CHAPTER XX
Military Meat and DairyHygiene
Military meat and dairyhygiene was the defined responsibility of the Army Veterinary Serviceand was conducted at a professional level, paralleling the care andtreatment of Army animals (1, 2, 3). In World War I, an estimated 20 percent ofthe veterinary personnel were utilized as inspectors of the Army'ssubsistence supply, but in World War II, 90 to 95 percent were so utilized.During the period from 1940 through 1945, these personnel conducted a meat and dairy products inspection service aggregating morethan 142 billionpounds. The expensiveness of veterinary food inspection during a single waryear was described by a veterinary officer representative of the SurgeonGeneral's Office as follows (4):
The Army spent over two andone-quarter billion dollars for food during the past year. About 38 percent ofthe soldier's ration consists of meat, meat-food and dairy products. Theseitems represent approximately 60 percent of the cost of the ration. Of all thefoods consumed by the soldier, meat, meat-food and dairy products are the most dangerous to his health when contaminated or spoiled. It is for thisreason that the Army maintains the strictest possible supervision over theseproducts from the time of preparation and purchase to and including the issue totroop finesses. At the present [November 1944] the Veterinary Corps isinspecting over one-half billion pounds of foods of animal origin per month.Each day it requires about 19 thousand cattle, 27 thousand hogs, 600 calves and5 thousand sheep and lambs to supply the Armed Forces of the United States withmeat and meat products. During the year 1943 rejections prior to purchase ran5.1 percent. The estimated equivalent monetary saving represented by thedifference in value of items offered for delivery and those accepted followingVeterinary Corps inspection is a very substantial figure. In this connection, itis desired to point out that the estimated equivalent monetary saving for theyear 1943 exceeded the total pay of all Veterinary Corps officers and allveterinary service enlisted men on duty in the entire Army for that year.
In connection with thesemonetary savings, it may be mentioned that for the war period this amount wasset at $88 million,1 covering more than the1? billion pounds of meat anddairy products which were rejected at the time of procurement (5). Another 100million pounds of Goverment-owned foods were rejected from issue to troopmesshalls, but no monetary estimate can be made of the expected costs forhospitalization, inefficiency, and other military factors, had even only a smallfraction of such foods been consumed and the troops made ill.
The veterinary meat anddairy hygiene operations were twofold in nature and operated: (1) To protectthe health of troops endangered by foods which
1The estimate was determinedby allowing 4 cents per pound for any or all products rejected for failure tomeet grade quality as required in contractual documents and allowing the full value on products which were rejected from procurement on account of insanitarycondition or unsoundness.
676
might be spoiled, damaged,contaminated, or otherwise unsafe and unsound for eating, and (2) inconjunction with Quartermaster Corps procurement officers to protect thefinancial interests of the Government by inspecting products to determinecompliance with contractual requirements governing their quality andmanufacture. Actually, this veterinary food inspection service was essentiallysanitary in its nature. Its purpose was to protect the health of troops bypreventing the procurement and issue of meat and dairy products which, by reasonof their origin, nature, handling, or condition, would be unsafe or unsuitable. The animals, from which products of animal origin were obtained,were subject to many diseases directly transmissible to man, such astuberculosis, trichinosis, Malta fever, anthrax, milk sickness, actitnomycosis,taeniasis, foot-and-mouth disease, and glanders. The food products might alsobecome contaminated during preparation and might carry such diseases as typhoidfever, septic sore throat, Weil's disease, dysentery, scarlet fever, anddiphtheria. They might also become contaminated either by the action of thebacteria present, such as Salmonella species, or by toxins produced by certainbacteria, such as the staphylococci and Clostridium botulinum. As a sanitary andpreventive medicine procedure, the veterinary inspection of the Army'ssubsistence supply was an extension of the troop health programs maintained bythe Medical Department.
The Army Veterinary Servicecooperated closely with purchasing and issuing officers in assuring that thesubsistence supplies they handled would comply with the requirements under whichthe products were procured or issued. Similarly, the Army Veterinary Servicecooperated with the Transportation Corps whose officers moved the subsistenceby railroad in the Zone of Interior to the ports of embarkation from whence theArmy food supply chain reached into the oversea theaters. Both the QuartermasterCorps and the Transportation Corps necessarily depended on the professional andexpert advice of Veterinary Corps officers who made the inspections, and, ofcourse, the full cooperation of all concerned was needed and exercised with theview to adequately protect the Army's health and the financial interests of theGovernment. A special feature of veterinary inspections for quartermasterpurchasing officers was the examination of products for grade quality, as wellas the conducting of tests and inspections for count or weight, packaging andpacking, labeling and marking, and for any other requirement set forth in thepertinent contractual documents. Usually, these examinations and theprofessional sanitary inspections were conducted in the same veterinaryinspection procedure, but the sanitary inspections were regarded as being morecomprehensive and were repeated along the entire chain of supply fromprocurementpoints to the final point of issue. Therefore, sanitary inspections were made ofthe products when purchased, while in storage, and when shipped or sold.Summarizing, military meat and dairy hygiene inspections constituted anofficial inspection and examination of foods, before or at the time of theiracceptance by the Army and subsequent to procurement until
677
issued or otherwise disposedof, to insure their military, sanitary, grade, and other quality features butnot to exclude their nutritive values which paralleled grade quality.
CLASSIFICATION OF VETERINARYPRODUCTS AND ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTIONS
Military meat and dairyhygiene included inspections of the live animals which were procured for food,dressed carcasses, and items such as meats and meat foods; poultry and poultryproducts; eggs; game; milk, butter, cheese, and other dairy products; fish,oysters, and other seafoods; lard, lard substitutes, and edible oils;assembled rations; and other subsistence in which foods of animal origin formeda considerable part, whether these were fresh, frozen, cured, canned, orotherwise processed. Also, it included the sanitary supervision of the sourcesof such food products, as well as the facilities and condition of the foodestablishments, storage places, and carriers by air, rail, or water in which theproducts were processed, manufactured, stored,transported, or otherwise handled. The facilities for processing and theprocedures of operation inestablishments, storage places, and transport facilities which were concerned inthe supply and distribution of meat and dairy products to the Army were matters of careful sanitary survey, as were the dairy herds and pasteurizingplants which supplied milk to the Army (fig. 88).
The veterinary inspectionprocedures applicable to meat and dairy products were considered under threeheadings: (1) Ante mortem and post mortem inspections; (2) inspections incidentto procurement which were made to determine the quality, including type, class,and grade, the measurement, and the sanitary condition of products; and (3)continuing inspections or surveillance over the Army food supplies fromprocurement points up to the place of issue to troop messhalls. Informationconcerning the condition of subsistence supplies was obtained by conductingseveral classes of inspections:
Class 1. Ante morteminspection
Class 2. Post mortem inspection
Procurement Inspection:
Class 3. Inspection prior topurchase
Class 4. Inspection at timeof delivery on receipt
Surveillance Inspection (of Government-owned subsistence):
Class 5. Inspection of any receipt except purchase
Class 6. Inspection prior toshipment
Class 7. Inspection at issueor sale
Class 9. Inspection in storage
Another class of inspection,not listed here, was class 8, or the inspection of purchases made by the ArmyExchange Service, but this class is generally excluded from the regulardiscussions because the products technically were not a part of Army supply.Also, it must be noted that before 1943, the class 9 inspection procedure wasnot conducted separately but was integrated
678
with surveillanceinspections conducted before shipment; these two procedures were conducted andreported under the single heading of class 6, then named "inspection instorage."
Commercial FoodEstablishments
The preceding classificationof inspection procedures, for the most part, referred to the inspection ofproducts. However, conducted simultaneously with, and as a component procedureof, these class products inspections, there was the veterinary sanitaryinspection of establishments. The term "establishments" includeddairy farms, animal slaughtering plants, packing houses, cold storage plants,butcher shops, markets, warehouses, milk plants, ice cream plants, salescommissaries, railroad cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, and any otherestablishment or conveyance in which meat and dairy products were processed,manufactured, assembled, stored, transported, or otherwise handled, eithercommercially under contractual agreement or by the Army. The veterinaryinspections of establishments routinely consisted of the sanitaryinvestigation of the following matters:
679
Premises
Receivingfacilities
Interior construction of buildings
Ventilation
Lighting
Water supply, ice, plumbing
Equipment and utensils
Cleanliness and disinfection
Contamination by rejectedproducts
Disposal of byproducts
Dressing rooms and toilets
Employees
Vermin
Refrigeration
Handling, packing, and transporting
Storage and issue rooms
Other sanitary inspectionagencies
The inspection proceduresfor commercial establishments were closely related to veterinary foodprocurement inspections, whereas those for Army establishments weremore directly concerned with veterinary surveillance inspections.
