[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1685-E1687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 27, 2007

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2419) to 
     provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through 
     fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes:

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, while I was very supportive of the great 
work that was done by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Peterson on 
the farm bill, there is one provision that I have significant concerns 
about and I will work to ensure that the language is removed from the 
bill before it is enacted into law.
  The farm bill contains language that would change the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act that would allow 
state inspected meat and poultry products to be sold in interstate 
commerce. Current law limits the sale of state-inspected meat and 
poultry products to the state in which they were produced. The stated 
purpose of the provision is to encourage the creation of new small meat 
and poultry processing businesses and give farmers new markets for 
their products. Because current law permits state-inspection programs 
but requires that they be ``equal to'' the federal program, supporters 
of this provision insist there would be no health risk in permitting 
state-inspected products to be sold any where.
  However, do not be misled by the argument--the proposed change in the 
law would create a serious threat to public health and result in the 
serious weakening of the federal meat and poultry inspection programs. 
Instead of creating new markets for farmers, the reduced health 
standard that this provision would establish ultimately would reduce 
the market for all meat and poultry products.
  There are no data to support the belief that federal inspection 
requirements are too onerous for small companies. In fact, thousands of 
small and very small meat and poultry plants in every single state 
operate successfully under the federal inspection process. There are 
currently 5,603 plants now under federal inspection, and 2,878 of those 
(51 percent) employ ten or fewer people. In addition, there are 
approximately 1,654 other plants that have between 10 and 50 employees.
  While the federal inspection laws require that state inspection 
programs be equal to the federal program, based on reports by the USDA 
Office of Inspector General, plants subjected to state inspection may 
not be as clean and sanitary as federally inspected plants. In October 
2006, the USDA Office of Inspector General published an audit of FSIS's 
oversight of state meat and poultry inspection programs that outlined 
how state inspection programs failed to meet sanitation standards. The 
report also found that FSIS was failing to hold states responsible for 
protecting public health by allowing meat plants in four states to 
continue to sell meat even after finding that the state programs were 
not meeting legal safety standards.
  Although meat and poultry inspection laws require that state programs 
be equal to the federal program, USDA focuses its reviews of 
equivalence on state plans. So, while it is possible to have adequate 
inspection plans on paper, the USDA does not certify that each 
state inspected plant meets federal standards. The agency also does not 
return to these plants to determine that they are continuing to meet 
federal standards.

  Mr. Chairman, you will be disturbed to learn that the USDA conducts a 
far more rigorous oversight of foreign plants that want to export meat 
to the U.S. than it does over state inspected plants. Before a plant in 
a foreign country can ship meat to the U.S., USDA must first determine 
that the foreign country's inspection program is ``equal to'' the U.S. 
program. Then, USDA must examine and certify as acceptable each 
individual plant that wants to ship meat or poultry to the U.S. There 
is no comparable requirement for state-inspected plants to be initially 
certified.
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, rejected the state 
of Ohio's contention that the prohibition on interstate sale of state-
inspected meat violated the Fifth and Tenth amendments to the U.S. 
Constitution. The court explained that the difference between federal, 
international and state inspection programs justified the limitations 
on the shipment of state inspected meat. They found that ``though the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an eye on state inspection 
programs, it keeps yet a closer eye on its own plants and on meat and 
poultry entering the country, and it is possible that a state program 
could deteriorate without the USDA's knowledge. This possibility 
provides a rational basis for Congress to restrict the interstate 
transport of state-inspected meat.''
  Another important component of this issue to consider is that it 
would be extremely difficult for a state government to manage an 
effective recall of adulterated meat or poultry that has been shipped 
outside the state. The USDA and state governments do not possess 
mandatory recall authority, and recalls must be negotiated between the 
regulatory agency and the company. While a state meat inspection agency 
may direct a state-inspected plant

