seriously, reforms have been mandated. We know that there are bad meat packing plants, because we have gone in and shut down the plants and continue to shut down

plants. We have admitted that the USDA stamp of approval isn't the last word. This is evidenced by our mandatory safe handling label - which states that some food products

may contain bacteria that could cause illness.

So, we agree -- USDA needs an overhaul and it is getting an overhaul as evidenced by the points listed above. But, we are going to do more. For example, we have held meetings with whistle blowers to legitimately know and hear their concerns as well as worked to ensure that their recommendations are incorporated into our program plans. Secretary Espy has opened the previously closed door to hear the interests and concerns of ALL. It is through these ideas whether they be from elected officials, farmers, consumers, scientists, industry, and others that we will be able to change and overhaul USDA.

Finally, I want to state that Secretary Espy has demonstrated by the actions that he has taken, and by his future plans for the Department, that we can do the job and that we will do the job to ensure that the USDA label means what it says that the product is healthy and safe.

Mr. Chairman, this is what we have done; this is what we are going to do. We will continue to work towards these goals, but to accomplish these objectives, we need your help and the help of Congress to achieve them. The Secretary has continually stated that improving the meat and poultry inspection system is a top priority at USDA. This is part of his personal agenda. And after knowing Secretary Espy for even just a short amount of time -- I know he means business.

Mr. Towns. Let me indicate that if you have staff members that provide testimony, they will have to be sworn in. So I want to alert you to that.

Mr. Branstool, when can this subcommittee expect complete answers to the questions in my letter of October 4?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Mr. Chairman, the information that you still need and have not yet received, our staff is willing to meet with your staff immediately after this hearing, and I believe we can have it very quickly.

Mr. TOWNS. I sure hope so, because there have been several meetings and phone calls and with no results. So I just wanted

to

Mr. BRANSTOOL. I understand that some information has been given, but also I recognize more information is necessary. We will provide that.

Mr. Towns. When can we expect a complete status report on all of USDA's food safety initiatives addressed in both my letter of October 4 and my letter of November 8, specifically a list of all results to date and projected timeframes for completion?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. I have a list of the pathogen program initiatives that are in abbreviated form, the description of the initiative and also the status. The additional information, I have that available now, additional information that you may need. We will gladly provide that, and I believe, as far as I know, most of the things can be made available probably by the close of business on Monday.

Mr. Towns. We look forward to that, and we will leave the record open to receive it.

[The information can be found in appendix 3.]

Mr. BRANSTOOL. And I will say that our staff will meet with your respective staff people to know exactly what you yet need, and we will do everything we can to make it available.

Mr. Towns. Thank you.

Since 1985, three ÑAS reports have all concluded that USDA's current inspection approach to meat and poultry is inadequate because it cannot protect against microbial agents that cause disease in humans. In testimony before the Senate subcommittee earlier this year, Secretary Espy agreed with this. Do you agree with that? Mr. BRANSTOOL. Yes. I agree that under our present inspection system, we can only visually examine and as we are required by law to inspect every bird and every carcass, that has to be done visually. Now the difficulty is that, while there are pathogenic tests available, they take extended periods of time so

Mr. Towns. I think that is a yes or a no, isn't it? That answer would be a yes or a no.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Yes. I would say, yes. I agree with that, but I did want to qualify it, but that is fine.

Mr. Towns. Here is a chicken that I purchased at my local grocery store. It carries a stamp on the front that reads, USDA inspected for wholesomeness. Now, Mr. Branstool, because this bird passed Federal inspection, can I as a consumer assume that it is free of deadly bacteria? Yes or no.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. No.

Mr. Towns. Given all the progress you claim the Department has made in the last 10 months, can your inspectors, right now, today

as we speak, detect and prevent deadly bacteria on this chicken or any other animal product?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Do you want that a yes or no answer? I would like to have a chance to qualify that.

Mr. Towns. I think it is a yes or no.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. No. No one in good faith can guarantee that there are no bacteria present in any organic substance.

Mr. Towns. Your testimony refers to the successful pathogen reduction program as one of the key things you have accomplished in the last 10 months. Well, tell us, Mr. Branstool, exactly how much has your program reduced the pathogens on my chicken that I purchased in my local grocery store? I need to know because we are a week away from a major turkey day known as Thanksgiving, and a lot of birds will be consumed. I need to know.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Yes. The thing that we can say is that we believe we have improved the cleanliness in our plants. We have improved the vigilance of our inspection. But we have to also recognize bacteria cannot be seen with the naked eye. We know thatand part of the initiatives that I outlined to you are steps taken so that we can be able to get a better reading on the level of bacteria, harmful bacteria.

We have put in place what we call a zero tolerance program of no fecal or ingesta contamination or milk contamination from dairy cows that are slaughtered and processed. But, having said that nature does as nature does. There are bacteria present, and that is why it is my view that, you know, inspection will be very much a part of this. The research that comes forth will be part of this. But also every one of us has a responsibility.

And even if meat is properly inspected-and everything. Even if there is no contamination from the farm through the slaughter and processing process. Even then there still is responsibility from transportation to retailing and, yes, in the home to all of us to properly handle and cook and refrigerate.