Pursuant to the proceduresof Army subsistence procurement, the awarding of contracts was limited to thecommercial food establishments which had passed an Army veterinarysanitary inspection. The inspection usually was made within the calendar monthpreceding the opening date of bids. (Of course, establishments operating under the supervision of approvedsanitary inspection agencies wereregarded as Veterinary Corps approved sources.) Special administrativeprocedures were set up during the war for owners of commercial foodestablishments to forward requests for veterinary sanitary inspections of theirplants, through a quartermaster purchasing office, to the commanding general ofa service command, who then indorsed these requests to Veterinary Corps officerslocated nearest the plants. These officers, after their inspections, recommendedthe acceptance or rejection of the establishments to the service commandheadquarters which made the final decision as to listing the establishments asapproved sources of supply; the purchasing officer was then advised of the finaldecision. This comprised the so-called initial inspection of commercial foodestablishments. At least once each month thereafter, the establishments werereinspected as long as they were producing under an Army contract or the ownersmanifested an interest in gaining the award of Army contracts. During 1944,approximately 4,000 commercial food establishments were being regularlyinspected each month, exclusive of those operating under the supervision of arecognized civilian inspection agency. When the owners of approvedestablishmentsfailed to maintain satisfactory levels of sanitation or did not properly correctdefective operations or facilities, the inspecting veterinary officersrecommended, to the concerned service command headquarters, the withdrawal ofthe establishments from the current list of approved sources of supply. As ofJune 1945, the establishments disapproved for use of the Army, because ofinsanitary conditions, for procuring fresh meats and dairy products totaled morethan 1,100 in the United States (6). The lists of approved and of disapprovedcommercial food establishments were circularized between service commands andwere forwarded to quartermaster contracting officers for their guidance. Theseveterinary sanitary inspections were di-
680
rected only at the sanitaryfeatures of food manufacture, storage, and handling and were unrelated toveterinary surveys to determine the operating potential of establishments or tothe blacklisting of establishments for legal reasons.
These inspections of plantsand establishments were not simple procedures and were not conducted withoutregard to the fact that there were a variety of other inspection agencies,including the Bureau of Animal Industry of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,the U.S. Public Health Service and the Federal Food and Drug Administrationof the Federal Security Agency, and the various State, country, and city publichealth and agricultural authorities. However, there was not one single agencyamong the foregoing that performed the necessary sanitary inspections ofall types of food establishments which were in the Army supply program. All wereprimarily engaged in the surveillance of compliances with thepertinent Federal, State, or municipal food laws and regulations under whichthe agencies operated; furthermore, below the level of Federal regulatingcontrols, there were as many sanitary laws and law enforcement agencies asthere were States and municipalities. None, for example, would have protectedthe Army's total milk supply in regard to the requirements for pasteurizedmilk. There were several nationally organized food industries which set upsanitary standards, but, unfortunately, these were not fully policed. It would notbe fair to state that the civilian food industry's standards were not used,because some were, but the Army Veterinary Service made no agreement or otheraction of acceptance that could have been interpreted as formal Army approval ofthem.
Separate doctrines forVeterinary Corps sanitary inspections were developed, dependent upon theparticular products that were being manufactured and upon the nature of theprocedure involved, whether it be processing, assembling, storing, or shipping. Thus, meat plants operating under the supervision of the Bureau ofAnimal Industry were regularly accepted as satisfying sanitary standards of theArmy, and the same was true for such of the canned oysters and shrimp plantswhich operated under continuous supervision of the Seafood Inspection Service,Federal Food and Drug Administration. However, milk plants, ice cream plants,and fish plants, although operating under sanitary regulations of State andlocal inspection agencies, were routinely inspected by the Army VeterinaryService because many laws and regulations were inadequate or were improperlyenforced, even in peacetime when no real shortage of manpower existed. Some ofthese regulatory agencies were agricultural in nature and had no responsibilityin regard to the health of the consumer public. Creameries (butter plants),cheese factories, and milk canning plants likewise were inspected for sanitationby the Army Veterinary Service before and after contracts were awarded, and thesame was true for ration assembly plants, dry storage warehouses
681
and cold storage plants, andthe railroad cars, trucks, ships, and other conveyances which were used totransport subsistence for the Army.
Foods of Nonanimal Origin
The Army Veterinary Servicewas concerned principally with foods of animal origin, or meat and dairyproducts, and their sources of supply. However, during the war, largequantities of fruits, vegetables, cereals, and a variety of food productsother than those of animal origin were inspected (fig. 89). The wartimeinspections of the Army supply of fruits, vegetables, and like subsistence itemswere limited generally to places where no sanitary inspection agency existedand when specifically authorized by military commanders and Army purchasing officers.
The last-named requirementwas impressed on all Veterinary Corps officers in the Zone of Interior whowere reporting on any inspections of foods other than those of animalorigin.Thus, throughout the war, the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General'sOffice, advised its personnel in the field that this activity was not aregularly defined veterinary activity, that no specialized training programswould be conducted to qualify veterinary personnel as fruit and vegetableinspectors, and that where the local commanders or purchasing officers hadauthorized them to conduct such inspections, then this
682
requirement would be limitedto products inspection for sanitary condition only. The Surgeon General's Officewas particularly interested in the suggestion made by the Office of theQuartermaster General in 1941 that, due to seasonal conditions and existingmilitary demands for large quantities, the grading of these products was being varied by civilian inspectors(7, 8); it was held unreasonable forveterinary personnel to review the grade quality of products being delivered ifthe grade standards were unknown. Presumably, the suggestion was made toemphasize that quartermaster purchasing officers would discourage VeterinaryCorps examinations of nonanimal foods
683
FIGURE 91.-Inspectingvegetables and fruit at a U.S. general depot in England.
for grade quality but thatveterinary sanitary inspections of such foods for fitness or sanitary conditionwere desired. In practice, it was shown, however, that better quality foods ofnonanimal origin were received (following grade examinations by civilianinspection personnel and agencies) when Veterinary Corps officers check gradedthese products at the time of delivery and reported gross deviations fromnormal, acceptable standards. At about one-half of the quartermaster depots andsections of general depots in the Zone of Interior that received, stored, anddistributed nonperishable subsistence, the depot veterinarians were delegatedinspection responsibility over canned fruits and vegetables.
In many oversea theatercommands, the Army Veterinary Service routinely inspected the supply of foodsother than those of animal origin concurrently with its surveillance inspectionsof meat and dairy products (figs. 90 and 91). Sometimes, however, the ArmyVeterinary Service was requested to inspect these products only when they haddeteriorated or become spoiled. Salvage procedures were then set up underveterinary supervision, and, of course, the losses then were dropped fromquartermaster accountability under the provisions of veterinary certificates forfood found unfit for troop issue. Under these circumstances, little could beaccomplished to improve the methods and procedures for the receipt, storage,distribution, and other handling of non-animal-origin foods within thetheaters such as was accomplished
684
with meat and dairyproducts. Beginning with reports of mid-1943, the Surgeon General's Office, onrequest, furnished statistical data to the Office of the Quartermaster Generalon the losses of foods other than those of animal origin that were reported bythe Army Veterinary Service in the oversea theaters (9, 10, 11). By October1944, veterinary reports of condemnations had increased from 133,106 pounds to714,375 pounds each month in five or six theaters, but even this was admittedlya very incomplete record of the quantities actually lost; in the 18-month periodfrom July 1943 through December 1944, the reported rejections aggregated5,863,199 pounds.
Veterinary Food InspectionService Organization
The Surgeon General wasresponsible for obtaining and maintaining the state of health of the Army. Thus,nutritional adequacy and the fitness of all foods used by the Army were of realconcern to the Medical Department. This was particularly true with respect tothe supply of meat and dairy products which are capable of transmitting diseasesto the human being and are in themselves favorable media for the development ofviral agents. The Army Veterinary Service, as an agency of The Surgeon General,was responsible for determining whether foods of animal origin were sound, fitfor human consumption, and of proper grade and sanitary quality. It did notlimit itself to products inspections but also inspected the establishments wherethese products were processed, produced, stored, or otherwise handled. Forpurposes of carrying out this responsibility, the Army Veterinary Service wasorganized and administered in a manner somewhat paralleling the QuartermasterCorps organization concerned with subsistence procurement, storage, anddistribution. In general, the Chief of the Veterinary Division, SurgeonGeneral's Office, exercised technical and professional supervision over allsubsistence inspections performed in the field by the Army Veterinary Service,this supervision being more direct in the Zone of Interior than in the overseatheater commands. In the Zone of Interior, the veterinary operating agencies orpersonnel actually performing the inspections included the veterinary officerswho were assigned to or detailed to the field headquarters and to market centersof the Quartermaster Market Center System, the service command veterinarians,camp or station veterinarians, Army Air Forces base veterinarians, depotveterinarians, and veterinarians assigned to the Transportation Corps ports ofembarkation.