[[Page E1686]]

to undertake a recall, a state inspection program does not have the 
legal authority to travel to other states to assure a recall of meat 
and poultry products has been executed thoroughly.
  The proposed language in the farm bill would have the unintended 
consequence of opening the door for a major exodus of meat and poultry 
plants from federal inspection to state inspection programs. The 
language would allow 80 percent of all federally inspected plants to be 
eligible to transfer from federal inspection to state inspection if the 
plant is in one of the 28 states that have an inspection program. This 
means that a federally inspected plant that is under pressure from a 
federal inspector to improve its sanitation practices could decide to 
transfer to the state inspection that might offer less stringent 
oversight.
  Mr. Chairman, as you can see, this is a very critical food safety 
issue that needs to be addressed. A Democratic Congress cannot be 
responsible for jeopardizing our food supply and we must work to ensure 
that this provision is not enacted into law.
  Last week, the Safe Food Coalition sent a letter that outlined the 
concerns on this issue in greater detail. I ask that the letter be 
included in the Record.
                                                    July 25, 2007.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned members of the Safe 
     Food Coalition and the American Federation of Government 
     Employees strongly oppose the state-inspected meat and 
     poultry provisions in the ``Farm Bill,'' H.R. 2419. These 
     provisions would lower food safety standards and increase the 
     risk of food poisoning in the U.S. They would encourage the 
     least responsible and competent meat and poultry federally 
     inspected processors to escape the rigorous safety 
     enforcement of federal inspectors and search for more 
     ``understanding'' and ``flexible'' enforcement by state 
     inspectors.
       The provisions amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and 
     the Poultry Products Inspection Act to permit meat and 
     poultry products inspected by state inspectors to be sold in 
     interstate commerce. The goal, according to supporters, is to 
     ``create new markets for state-inspected meat'' which they 
     say would encourage the start-up of new, small meat and 
     poultry processing companies that would compete with giant 
     international slaughter and processing companies and offer 
     farmers better prices. We agree that both farmers and 
     consumers might benefit from increased competition in meat 
     and poultry processing, but we reject the assumption that new 
     companies and competition must be encouraged by dismantling 
     the federal inspection system, reducing food safety 
     standards, and raising the risk of foodborne illness.
       These provisions do not permit states to establish higher 
     food safety standards. Federal meat and poultry laws pre-empt 
     the states from raising standards. USDA's Inspector General 
     reports that the Department has not closed state programs 
     that fail to provide safety protection ``equal to'' federal 
     standards.
       The provisions affect federal, as well as state, inspected 
     meat and poultry plants. They would make 80 percent of all 
     federally inspected meat and poultry processing plants--4,532 
     of 5,603 plants--eligible to switch from federal inspection 
     to the more ``business-friendly'' state inspection. With that 
     change, if a federal inspector pressures a meat packer to 
     improve sanitation, the packer could instead try to negotiate 
     a more understanding regulatory response from his state 
     inspection program. It is not surprising that both the 
     American Meat Institute and the National Meat Association, 
     whose members are federally inspected plants, have signed 
     off on this language despite the authors' claims that it 
     creates new competition for them.
       A major exodus from federal to state inspection programs 
     would not only threaten food safety but would also adversely 
     affect thousands of federal inspection employees, 
     contributing to a loss of federal inspection positions. Their 
     loss would hurt American consumers who have benefited from 
     the work of well-trained federal inspectors, all sworn to 
     protect the public's health, who have, for over 40 years, 
     been an important part of the nation's public health 
     protection structure.
       The provisions would also unleash lobbying campaigns to set 
     up state inspection programs in the 22 states that currently 
     do not have them so plants in those states can also seek 
     ``more understanding'' enforcement of food safety laws under 
     state programs.
       Thousands of very small plants thrive under federal 
     inspection. Fifty-one percent of all federally inspected 
     plants (2,878 of 5,603) have 10 or fewer employees and 80 
     percent have 50 or fewer employees. These federally inspected 
     small operations comply with federal inspection and make a 
     profit. We do not support providing an unfair advantage to 
     small companies who don't or can't make the commitments 
     necessary to comply with federal food safety requirements.
       The USDA Office of Inspector General reports that plants 
     subject to state inspection may not be as clean and sanitary 
     as federally inspected plants. In 1994 the IG said, ``state 
     programs are weak in policing plant sanitation and the 
     federal government is weak in following up to make sure 
     deficiencies in the state inspection system are fixed.''
       In October 2006, the OIG released an audit of state 
     inspection that included stomach turning examples of state 
     inspection programs failing to meet basic sanitation 
