Meat Safety Rules Will Be Implemented Agriculture Secretary Agrees To Compromise With Gop Congressmen

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Republican congressmen have agreed on a compromise that would let new meat safety rules go ahead while addressing industry worries, lawmakers said Tuesday

The last-minute agreement averts a fight on the House floor over a proposal that would have required the Agriculture Department to start again with its overhaul of meat safety rules.

The proposal was contained in the 1996 spending bill for the department, scheduled for debate Wednesday.

“I think we’ve got a victory here where we won’t have to go through that on the floor,” Rep. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said in an interview.

The proposal by Rep. James T. Walsh, R-N.Y., would have required USDA to enter into negotiations with the meat industry and others before again offering a rule intended to modernize meat inspections. The original rule, proposed Feb. 3, will require a switch to a modern system of inspections based on sanitary controls and monitoring those controls.

The final rule was due out by the end of the year, with interim safety steps including tests for harmful bacteria due to begin in 1996 while other changes are phased in.

Walsh contended that the meat industry, especially smaller companies, wasn’t fully represented in meetings leading up to those new rules. As a result, he said, the rule was destined to be delayed by lawsuits.

Under the agreement, outlined in a letter from Glickman, the secretary will hold several meetings with the different groups, including industry representatives, to listen to their concerns, Walsh said.

Also before the final rule is published, Walsh said, the department will publish a list of outdated rules to be lifted as the new rules are imposed. Carcass-by-carcass inspections, required by law, will still occur.

“We have accomplished what we wanted to do without the statutory requirement for negotiated rulemaking,” Walsh said. “What we wanted was a process wherein the secretary would involve himself personally and make a personal commitment to involve himself with all the stakeholders.”

Glickman had vigorously opposed the negotiated rulemaking, saying an agreement would be virtually possible under that system. He and consumer activists said the process would have delayed the rules, exposing people to harmful, even deadly bacteria in raw meat and poultry.

Several consumer groups accused the industry of using the amendment intentionally to delay the regulations.

“This is really all about communications,” Walsh countered. “This is what people are looking for from government - compromise.”