The veterinary personnel whowere on duty within the quartermaster center system represented the SurgeonGeneral's Office, and, working under the officer in charge of that system,coordinated and directed the field veterinary inspections as concerned theprocurement, storage, and distribution of perishable subsistence of animalorigin. In each service command, the service command veterinarian, as a memberof the staff of the service command surgeon, coordinated all inspectionactivities within the geographic limit of the command (except in areas in theimmediate vicinity of depot veterinary
685
detachments) and maintainedclose liaison with the veterinary personnel of the market center system toinsure that the most effective procurement inspection service was rendered.Also, the service command veterinarian administered and supervised theinspections of establishments which were located in the areas of the servicecommands. At the camps or stations under the jurisdiction of service commands,the station veterinarians, normally on the staff of the station surgeon,inspected the meat and dairy products which were received for local issue totroops. This was also true at Army Air Forces bases. Usually, most items, havingbeen received through quartermaster depots and market centers, had beeninspected at their sources for grade quality and sanitary condition so that thestation veterinarian reexamined such items for sanitary condition only. Ofcourse, complete acceptance inspections were performed whenever contractualdocuments of the quartermaster market centers and procuring depots so specified,and on all locally purchased products, including those bought by Armyexchanges and concessionaires. Other inspections made by station veterinariansincluded periodic checks of the products in storage locally and final inspectionof the products at the time of issue to messhalls or sale. The depotveterinarians, operating directly under depot commanders, inspected thenonperishable foods of animal origin which were received, stored, anddistributed at the depots and performed food procurement inspections in nearbymetropolitan areas; close liaison was maintained by depot veterinarians withthe service command veterinarians. To insure that the veterinary food inspectionactivities were standard and uniformly applied on a nationwide basis,specially selected and qualified veterinary officers were detailed, under thesupervision of The Surgeon General, as traveling veterinary consultants toroutinely inspect or to specially investigate and to provide assistance andinstructions to service command, station, and depot veterinarians on theprinciples and practices of military meat and dairy hygiene inspections. Thiswas started in the spring-summer of 1943.
In the theater commandsoverseas, the veterinary inspections of the Army's food supply were conducted bypersonnel assigned to hospital units, major and medium port headquarters,quartermaster refrigeration companies, and various other air, ground, andservice forces units. Also, a large number of food inspecting personnel wereplaced on detached service with units such as quartermaster depots, and otherswere assigned to so-called provisional organizations set up within thetheaters, such as base commands, service commands, island commands, basesections, and army garrison forces. However, there were two units, described inWar Department tables of organization, that were specially developed anddeployed in the theaters specifically for the inspection of foods. One was theveterinary food inspection detachment and the other was the veterinarydetachment, aviation. The former, composed of a veterinary officer (in thegrade of captain or first lieutenant) and four enlisted personnel, firstappeared in September 1942 when several such units were organized and then fieldtested at the DesertTrainingCenter. The original
686
ones were designated aslettered veterinary detachments (food inspection), but this name was changedlater to a numbered medical composite section (food inspection). By mid-1945,these units were redesignated as numbered veterinary food inspectiondetachments. During World War II, 120 such units were activated pursuant to WarDepartment authorization, 31 in the Zone of Interior and the remainder in theoversea theaters.
The other unit was theveterinary detachment, aviation, designed for deployment with a numbered airforce. The unit was made up of two parts, the detachment or basic element andthe section or augmentation element. The former provided space authorizationfor one officer (in the grade of major) and three enlisted personnel to beoperational for an air force of approximately 25,000 troop strength, whereas thesection, authorized one officer (in the grade of captain or first lieutenant)and two enlisted personnel, was designed to augment the detachment at the rateof one section for each additional 25,000 troops. During World War II, eightsuch numbered detachments were named for activation (the 1st through the 8th),but only five of them were organized, the latter including a total of 27augmentation sections as follows: 1st Veterinary Detachment, Aviation, with the10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 21st, 22d, 23d, and 26th Veterinary Sections, onduty with the Eighth Air Force in the European theater; the 2d VeterinaryDetachment, Aviation, with the 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 24th, 25th,and 27th Veterinary Sections, on duty with the Ninth Air Force in the Europeantheater; the 3d Veterinary Detachment, Aviation, with five subsections, in theSouthwest Pacific with the Fifth Air Force; the 4th Veterinary Detachment,Aviation, with sections I and II, in the Southwest Pacific Area with theThirteenth Air Force; and the 5th Veterinary Detachment, Aviation, with twosubsections, which was on duty with the XXI Bomber Command, later the TwentiethAir Force, in the Central Pacific Area. All of these were operational before theend of 1944, and, with the exception of the 5th Veterinary Detachment, Aviation,they were organized in the oversea theaters.
In this discussion offunctional organization of the Army Veterinary Service which was concerned withfood inspection, several matters may be described in regard to the veterinarypersonnel as individuals. The inspection of subsistence is perhaps the mostdifficult type of inspection. A manufactured article such as the key-openingcan may be tested for strength, analyzed for materiel composition, and measuredfor size and shape; the machine that manufactured one will manufacture othersthat are practically identical. Rigid contractual requirements andspecifications are prescribed for these, and those cans showing a defect orfault of one kind or another are rejected. This is not true for subsistenceproducts. No two carcasses of beef are replicas, just as there are no twodisease epizootics identical. Inspection of subsistence thus remains humanized.It is a matter of piece-by-piece inspection, with the inspector determining thecompliance of each piece within a variable range of requirements. Under thissituation, the qualifications of
687
veterinary subsistenceinspector personnel necessarily were experience, alertness in the earlydetection of defects in products and operations, and sound judgment. Trainingwas a valuable and necessary adjunct to these qualification factors. Allveterinary officers and enlisted personnel were specially trained in militarymeat and dairy hygiene inspection procedures. Much may be said concerning therelations with contractors, but the following is a formal and brief comment onthis important subject (12):
a. Authority.-All the weightof the Army is behind the inspector. He is entrusted with a job of vitalimportance and relied upon to do it well. When a large proportion of the outputof a plant is contracted for by the Army, as is often the case, it is within hispower to suspend the plant's operations if products do not conform [by simplyhalting inspection procedures]. However, he should use this power wisely, andnot abuse it. Protecting the Government is his major concern, and no otherinterest should be allowed to interfere. But he should realize that a vendor'sfailure to meet a point in contract requirements is usually not a deliberateslighting but a deficiency that the inspector can indicate and have rectified ina routine manner. He should also remember that an unnecessary stoppage ofproduction delays delivery of needed food to troops at home and at the fightingfronts.
b. Cooperation.-Theinspector will in no way obligate himself to the contractor. His personalrelations with the contractor, however, should be of a cooperative nature. Thecontractor is required to provide the inspector with desk space, locker space,space for storing Government forms, and such other facilities as are needed inthe efficient operation of his work. In turn, the inspector must showconsideration for the problems of the contractor. By working together they canattain their legitimate objectives with the least amount of friction.
Special rules of conductwere observed in the veterinary organizations conducting inspections incontractor plants that were generally more restrictive than prescribed in theregulations of the Army (13) and in the standard contractual documents relatingto fraud. The duties of veterinary food inspection personnel varied with eachsituation, and, in connection with their procurement inspection activities, theduties and scope of inspection generally were set forth in the contractualdocuments. The more common duties were as follows: (1) Sanitary inspection ofplants and establishments that produced, prepared, manufactured, stored,transported, or otherwise handled subsistence products for the Army; (2)inspection of products for sanitary condition and soundness; (3) qualityinspections of products for type, class, grade, and special requirements ofindividual contracts; (4) submission of representative samples of products, rawmateriel, basic components, or partially processed items to designatedlaboratories for analysis; (5) inspection of packaging and labeling, packing andmarking, and strapping, and of the count or weight; (6) inspection ofsanitation, icing, and storage of conveyances used to transport the products;(7) inspection of loading operations; (8) inspection of products for quantityand condition upon arrival at first destination; (9) inspection of the Army fooditems in commercial and Government-owned warehouses, cold storage, and any otherplaces where such stores are received, stored, or handled; (10) maintenance ofdaily and other
688
regular records ofquantities inspected, passed, or rejected, and of such other activities as wereindicated; (11) reporting to immediate superiors or contracting officers onsanitary conditions, progress of production, labor conditions, and any unusualconditions which would affect contractual relations; and (12) surveillanceagainst pilferage, sabotage, improper handling, and other actions that wouldcontribute to food losses and unfit foods for issue to troops (12).
