Comment from Pearl Brown

I do not see how this can benefit the consumer. The consumer will see the USDA mark of Inspection and think that this product is the same as all other federally inspected product. THen if the product is recalled or found to be adulterated and someone gets ill it will be the FSIS that gets the heat because the public will not know if we inspected it or not. States do not have the money or people to provide the inspection that the federal government does. FSIS inspectors are in establishments daily; not just once a month or year. If I am not mistaken the state was doing inspections at the peanut facility that was under FDA rule last year and that didn't turn out too well. If you allow one small plant to transport across state lines with the mark of federal inspection without actually having federal inspection, then you will have all of them wanting to do the same and will have to deal with the questions of "why can they do it and we can't?". Additionally you will have establishemnts that are currently under Federal inspection wanting to drop back to State inspection and still carry on business as normal. If an establishemnt wants to do business across state lines they should have to be federally inspected. If you transport across state lines I find it difficult to say it is in support of local farmers. This will cost federal employees their jobs and are jobs are necessary to ensure wholesome unadulterated product is what the consumers are getting. I cannot believe this would even be considered. States are cutting back on employees in all departments and now you are suggesting taking federal jobs to give to the state workers. You still end up with people unemployed. Federal inspectors go through training and are continuously expanding their knowledge bases. I think applying the Mark of Fedral inspection to a product that was state inspected is misleading; and federal inspectors are trained to prevent misleading or mislabeled product from being put into commerce.