     requirements and of FSIS failing to hold states responsible 
     for protecting public health.
       The OIG reported that FSIS visited 11 meat plants in 
     Mississippi in October 2003. None of the plants met all HACCP 
     requirements. FSIS reported that cutting boards in one plant 
     were heavily contaminated with meat residues from the 
     previous day's work and noted that some plants failed to 
     monitor cooking temperatures, potentially exposing consumers 
     to bacteria that cause foodborne illness.
       The Mississippi meat inspection program allowed the plants 
     to continue operating. FSIS allowed the Mississippi program 
     to keep operating though it was not meeting the ``equal to'' 
     federal inspection legal requirements.
       FSIS allowed meat plants in four states--Missouri, 
     Wisconsin, Delaware and Minnesota to continue to operate, 
     selling meat to unsuspecting consumers, even after finding 
     that the state programs were not meeting legal standards for 
     ``equal to.'' Under current law, the risk from lax state meat 
     and poultry inspection programs is limited because the 
     products cannot leave the state in which they were produced. 
     If Congress approves these provisions the problems would 
     become nationwide as the products travel across the 
     country.
       The USDA does not certify that each state inspected plant 
     meets federal standards before coming into the program, nor 
     does it go back to check to determine that the plants 
     continue to meet federal standards. FSIS officials determine 
     ``equal to'' status primarily by looking at paper, not 
     plants. They examine state plans. They almost never actually 
     go into a state-inspected plant to see what is really 
     happening.
       The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explains 
     why Congress is justified in limiting the shipment of state-
     inspected meat to the state in which it is produced: ``. . . 
     though the U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an eye on 
     state inspection programs, it keeps yet a closer eye on its 
     own plants and on meat and poultry entering the country, and 
     it is possible that a state program could deteriorate without 
     the USDA's knowledge. This possibility provides a rational 
     basis for Congress to restrict the interstate transport of 
     state-inspected meat.''
       There is no effective way for state governments to assure 
     recall of state inspected adulterated meat or poultry that 
     has been shipped away from the state where it was produced. 
     These provisions, therefore, will increase the risk of 
     serious foodborne illness. Neither USDA nor state governments 
     has mandatory recall authority. Recalls are negotiated 
     between the regulatory agency and the company. The USDA, 
     however, has the staff and capacity both to negotiate with a 
     company about the size and timing of a recall and to go to 
     all the places where the product may have been distributed to 
     be sure the recalled products are being removed. No 
     individual state agriculture department has the authority or 
     the capacity to institute and manage the recall of 
     adulterated meat or poultry from another state.
       The provisions were approved by the House Agriculture 
     Committee without the benefit of public hearings to explore 
     the crucial issues or give opponents an opportunity to be 
     heard. The provisions were drafted by the National 
     Association of State Departments of Agriculture whose members 
     want to expand their programs. Meat packing trade 
     associations, whose members may welcome the leverage of 
     threatening to switch to state inspection, signed off on the 
     provisions. Consumer and public health experts, as well as 
     the unions who represent federal inspectors and workers in 
     meatpacking plants, had no opportunity to address the issues.
       The provisions assure that the details of implementation 
     would also avoid transparency and exclude public 
     participation. The provisions direct the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to promulgate rules for the major new program 
     within 180 days after the bill becomes law, effectively 
     foreclosing any meaningful opportunity for notice and comment 
     rulemaking, open meetings and public discussion. One of the 
     provisions creates an advisory committee limited to officials 
     of state inspection programs, excluding public health experts 
     and representatives of consumers who might challenge whether 
     public health is being given first consideration.
       Neither the House of Representatives nor the American 
     people are well served by the substance of these provisions 
     or the process that produced them. We believe that approval 
     of the Farm Bill language allowing state inspected meat and 
     poultry products to be sold in interstate commerce would mark 
     the beginning of the end of the nation's strong, uniform 
     federal meat and poultry inspection system and would 
     seriously undermine the public health protection federal 
     inspection has built over the past 40 years.
           Sincerely,
         Carol Tucker Foreman, Founder, Safe Food Coalition; 
           Patricia Buck, Center for Foodborne Illness Research & 
           Prevention; Chris Waldrop, Consumer Federation of 
           America; Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch; Jacqueline 
           Ostfeld, Government Accountability Project; Linda 
           Golodner, National Consumers League; Nancy Donley; Safe 
           Tables-Our Priority; Michael J. Wilson, United Food and 
           Commercial Workers International Union; American 
           Federation of Government Employees.

[[Page E1687]]



                          ____________________