VETERINARY FOOD PROCUREMENTINSPECTIONS
The veterinary inspectionsincident to Army procurements were purposefully made to determine both thequality, including type, class, and grade, and the sanitary condition ofsubsistence products and included also the sanitary inspection of commercialestablishments or plants from which these meat and dairy products originated,with the exception of such plants as were operating under the supervision of arecognized inspection agency. The products were inspected upon delivery and, inaddition, were frequently inspected before purchase or delivery; that is, duringthe processes of production, preparation, or manufacture, if the nature of theproducts or the interests of the Government made such inspections necessary.Thus, veterinary food procurement inspection commonly made reference to twospecific procedures or classes of inspection: (1) Class 3, or inspection priorto purchase, and (2) class 4, or inspection on delivery at purchase. These weredescribed in Army Regulations No. 40-2150:
Prior to purchase (class 3).-Inspections conducted prior to purchase are made for the purpose ofdetermining compliance with contract requirements and the sanitary conditionof the product at the time of preparation or manufacture, and are made only whenthe contract or other written purchase instrument makes specific provision forthis inspection. Normally, provision is made for such inspection only in thecase of canned, cured, or prepared products. Many packing house products such assausage, meat loaves, etc., can be most satisfactorily inspected duringpreparation. The quality, condition, and proportions of the ingredients used inproducts of this nature are masked by seasoning and the various procedures ofprocessing. Wherever practical, an inspection of manufactured products should bemade at point of origin during manufacture. Point of origin inspection forcompliance with the contract provisions and with final inspection for conditionand soundness only, at destination, is sometimes provided for in the purchaseinstrument, when the point of origin of the product is distant from thereceiving station, or when such point of origin inspection is manifestly to theadvantage of the Government.
On delivery at purchase(class 4).-The inspections of products made at the time they are offered fordelivery at purchase are made for the purpose of final determination as toacceptability. These will ordinarily be made at the points of delivery to theArmy, such as quartermaster commissaries, depots, refrigerating plants andstorehouses, docks, piers, etc., and occasionally when so specified, at pointsof acceptance such as contractors' plant, public cold storage plants,storehouses, etc. Products reported as inspected and passed under thisinspection will be limited to those purchased with federally appropriatedfunds. Inspections on delivery at purchase are made of all products offered fordelivery by a contractor. These products, if accepted, would be accounted for atreceipt
689
by the preparation of areceiving report by the receiving quartermaster. The inspection certificate onthis form should be signed by the veterinary officer making the inspection. Thisincludes inspection both for compliance with specified requirements as to type,class, and grade, and for sanitary condition of the product, except in thoseinstances in which the written purchase instrument provides for a prior topurchase inspection for compliance with specified requirements at point ofpreparation or manufacture and for final inspection for quantity, condition, andsoundness only at time of delivery at purchase. Inspections will be made upondelivery at a station of all products purchased locally, and also of allproducts delivered to the station by the contractor which have been contractedfor by a depot under a stipulation that the products will be delivered to theconsuming station at contractor's expense, and providing for acceptanceinspection at destination.
All subsistence coming intoownership of the Army was subjected to a class 4 inspection, but provision forclass 3 product inspection was optional with the contracting officer, usuallywith the advice of a veterinary officer, and this class of inspection wasconducted only if specifically provided for in the pertinent contractualdocument. Class 4 inspection only was the usual food procurement inspectionprocedure in the peacetime Army, but, during World War II, emphasis was placedon the class 3 products inspections in contractors' plants followed by the class4 inspection which was made at the time of delivery of the finished product. Infact, by 1944, all meats and nearly all other foods of animal origin wereinspected at origin or in contractors' plants and then for sanitary conditionand quantity at the point of delivery. In July 1944, class 3 inspections werebeing made in 1,000 establishments. The term "origin inspection"or "in-plant inspection" was commonly used to indicate the class 3product inspection, and the class 4 inspection was termed destinationinspection. The latter class of inspections was conducted in depots, marketcenters, camps, ports of embarkation, and Army and commercial storage plantsimmediately upon receipt of the products from the contractors. It was a regular,prescribed procedure that no meat and dairy product would be formally receivedand that the civilian contractor would not be paid, until the report of theveterinary class 4 inspection was rendered (14).
When the two classes ofinspection were specified in the contractual documents, the class 3 inspectionincluded both the examination for the grade quality of the product and theveterinary professional inspection for its sanitary condition; the product whichwas found to be acceptable on the class 3 inspection was then reinspected whenactually procured. The second part of veterinary procurement inspection, orclass 4 inspection, was conducted only to determine the product's sanitarycondition and count. The inspections for contractual compliance were normallyrequired but once, as the type, class, and grade qualities usually did notchange when once properly determined; however, sanitary inspections wereconducted repeatedly, or on the class 4 inspection, of the same product toinsure the continuance of the condition found to be correct when the class 3inspection was conducted.
690
When the contractualdocuments did not authorize class 3 inspections, the class 4 inspectionsincluded both the examination for type, class, and grade quality, and theinspection for sanitary condition. This examination for grade quality andprofessional inspection for sanitary condition was conducted concurrently by thesame Army veterinary officer because the two procedures overlapped and blendedin their essential features. In military meat and dairy hygiene, it wasaxiomatic that no quality grading or inspection for contractual requirements wascontemplated which did not include simultaneously a professional investigationof the sanitary condition of products and the environs in which those productswere handled; the combination proved to be an efficient, practical procedureand was economical in terms of costs, manpower, and unity of supervision.
The previous discussionswere pertinent not only to veterinary food procurement inspections during WorldWar II in the Zone of Interior but also to activities in the theater commandswherever the Army procured subsistence. These classes of inspections wereconducted on all local procurements, such as by the Iceland Base Command (fig.92), in Canada, in the
691
Central and South Americancountries, on the African Continent, and in a great many other places. Therewere modifications of this procedure, however, where the U.S. forces were not subsisted on Army-procuredfoods. Thus, in 1942, Army troops in Australia were rationed by the Australian Army, and, in China throughout the war period, military personnelwere regarded by the Allied Chinese Nationalist Government as guests and thuswere housed and fed by the special Chinese Army Service Corps. There were avariety of problems in regard to the inspection of these supplies by the ArmyVeterinary Service; however, no objections were seriously interposed by thesetwo foreign agencies against Army Veterinary Corps officers inspecting theproducts for sanitary quality. In fact, only in Australia did any real problem arise, and this originatedwith the senior U.S. Army headquarters staff and quartermaster procurementofficers who, without reasonable argument, seemed to have permitted the healthmatters of the Army and business economies to be subordinated to politicalaspects for gaining Allied cooperation or maintaining international good will.Fortunately, this argument did not last long, and a full-scale veterinary foodprocurement inspectional service was soon established in Australia (fig. 93).
692
Procurement InspectionResponsibility
The Quartermaster Corps wasresponsible for the procurement of subsistence and for insuring that suchprocurements conformed fully to contract and specification requirements. In theperformance of this responsibility, particularly as it applied to foods ofanimal origin, the Quartermaster Corps was regularly assisted by the ArmyVeterinary Service which conducted the inspections. These veterinary inspectionswere usually advisory in nature, with the exception of those conducted todetermine soundness and sanitation at which time the veterinary reports andrecommendations were accepted as final, and the subsistence found unsound orunfit for human consumption was not procured. However, on the basis ofveterinary reports of type, class, or grade quality, and quantity, thequartermaster contracting officer had the final authority to accept or rejectthe products. Thus, in regard to the latter, the Army Veterinary Service trulyacted as a technical adviser, assisting contracting officers in theinterpretation and application of contractual requirements andspecifications as they applied to the products being procured. Naturally,inspection per se stood for grade quality, and, in extreme situations,procurement per se stood only for quantity. Veterinary inspectors, however,would reject everything, and contracting officers would buy anything, whilethe civilian contractors complicated the picture by offering everything andanything. In regard to these inspections, the following was reported (15):
* * * In this conflictbetween quality and quantity, inspection found itself squarely in the middle.Inspectors were bound by the legal aspects of the contract and consequently wereobliged to insist upon deliveries conforming to specifications and other termsof the contract. Where conflicts between quality and quantity occurred, acompromise had to be evolved by cooperation among these three groups so thatdelivery of supplies would not be delayed. It mattered little how accurately andscientifically specifications were drawn if commodities were not kept up to theestablished standard by means of careful testing and inspection. At the sametime, proper inspection, by insuring a smooth flow of adequate * * *[subsistence supplies] from production line to training camp and battlefield,constituted a vital link in the chain of * * * [subsistence] supply.
