policy of 
``zero tolerance'' for the red meat industry. Industry sources tell us 
that this program may be increasing bacteria counts on beef, not 
reducing them. Now the Department is proposing to extend the ``zero 
tolerance'' rule to the poultry industry. If ``zero tolerance'' is not 
benefiting public safety, the question is ``Why?''.

  The Department is currently soliciting comments on the proposed 
regulations as they impact the poultry industry. It is interesting to 
note that the Department, in proposing the rule, said it would only 
cost the industry $7 M. The Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association 
contends that the cost of the regulations will exceed $240 million in 
the first year and $180 million in subsequent years.
  Mr. Speaker. We need a referee. Someone to wade through the press 
releases and look at the facts. Someone to analyze the science involved 
in proposed changes to the meat inspection system.
  Several years ago when the pesticide industry found itself at 
loggerheads over the use and regulation of pesticides, the Congress 
created the Scientific Advisory Panel to review issues of science and 
make recommendations to the Administrator of EPA. The SAP has worked 
very well to bring some manner of calm and reason to the pesticide 
regulatory process.
  Given the success of the SAP for the pesticide industry, there is 
merit in applying that concept to the meat inspection system. We need a 
panel of scientists with expertise in meat and food science to look at 
the issues of meat and poultry inspection and make recommendations to 
the Secretary of Agriculture for changes in our meat inspection system. 
These recommendations should be based on the collective wisdom of 
scientists who have knowledge of the issues impacting the meat industry 
and how proposed changes relate to public health questions.
  I am introducing legislation creating the Safe Meat and Poultry 
Inspection Panel to review proposals for inspection system improvements 
and make recommendations in a timely manner to the Secretary of 
Agriculture on new procedures, petitions from the industry, processes, 
and techniques that could be used by the meat inspection system to make 
our food supply even safer. This panel could also address the issue of 
how we need to train our cadre of Federal inspectors.
  I am optimistic that the Congress, in the next session, will update 
our Nation's meat inspection laws. The USDA has asked for the Congress 
to clarify their authority when it comes to microbial testing and we 
will be working with all the parties involved to craft a meat 
inspection bill that will address some of the issues that have surfaced 
in the last few years. The Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel would 
provide, on an ongoing basis, scientific input in the meat inspection 
system. I will be pushing for its inclusion next year in any meat 
inspection reform legislation.

                          ____________________