Mr. Towns. But the whole zero tolerance procedure that you described does not apply to chickens, right? Does it apply to chickens as well, the zero tolerance policy?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. You mean the proper care and handling of?
Mr. TOWNS. Yes.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. Towns. Zero tolerance applies to chicken? It is my understanding it does not apply.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. I will call our Chief of Inspection Services to give us the technical detail of that if that would be all rightMr. Towns. Yes, because I want to know when you will be able to reduce the pathogens on my chicken. That is what I would like to know. Can he answer that?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. I don't think anyone can say until the science presents itself. You know, irradiation has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Scientists give that high marks as a method to reduce pathogens in our poultry products, you know, but there is some concern. Consumer groups oppose that, and there is some reluctance on the part of industry to put that in place even though it has been approved. But I want to be real careful that

Mr. Towns. I see, because a whole lot of progress hasn't been made in the last 10 months. Really, when you sit down and analyze it, not a lot of progress has been made.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Well, no one can guarantee, and maybe we will never be able to guarantee that this product is totally safe. There are responsibilities that we all have from the farm to the table. As science presents itself, the worst thing we can do is to give incorrect information, and if the science is not there to allow us to make that pledge that you seek, you know, we can't do it yet. We have put in place initiatives that we hope will nurture the scientific community to present the things that we need so that we can improve not only our inspection system but also the general safety of our food supply.

Mr. TOWNS. Help educate us, Mr. Branstool. On the front of this chicken it has government inspected. What does that really mean?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. It means that the birds and livestock that come to a meat processing plant or a poultry processing plant, that our inspectors have inspected the processes that are required to make it edible-to make meat presentable for sale to the public. It deals with cleanliness in plants. It deals with certain procedures that have to be followed. They inspect for disease in poultry and animals that could cause disease, animalborne diseases that could also cause disease to humans. So that is our process.

But, you know, again, there is no way that in plants we can do a test. Much hope is held out for a quick test that would indicate that, yes, it has got E. coli or it is clear. The science has not yet come that far yet.

I would say to you on this subject, I have toured poultry plants. I have been in swine processing plants and beef plants. There is a plant in Grand Island, NE. Last August when I was there, they have done 17,000 samples seeking the presence of E. coli 1057:H7. Not one of those samples has indicated that it was positive, and this is a company that supplies meat, ground beef to major fast food chains, and the fast food industry, obviously, is greatly concerned, as you are, as I am, and so they are trying to do this test

ing. coli is a very elusive organism. Much needs to be understood

E.

about it, and I do have the Director of our Microbiology present that I believe can enlighten this committee.

Mr. Towns. I am going to yield at this time to Mr. Mica. But as I look at this sign, it says inspected by the government. When people see this, you know, they feel that a real inspection has gone on, and there is a degree of safety here. It seems to me it needs to say inspected by the government, eat at your own risk.

Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to look through your testimony here. Can you all tell me when people eat the most turkeys in the United States?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Well, I am sure our National Agricultural Statistics Service could give you chapter and verse, but, obviouslyMr. MICA. Around Thanksgiving?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, of course. Mr. MICA. I saw in your testimony that you said we have a responsibility to inform the public, and I thought I heard you testify

that we have inspected 26 turkey plants, and you plan to announce the results the findings in mid-December?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Yes. What I said there was that one of our initiatives is to send in review teams to inspect our turkey processing plants. I understand there are 2,000 pages of data gathered, and we are compiling that, and it will be available by mid-December. It had nothing to do with the season of the year or anything.

Mr. MICA. I know. But I mean, wouldn't just common sense indicate that you should have a review of the turkey plants prior to Thanksgiving when people consume most of that commodity?

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Yes. Well, just the timeframe that it workedMr. MICA. Well this whole process, some of it, it seems to be a common sense approach. If you are going to put out warnings or the results of what your inspections have, wouldn't it be wise to do it prior to that type of season when you would have the highest consumption?

Another thing I notice that in your plans here and we just got some of this information-you have education of the public as one of the elements, and you basically say that some of that is—that responsibility is completed.

I noticed also in your funding-let me see. It says intensify consumer awareness campaign. You budgeted zero under your pathogen reduction. Is that correct? This is for the plans to spend the additional funds in 1994 that the-that the Congress has appropriated.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. And, sir, you are talking about money to inform the public, is that

Mr. MICA. Well, it says consumer awareness. It is on the schedule, pathogen reduction that we have here from you all, and you all divided up the funds to come to the $8 million, and it is zero under intensify consumer awareness campaign.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Right. I understand that. I might have Dr. Cross, the Administrator, answer. That is of a technical nature. I think he can shed light.

Mr. MICA. Well, again, my point is that some of this seems to be a common sense approach that there is education of the public, there is education of food handlers, and that seems like a very important element, and some of it, I am not sure if your planning addresses it. Then, again, you just provided the committee with some of this background information.

One of your objectives is to tighten enforcement through unannounced reviews of slaughter plants as one of your objectives. I thought USDA law requires that there is an on-line inspector in slaughter plants.

Mr. BRANSTOOL. Yes, that is right. By law, as I mentioned and as you clearly state, that every bird, every carcass has to be inspected, but this is a backup to make sure that we can improve upon that ongoing inspection that takes place. And so we have teams that we send in unannounced to do these reviews.

Mr. MICA. Another point that I have-and these are questions— I see your initiatives and pathogen reduction program initiatives. On page 4, the system item, test raw ground beef. It says test raw ground beef patties for total E. coli count, and it says, initiated testing began, I guess, this month. Is that correct? And then we