Thus, it was obvious the"duties of the veterinary officer in respect to the inspection of foods andthe duties of the quartermaster officers in connection with procurement,storage, and issue are closely related" and that a "* * * spirit of cooperation andunderstanding of each other's duties and responsibilities must exist forefficient operation" (16).
Changes in Veterinary FoodProcurement Inspections
There was considerablechange in the procedures for veterinary food procurement inspections duringWorld War II. This paralleled the changes which were made in the QuartermasterCorps procedures for procuring subsistence for the Army and, in fact, was ingreat part responsible for the
693
successes in thequartermaster market center system and centralized procurement system fornonperishable subsistence that were evolved during the war.
In the spring of1941, The Quartermaster General authorized post quartermaster or purchasingofficers to procure Army boneless beef for local issue purposes and tocommunicate directly with the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General's Office,with regard to arrangements for veterinary officers to conduct class 3inspections in all procurements of that product (17, 18). Concurrently, changeswere proposed in Federal specifications concerning carcass or wholesale marketcuts of fresh or frozen beef so that the latter would be inspected, if sospecified in contractual agreements, for grade quality at contractors'establishments (that is, class 3 inspection) and inspected at point of deliveryor final acceptance (that is, class 4 inspection) for condition only. Theprocurement actions in 1940-41 were a major advance in the developing trend forclass 3 inspection and were important because they antedated the veterinaryinspection procedures that were set up with the start of the quartermaster marketcenter system for centralized perishable subsistence buying. In anticipationof the demands that the growing Army would place on the newly developing systemof food procurement, the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General's Office, inAugust 1940 and again in January 1941, requested personnel space authorizationsfor ordering 60 or 70 Veterinary Reserve Corps officers to extended active duty(19, 20). By that time, many contractors supplying meats to the Army were inneed of veterinary class 3 inspectors at a number of widely separatedestablishments. It may be noted that the Surgeon General's Office remainedoperationally responsible regarding arrangements for the conduct of class 3inspections; this responsibility was transferred later to the service commands.
The quartermaster proceduresfor perishable and nonperishable subsistence procurement were transferred fromthe many individual Army camps and were regrouped by the Quartermaster Corpsunder two rapidly developing procedures for subsistence procurement anddistribution in the Zone of Interior: The centralized purchasing ofnonperishable (canned) subsistence by quartermaster depots, and thequartermaster market system which was concerned with the supply of perishable orfresh food products. Thus, only one depot and one market center procurednonperishable and perishable products in a given city, and no longer were theproducts, previously rejected, reinspected by the Army Veterinary Service andpassed for Army procurement. The more singular advantages of class 3inspections under the new quartermaster purchasing systems were that, underwartime conditions, it operated to keep rejections at a minimum; facilitated thecorrection of faulty processing operations before these led to the production ofsubstandard products; conserved labor, critical materiel, and transportationfacilities; and expedited the movement of products from the establishments tocamps, depots and storage areas, and ports.
694
Federal and OtherSpecifications in Contractual Agreements
Regarding the grade qualitywhich was mentioned so many times as comprising one of the major features ofveterinary food products procurement inspection, it must be understood thatthis was set forth in the contractual agreements between quartermasterpurchasing officers and the civilian contractors. Actually, the contractualdocuments most frequently did not describe the grade quality so much as theymade reference to one or more specifications that did, and the specificationsthus became an integral and legal part of the contract. Generally, there was aspecification for each meat and dairy product which was procured by the Army,and there were other specifications, also made a part of the legal contractualdocuments, relative to such matters as packaging and labeling, packing andmarking, and the general considerations of Army procurement procedures. Thesecommodity specifications were of several major types: Federal specifications,which were promulgated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury; U.S. Armyspecifications; Quartermaster Corps tentative specifications; and, of course,the modifications of the foregoing types or certain special requirements such aswere written into the contractual documents. The specifications were the basisfor conducting veterinary procurement inspections concerning grade and by commonpractice comprised part of the regular equipment for all veterinary inspectionpersonnel. The possession of the pertinent specification was as essential tothem as was the possession and knowledge of the contractual document. Federalspecifications may be regarded as governing the procurement of commodities byany or all Federal agencies which purchased them, including the U.S. Departmentof the Treasury, Veterans' Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NavyDepartment, and War Department. These, when they were first issued in 1922, weretermed Standard Specifications, later U.S. Government Master Specifications,and, after September 1929, Federal Specifications.
At the beginning of the war,there were 68 Federal specifications of meat and dairy products which were cited in contractual agreements and were the basis forveterinary inspections and grade quality. Each specification followed the sametopical outline:
Other applicable Federalspecifications
Types, classes, and grades
Material and workmanship(that is, standards of raw material)
General requirements (as to delivery)
Detail requirements (of thevarious types, classes, and grades of the commodity)
Method of inspection and test
Packaging, packing, andmarking for shipment
Requirements applicable to individual procuring agencies
Notes
The promulgation of thesespecifications was the responsibility of an agency of the U.S. Department of theTreasury, the Federal Specifications Board,
695
or the Executive Committee,Procurement Division. This agency was subdivided into a variety ofsubcommittees such as Feeds and Forage Technical Committee and ProvisionsTechnical Committee, whose chairmanships and memberships included, on invitationof the Federal Specifications Board or Executive Committee, representatives fromcivilian industry and various governmental departments. After the issuance ofsuch an invitation, approved on 8 November 1934, by the Assistant Secretary ofWar (21, 22), Veterinary Corps officers who were assigned to the SurgeonGeneral's Office were seated as permanent members of the Provisions TechnicalCommittee and at various times were named as chairmen of such of the technicalcommittee's subcommittees as were concerned with the development ofspecificationson meat and dairy products.
During the war, thedevelopmental work on specifications was under constant study, but there were nomajor revisions or many newly promulgated ones; in fact, the procedures fordeveloping Federal specifications that would meet the needs and approval of allwartime procurement agencies of the Government were generally quite slow, andthe Army resorted to the development of its own military specifications forthe many new kinds of food products that it procured during World War II. Infact, this military specification development was begun in 1941 at theSubsistence Research Laboratory (in February 1944, designated the SubsistenceResearch and Development Laboratory, and after the war, renamed theQuartermaster Food and Container Institute for the Armed Forces) at theChicago Quartermaster Depot, Chicago, Ill. Its specifications were referred toas "Quartermaster Corps Tentative Specification C.Q.D. No. _____." For canned meats alone more than 50 such specifications weredeveloped (23). Each specification described in particular the raw materials,the procedures, and the testing that would be observed by the veterinaryinspection personnel in the establishments which were producing these products.Near the end of the war, sample cans of these products were submitted routinelyby the Veterinary Corps officer from the establishment to the quartermasterresearch laboratory for so-called acceptability testing, but, unfortunately, theresults of this test were returned direct to the contractor and, mostfrequently, long after the establishment had stopped production and had shippedthe product. Of course, in-plant veterinary organoleptic examinations of the endproducts and the chemical and other analytical tests, which were conducted atthe service command medical laboratories, were completed to the satisfaction ofthe inspecting Veterinary Corps officer before the contractors made theshipments.
Centralized Procurement ofNonperishable Animal-Origin Foods
Before World War II,nonperishable (canned) meat and dairy products were little needed in feeding theArmy, and only a few items were procured on a centralized basis. During the1930's, canned bacon was being procured by the Chicago Quartermaster Depot forsupply to the oversea departments,
696
and a few other items werepurchased for distribution to nearby Army camps. In 1939, the first real changeto improve the Army's canned meat supply was made by the Office of theQuartermaster General when five frequently procured items were designated forcentral procurement and distribution by the Chicago Quartermaster Depot.However, another 2 years elapsed before the centralized procurement system forcanned meat and dairy products was expanded to become effective. Actually,products such as canned corned beef, corned beef hash, meat and vegetable stew,meat and vegetable hash, pork luncheon meat, and Vienna-style sausage werequite similar to those available commercially and were obtained in theircommercialforms. Inspections were made usually at the depot by examining representativesample cans of the end products that were forwarded by the contractor, and onlyinfrequently was a depot-assigned veterinary officer ordered to temporary dutyin the contractor's establishment to conduct class 3 inspections.
