[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MORE THAN A DIFFERENCE OF DEGREES

                                 ______


                       HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 31, 1995

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, a respected leader of California's 
agriculture community, Bill Mattos, has hit the nail on the head. 
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the rule he rightly ridicules is one that 
tolerates as fresh chicken sold to consumers that is frozen so stiff it 
could drive nails.
  For the enlightenment of our colleagues and to illustrate once again 
the folly of letting frozen masquerade as fresh, because that is what 
Government says, I take pleasure in presenting the following editorial 
expression by Mr. Mattos that was published in the Capital Press 
Agriculture Weekly on October 27, 1995.

    Poultry Label Charade Confirms Public's Cynicism About Politics

                            (By Bill Mattos)

       When is a frozen chicken fresh?
       One newspaper says, ``When it's got the political muscle of 
     the 800-pound gorilla that is the poultry lobby.''
       I guess that's the same frozen poultry thawed on its way to 
     California from some of the nation's largest poultry 
     processors.
       Believe it or not, Congress spent more than four hours 
     recently debating chicken labeling, then barred the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture from enforcing truth in labeling.
       Congress just doesn't get it. Voter anger, so visibly 
     demonstrated in the last two federal elections, was not 
     simply about one party vs. the other. Rather, it was directed 
     at the status quo--a sense that in Washington, the concerns 
     of deep-pocketed special interests outweigh the common good.
       Recent action in both the House and Senate shows the 
     lengths members will go to please special interests. In the 
     midst of hefty debate on a welfare ``revolution'' and 
     Medicare ``overhaul,'' Congress found it necessary to vote on 
     whether chicken that has been frozen to rock-solid 
     temperatures can be thawed and called ``fresh.''
       After weeks of serious debate, with California's 
     representatives arguing the merits of freshness, Congress 
     decided that yes, indeed, it should be legal to label 
     defrosted poultry as ``fresh.''
       This legislative squawking is ludicrous. But it means 
     serious, added profits to a few big chicken producers in the 
     Southeast who use these ``fresh'' labels to sell chicken to 
     unsuspecting consumers nationwide at a higher price.
       Consumers who buy fresh food believe it has never been 
     frozen. That's why USDA officials in August announced that 
     chicken producers can no longer put deceptive ``fresh'' 
     labels on poultry that has been iced to below 26 degrees, and 
     subsequently thawed for sale in grocery stores.
       USDA policymakers didn't create this rule overnight. Two 
     years ago, they began studying the issue. They tested the 
     freezing point of poultry--and discovered the meat becomes 
     crystallized at 26 degrees. They held field hearings in 
     cities throughout the country. They drafted a rule and 
     published it in the Federal Register to solicit public 
     comments.
       And the public responded: USDA's mailbox received thousands 
     of letters from irate consumers, all of the leading consumer 
     advocacy organizations, as well as chefs, who felt the rule 
     was important enough for them to write in.
       Congress held its own hearings, which included testimony by 
     noted chef Wolfgang Puck, who pounded a so-called ``fresh'' 
     chicken that was rock-solid on a table in front of a House 
     committee. Members participated in chicken bowling with 
     ``fresh'' chickens that were hard as bowling balls.
       The point consumers were trying to make was simple: A 
     ``fresh'' chicken has never been frozen. Shoppers in search 
     of fresh vegetables bypass the freezer case and go to the 
     produce department. Likewise, those in search of fresh 
     seafood head straight for the lobster tank. So why on earth 
     did the Senate vote to provide an exception for poultry?
       The answer: It puts lots of dollars in the pockets of giant 
     poultry corporations in a few states like Arkansas and 
     Mississippi, and costs 40 cents to $2 more per pound for 
     consumers who buy this ``fresh'' (actually, thawed) chicken.
       Southeastern senators whose constituents include the 
     largest chicken-producing conglomerates went to the Senate 
     floor to say it was them vs. California, a state where 
     consumers purchase lots of fresh chicken. Maybe they had a 
     point--but only on the Senate floor. Off the Capitol grounds, 
     it was the Senate vs. millions of consumers, and consumers 
     lost.
       In fact, the vote in the Senate was 61 to 38 in favor of 
     defrauding consumers. Senators from the frozen-chicken states 
     locked arms and relied on the old network to reverse a 
     scientifically based USDA rule that was two years in the 
     making. Subsequent objections to this ridiculousness raised 
     elsewhere in Congress were overruled.
       Kudos to Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Sen. Dale Bumpers, 
     D-Ark., or this legislative feat. Cochran is the chairman of 
     the Senate subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, the 
     panel that holds the purse strings for the USDA. He got the 
     ball rolling by slipping language into an appropriations bill 
     before his committee that would prevent the department from 
     using its funding to implement or enforce its truth-in-
     labeling rule.
       But it was Bumpers who, during debate in the Senate, 
     revealed the true thrust of the big chicken lobby's argument: 
     economics. He said it was difficult to ship chickens from 
     Arkansas without freezing them, claiming that ``economically, 
     that is not doable.'' So in pursuant to additional profits 
     for several large companies, Congress overruled conventional 
     scientific wisdom.
       These actions typify what is wrong with Washington. The 
     Congress overturned in a matter of weeks a pro-consumer, 
     common-sense ruling by the USDA that took two years and many 
     hours of public input, to make.
       In the end, Congress chickened out and voted for the best 
     interests of special interests, hoping consumers didn't 
     notice.
       Well, consumers and fresh poultry producers did notice, and 
     we were disgusted.
       This isn't a choice between fresh and frozen. It's a choice 
     between consumers' interests and hard-ball politics as usual. 
     What will it be, Washington?

                          ____________________