This peacetime inspectionprocedure for canned foods was halted in January 1941 when The QuartermasterGeneral and The Surgeon General concurred in a proposal to move procurementinspection from the depots to contractors' establishments (24, 25, 26, 27). Theproposal, approved by the Secretary of War on 18 January 1941, grantedauthorization to any or all depots which procured subsistence to communicatedirectly with corps area (later, service command) commanders to issue orders forthe latter's Veterinary Corps officers to travel to such places as would berequired in connection with class 3 inspection of foods procured for the Army.Of course, at this time nearly all depots were buying some canned meats anddairy products other than those few previously named for central procurement bythe Chicago Quartermaster Depot. Effective on 1 October 1941, a new systemfor nonperishable subsistence procurement and distribution was set up by theQuartermaster Corps, and three depots were named as procurement points: Chicago,Ill., New York (later Jersey City, N.J.), and San Francisco, latter designatedCalifornia-each being assigned the commodities it would procure. Thus, eightcanned meat items, dried egg powder, dried milk powder, and canned evaporatedmilk were designated for central procurement by the Chicago QuartermasterDepot. (This depot also undertook the buying of certain cured and smokedproducts, such as bacon and ham, and of frozen boneless beef, but theprocurement responsibilities for these, as perishable products, were transferredlater to the new quartermaster market center system.) Canned salmon was to becentrally procured by the San Francisco General Depot; canned fruits andvegetables, and cereals were also listed for procurement by these depots as wellas by the depot at Jersey City.
As the centralizedprocurement system for nonperishable meat and dairy products was launched, theresponsibility for conducting the veterinary inspection was often transferredto another depot more closely located to the contractor's establishment. Thus,the veterinary detachment, Seattle Army
697
Service Depot, routinelyconducted the procurement inspections for canned salmon, although the San Francisco (orCalifornia) Quartermaster Depot was designated as theprocurement depot. Similarly, as the Chicago Quartermaster Depot'sprocurements of canned meats were expanded to 70 cities and towns, a varyingnumber of newly developing depot veterinary detachments conducted class 3inspections in the plants which were producing canned meats under contractualagreements with the Chicago installation. These developments did not followthose principles originally set forth in January 1941, but there was no doubtthat certain procurement officers and quartermaster field installationcommanders had come to the unjustifiable opinion that depot veterinarydetachments were better qualified and were more appreciative of the problems inrendering the procurement inspection services than were those personnel anddetachments which were under service command jurisdiction (23, 28, 29). TheOffice of the Quartermaster General supported this development but limited itto the extent, measured only in geographic terms, of requesting depot commandersto retain the operational boundaries of depot veterinary detachments within a30-mile radius of their installations (30, 31). Only when the class 3inspections were required at places 30 miles or more distant from the depotconducting the inspections did The Quartermaster General recommend that thedepot desiring the inspection request the services of veterinary personnel fromthe service commands.
Another major inspectionproblem relating to nonperishable subsistence was that the Procurement Division,Chicago Quartermaster Depot, was without direct veterinary representation, andproblems of inspection at contractors' plants were belatedly answered,sometimes by the meat buyers themselves. Not infrequently, contract provisionswere changed without proper notification to inspecting Veterinary Corpsofficers, and the Quartermaster Subsistence Research and DevelopmentLaboratory added to the complexity by setting forth requirements on productionin the plants. In the Zone of Interior, service command veterinarians wereespecially critical of the inflexibility of procurement inspection actionsimposed by the Chicago Quartermaster Depot (32, 33, 34), and it was not untilthe last year of the war that the professional and technical problems ofinspection relating to canned meat and dairy products procurement were handledin a manner comparable to that evolved by the quartermaster market center systemfor inspections of perishable foods. Eventually, however, the depotveterinarian, Chicago Quartermaster Depot, gained direct representation on thestaff of the depot's Procurement Division and rendered professional andtechnical assistance on nonperishable food procurement inspections.
As to the extent of cannedmeat and dairy products procurement inspections, it may be noted thatcontractors for canned meats alone numbered 135; these had approximately 20branch plants, located in 70 or more cities and
698
towns throughout the United States. Between August 1941 and June 1945, procurementsfrom these sources totaled 3,580,617,869 pounds of canned meats:
| Pounds | ||
| 1941 | (August through December) | 75,494,920 |
| 1942 | --- | 923,243,560 |
| 1943 | --- | 663,887,844 |
| 1944 | --- | 1,227,640,683 |
| 1945 | (January through June) | 690,350,862 |
| Total | 3,580,617,869 |
This quantity included 221,148,305 pounds purchased by the Quartermaster Corps for the U.S. Navy, under a coordinated Army-Navy procurement program that began in June 1942.
QuartermasterMarketCenter System
To facilitate theprocurement and distribution of perishable foods, the Quartermaster Corpsformulated its market center system in April 1941 (35, 36, 37). Under thissystem, The Quartermaster General established and maintained purchasing officesin various parts of the United States, designated as quartermaster market centers,to purchase perishable food in the important city markets and to spread thepurchases geographically as widely as was possible. At the onset, only fresh andfrozen fruits and vegetables were procured by the market center system, but, inmid-1941, The Quartermaster General indicated that other food items would soonbe designated for procurement by the market centers. Thus, on 6 October 1941, the first food items of animal origin, butter,cheese, eggs, and poultry, were added to the procurement schedules. By thistime, 29 quartermaster market centers had been established and wereaccomplishing perishable food procurement for approximately 100 Army campsthroughout the United States. In effect, the market center system of buyingreplaced the peacetime purchasing system for fresh meat and dairy products byseparate Army camps and airfields, many of which by this time had expanded orwere so located that the city markets in their vicinity were too small to meettheir needs. Under the market center system, these installations made theirneeds known to a specified market center where arrangements were then made forprocurement and delivery. In this manner, there was an equitable distribution ofperishable meat and dairy products to all Army camps and airbases in the United States, regardless of their location and withoutrespect to the availability of such supplies in nearby city markets.
The market centers werecontrolled by The Quartermaster General who established, on 16 June 1941, the Field Headquarters, Perishable SubsistenceSection, Office of the Quartermaster General (38), with station in Chicago, under which these market centers actuallyoperated. On 2 October 1941, a Veterinary Corps officer was assigned to thiscentral headquarters for market
699
centers to act as thetechnical adviser on veterinary inspection procedures; he acted informally alsoas a representative of the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General's Office (39).After that time, veterinary officers were assigned to a few of the marketcenters, but, for the most part, the latter depended on the additional dutyassignments of veterinary officers from a nearby Army camp under service commandjurisdiction or from a quartermaster depot to act as market centerveterinarians. Their duties were to coordinate and process the requests forveterinary inspections and to review the reports of inspections which wereconducted for the market centers. The actual inspection workload at procurementpoints, cold storage plants, and other establishments concerned in the Army'sperishable subsistence supply was carried on by the Army Veterinary Service withservice commands, with quartermaster depots and sections of general depots, andinfrequently by Army Air Forces veterinary personnel. It was not intended thatthe market center system would have any large numbers of veterinary personnelassigned to it but rather that it would utilize the services of those alreadyassigned to the Army camps, depots, airbases, and other military installationsto do the actual work. Significantly, the latter also were called upon, as shownpreviously, to inspect in the nonperishable subsistence supply system.
This utilization ofVeterinary Corps personnel to inspect for the quartermaster market centersystem originated with a proposal agreed to by The Quartermaster General and TheSurgeon General (40, 41, 42, 43). On 17 October 1941, The Adjutant General authorized officers incharge of the market centers to call on service commands (then designated corpsareas) who would arrange for their assigned Veterinary Corps officers to travelto places of inspections in commercial food establishments. It will be recalledthat earlier, in January 1941, depots procuring nonperishable food products weregranted similar authorizations. In November 1941, The Quartermaster Generalauthorized the market centers to call on depot veterinary detachments toprovide class 3 inspections of meat and dairy products in the vicinity of theirdepots.
In February 1942, marketcenter operations were expanded to the procurement of meats and meat foodproducts, and, in March 1942, fish and seafoods were added to this procurementlist. Frozenboneless beef, war ham and bacon, and war-style lard were transferred from theChicago Quartermaster Depot to the procurement responsibilities of themarket centers in the fall of 1942; fresh milk and cream were added in February1944 (fig. 94). By mid-1943, the number of market centers had increased to 37;these distributed foods to more than 500 installations and for shipmentoverseas. The Army market centers served not only Army posts, but also the Navy,Marine Corps, Merchant Marine, Coast Guard, and War Relocation Authority. TheArmy scheduled its procurement of these products in harmony with seasonalproduction and stored some perishable food items, such as eggs,
700
FIGURE 94.-Preparation offrozen boneless beef for procurement by market centers.
cheese, and butter, forconsumption in slack seasons of production. During 1944, the market centersystem also took over the purchase of canned butter and Army spread, cannedprocess cheese, and canned chicken and poultry. From the start of thequartermaster market center procurement program to 31 December 1945, meat and dairy products aggregated13,420,247,886 pounds with a value of $3,359,329,365 (5). Actually, procurementinspection of products for current consumption was only a part of the veterinaryfood inspection services for the market center system. There were large-scaleprograms for the procurement of seasonal products to be held in storage fordistribution later. Thus, in connection with butter, the headquartersveterinarianof the market center system indicated:
A large butter storageprogram started May 1943, and required much work of the Veterinary Section ofthis office and the inspectors in the field. This program resulted inapproximately 42 million lbs. of butter being placed in storage. In addition, in July 1943, the Dairy Products Marketing Associationoffered 36 million lbs. of butter to the Armed Forces. This product was locatedin 106 cold storages in all parts of the country. Requests for inspection ofthis butter were handled like requests for inspections of all other products ofanimal origin. The inspection work was completed in approximately 20 days, with28,500,000 lbs. being accepted. The Dairy Products Marketing Association
701
also offered 20,879,035 lbs. more butter on 1 December 1943 and 5 million lbs. more on 11 December 1943. This product was stored in 51 cities in 22States. Requests for inspection were forwarded as usual, and with the exceptionof a few places where there was a labor shortage, the inspections were completedin the 20 days allotted for the inspection and reporting of same. Inspection wasrequested every 30 days on all butter held in storage, and was also requestedwhen bulk butter was removed for printing and shipment to final destination, orreturn to storage.
During the calendar year 1944, 100 million lbs. of butter were purchased under set?aside orders andstored as Government property.
Major Procurement InspectionProblems
The major problems relatingto procurement inspection were the questionable inspections made on class 3 and class 4 inspections, the gradingactivities by the AgriculturalMarketing Service, and the developing controversy over geographic areas ofinspectional jurisdiction between depots and service commands. The last-namedproblem has been outlined and discussed in preceding paragraphs.
Mention must be made of theAgricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and itsutilization coequal with the Army Veterinary Service to determine the gradequality of meat and dairy products which were being procured by thequartermaster market center system. Since about1916, this civilian agency (then called the Bureau ofAgricultural Economics) had been developing standards for grades of beef andother meats in connection with its market-reporting system; in 1927, for thefirst time, that agency actually undertook the grading of beef in commercialfood establishments, limited to nine large city markets (44, 45). In1932, product grading services in 14 central markets were extended toinclude butter, cheese, eggs, and dressed poultry and rabbits. By law, theFederal grading was made only on products when offered for interstate shipmentor when received at important central markets, and then only when specificallyrequested on a particular shipment or lot. At the beginning of the war, theagency's field inspection forces were small and were limited to operations inthe large city markets, and relatively few members of the Nation's foodindustries voluntarily applied for its grading service.
In 1941, when thequartermaster market center system undertook the procurement of poultry,butter, eggs, and cheese, either this agency or the Army Veterinary Service wasdesignated to determine the grade quality of these products at points of origin,the selection of one or the other being the choice of the contractor. A varietyof complaints, including charges of duplicate inspections, were soon madeagainst the Army Veterinary Service. These complaints were made to appear worseby the confusion that was allowed to persist that the determination of gradequality by the Agricultural Marketing Service was comparable to ArmyVeterinary Corps inspection which featured both sanitary inspection proceduresand grade determination; that is, the Agricultural Marketing Service was trulynot an inspection agency.
702
The Federal grading agencycontinued to be forced upon the food industries during the war period as theresult of the development of wartime price control regulations which providedfor price schedules dependent on the product's grade quality; it was a featureof economics and was not the least concerned in sanitary quality control. Eventhe highest graded cheese or dressed poultry could originate fromtuberculosis-infected milk herds or poultry flocks. For example, its definitionof grade standards for Swiss cheese was footnoted with the statement"grading certificates shall not be deemed to represent that the productgraded meets this definition and shall not excuse failure to comply with theFederal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or any other Federal regulation" (46).This was the difference between grading and veterinary inspection.
A common complaint was thenumber of rejections by the Army Veterinary Service of delivered productswhich had been previously quality graded by the Agricultural Marketing Service.Of course, there was no general appreciation of the fact that the productgrading may have been correct both at origin and destination or that it wasentirely possible for perishable food commodities to deteriorate to the nextlower grade after the Agricultural Marketing Service grading was originallyconducted. This controversy was compromised by the reinspection proceduresthat were established by the quartermaster market center system, as follows (47):
Where any of the food itemsindicated above [i.e., butter, eggs, cheese, and poultry] are inspected at pointof origin by an inspector of the Agricultural Marketing Service and are found oninspection at receipt to be not the grade contracted for, the vendor will benotified and, if he so desires, may request a reinspection. In such event, theQuartermaster Marketing Center which made the contract will be immediatelynotified. On request of the Officer in Charge of the Marketing Center, the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S.Department of Agriculture will send a qualified representative to the camp,post, or station to reinspect the shipment in question. At the same time, theOfficer in Charge of the Quartermaster Marketing Center will immediately makerequest to the Commanding General of the corps area in which the post or camp islocated for the detail of a specially selected and qualified veterinary officerto make a reinspection at the same time as that to be made by the representativeof the Agricultural Marketing Service.
While the AgriculturalMarketing Service representative and the veterinary officer will make theirinspections independently, it is expected that they will compare notes of theirfindings and discuss same before rendering their reports. The result of thisreinspection will be accepted by the receiving Quartermaster as being conclusiveas to grade unless it should happen that the Agricultural Marketing Servicerepresentative and the veterinary officer making the reinspection do not agree.In this event the receiving Quartermaster will consider the certificate renderedby the representative of the Agricultural Marketing Service and the report ofthe veterinary officer and make final decision as to whether he will accept orreject the contested shipment.
In all cases where thereinspection by the Agricultural Marketing Service representative and theveterinary officer substantiate the station veterinarian in his initialinspection, the cost of the reinspection will be assessed against thecontractor, otherwise it will be borne by the Army.
703
Although the AgriculturalMarketing Service was recognized by the market center system throughout the warperiod, the previously mentioned disagreements did not occur frequently afterthe first few months because the civilian contractors generally resolved thematter by requesting Army Veterinary Corps inspection on products being preparedin their establishments for Army delivery. Significantly, only the marketcenter procurements of eggs, butter, cheese, and poultry were involved; theAgricultural Marketing Service posed no grading problem in regard to meats andmeat products because these were quality graded solely by the Army VeterinaryService as were all other foods of animal origin, including fish, seafoods, anddairy supplies.
VETERINARY FOOD SURVEILLANCEINSPECTIONS
Surveillance inspectionsincluded the veterinary inspections made to determine the soundness andsanitary condition of Government-owned food products and the sanitary conditionsof the places of receipt, storage, and other handling, including warehouses,cold storage plants, and storerooms on Army transports, ships chartered by theArmy, and other carriers which handled, stored, or transported foods for theArmy. The inspections were made as required on the receipt of Government-ownedfoods at a station, Army supply point, or in the field, and beforetransshipment, during storage, at time of issue, or at such other times as werejudged to be necessary. Products subject to reclamation, pursuant to theguarantee provisions of contracts, were, in addition, inspected just before theexpiration date of the guaranty period. Surveillance inspections were conductedrepeatedly on the same products along the entire supply chain to insure thecontinuance of their soundness and sanitary condition between the time andplaces of procurement and issue. Although these surveillance inspections wereprimarily directed at the sanitary features of products and their environs,they also served to conserve food. They were the means of detecting the earlysigns of deterioration in quality and made it possible to utilize the productbefore deterioration had progressed to the point that it could not be used. Inthese activities, the Army Veterinary Service acted as technical andprofessional advisers to the surgeons who protected troop health, toquartermasters who received, stored, and issued the foods, to the transportationofficers who moved the foods, and to the engineers who constructed andmaintained the warehousing and cold storage facilities. Only the Army VeterinaryService, as a single agency, could relate the complete, continuous history ofthe Army's meat and dairy products from the places of manufacture or procurementto the issue points.
Inspection of Any Receipt ofSubsistence Except Procurement
Of the several classes ofveterinary surveillance inspection procedures, the class 5 inspection, conductedon Government-owned food products when
704
FIGURE 95.-Without adequatepacking, subsistence arriving overseas became almost worthless.
received from anothermilitary installation or other agency, was especially important. It wasconducted to determine the sanitary condition of Army products at the time oftheir receipt at depots for storage, at ports for oversea shipment, at supplypoints for redistribution, or at stations and airbases where they were to beissued. Usually, the inspections related to products received from anothermilitary installation, but some of these products were received direct from thecontractors' establishments, as in the instances of shipments of canned meat anddairy products to the ports which had neither the time nor the facilities forfull veterinary class 4 inspections. The ports of embarkation in the Zone ofInterior became particularly concerned with inspection reports which wererendered on the receipt of products overseas, because the reported losses oftenpointed out defects in packaging, packing, or the methods of handlingsubsistence between the United States and the oversea theaters (fig. 95). Also,if the oversea receipt inspection revealed deterioration or spoilage ofproducts, then a reasonable basis existed for an inquiry to be made of theshipping officer who may have shipped deteriorated subsistence or for aninvestigation to be made to determine the liability of
705
FIGURE 96.-Aerial port ofembarkation for perishable subsistence supply in India, March 1944.
the commercial carrier orArmy transportation agency. The class 5 inspection was also a means forreviewing the efficiency of veterinary inspection procedures at the originalshipping points (or class 6 inspection).
Inspection Before Shipment
Veterinary class 6inspection, or the inspection before shipment, was conducted to assure theshipment only of meat and dairy products which were sound and fit for issue totroops (fig. 96). Within the definition of establishments, the conveyances thatwere used to transport subsistence for the Army also were inspected forsuitability and sanitary condition. Conveyances meant railroad cars, trucks,ships, and airplanes. Thus, class 6 inspections referred principally to sanitaryinspections of products and of the conveyances. During World War II,veterinary personnel were requested to technically supervise the methods usedin the loading or stowing of subsistence, particularly of refrigerated cargo.
In the inspection ofperishable meat and dairy products at contractors' establishments and commercialwarehouses, the concerned veterinary officers were advised specifically toclosely supervise the precooling and loading of railroad cars and trucks as wellas the sanitary condition of the conveyances,
706
their icing, insulation,refrigeration equipment, ventilation, and the methods of piling and bracing thecargo or loads. Special protective service instructions were issued by FieldHeadquarters, Perishable Subsistence Section, Chicago,Ill., relative to the conditions for shippingperishable products, and it became a requirement for contractors andwarehousemen to have the manifest of loads placed inside the cars and trucks byveterinary personnel, before their sealing, to insure that these instructionswere being followed (48, 49, 50). A variety of publications by the Associationof American Railroads were utilized in observing the methods of loading,bracing, and blocking shipments of nonperishable subsistence; these includedsuch matters as tight stowage, even height of the loads, and blocking doorwaysof full loads or bracing partial loads with bulkheads (or gates). Minimumcarloads of canned subsistence were established at 60,000 pounds. Atdestination, the subsistence-carrying conveyances were inspected for condition,including the security of the seals, the quantity of ice in bunkers, the openingtemperatures, evidences of improper loading practices, and any off condition ofthe products that might have been caused by neglect or other action by theshippers or carriers.
At the ports of embarkationand cargo ports, the Army Veterinary Service played an important role asadvisers to the Transportation Corps in the outmovement of subsistence to thetheaters overseas. Pursuant to AR 40-2055, port veterinarians were responsiblefor conducting the inspections of products before their loading on Armytransports, chartered ships, or other vessels transporting meat and dairyproducts for the Army; also, they recommended and, wherever practicable,supervised the methods employed for correcting sanitary defects. Perishablesubsistence, in particular, presented a major shipping problem, and, in 1943,the Office of the Chief of Transportation addressed a circular of instructionson some few aspects of the procedures and inspection responsibilities at theports, as follows (51, 52):
1. It has been brought tothe attention of the Chief of Transportation that refrigerated cargo has beenreceived at overseas destination in unusable condition. The storage history ofthe product prior to loading and the elapsed time of the movement will have aneffect upon the condition of the product at destination. Any product which isnot thoroughly frozen when loaded may be expected to deteriorate en route,because the refrigeration capacity of the carrier is not sufficient to completethe process of freezing and lower the product temperature. Proper attentionneeds to be given to stowage, for an even distribution of refrigerationthroughout the load. Correctly designed and installed floor dunnage and wallstripping to prevent direct transfer of heat from those surfaces to the productare also very important.
2. Inspection of perishablesubsistence at shipside, prior to loading in refrigerated cargo, should be madecarefully to assure that the product is in proper condition for shipment. Frozenperishable subsistence should be in a hard-frozen condition, and any suchproduct found at this time to be in a defrosted condition or showing any signsof softening shall be rejected and moved to storage for further freezing. TheOffice of the Quartermaster General, in Field Headquarters AdministrativeMemorandum No. 41, 22
707
April 1943, has issuedinstructions to assure arrival of frozen subsistence in proper condition atthe ports.
* * * * * * *6. It will be understoodthat the importance of this subject cannot be overemphasized when plans callfor much of this perishable cargo to go into storage at destination for periodsup to and exceeding ninety days.
Other paragraphs of thisdocument set forth the recommended temperatures of the products at the time ofloading and those desired in the refrigerated spaces in ships while en route.
The special conditions atports, leading to food losses in the oversea stockpiles, included the squeezingpressure exerted by nets and slings, the shocks sustained as the cargo nets hitthe pier or bottom of the ship's hold, and the rough handling by the stevedoreswho worked on top of the cases while the hold was being filled or who dropped orslammed them into a pile. Of course, there was always the constant problem ofslow loading so that refrigerated cargo often thawed out or lost its chill onthe piers; in some areas, ship loadings and unloadings were conducted at nightto avoid the heat of the tropical sun, and inclement weather conditionsdisrupted or delayed loading schedules. However, one of the most common causesof damage to cases of subsistence and of outright food losses occurred from theuse of cargo nets, in lieu of platform slings, to load or discharge productssuch as shell eggs, fresh fruits, and vegetables; also, frozen meats and poultrypacked in wirebound wooden boxes fared poorly from the distortion and crushingeffects of the nets. Since all shipping space seemed to beg filling, containerswere placed under heavier loads or squeezed in between. During the voyages,there were the added factors of shifting cargo, damp salt air, and temperaturechanges. Cargo transferred from ships to lighters or landing craft receivedespecially rough handling when the boats were in a rough sea. Unskilled nativelabor, unconcerned about the importance of the job, compounded the damage.
In-Storage Inspections
One of the more importantclasses of veterinary surveillance inspection procedures was the class 9inspection, or the inspection of Army subsistence while in storage. Essentially,it was an innovation of the war period in regard to fresh products. Inpeacetime, practically no fresh meat and dairy products were stored longer thanfrom a few days to 2 or 3 weeks, and any deterioration or spoilage could beuncovered during the inspection at time of issue. The quartermaster marketcenter system was particularly concerned with the veterinary sanitaryinspections of products in storage, but the quartermaster depots in the Zone ofInterior lagged in recognizing their importance. The in-storage inspection wasroutinely regarded as a matter of command responsibility wherein the veterinaryinspections would be conducted on specific request of the concernedaccountable officers (53), but
708
more often-and this wasparticularly true for storage holdings of perishable foods by the quartermastermarket centers in the Zone of Interior and of both perishable and nonperishablesubsistence stores in the oversea theaters-the responsibility for conductingin-storage inspections was delegated to the Army Veterinary Service, and thelatter scheduled its own workload for conducting such inspections (fig. 97). Thein-storage inspections were conducted usually at 30-day intervals, for thepurpose of conserving subsistence by timely recommending the utilization ofproducts showing beginning signs of deterioration or of those items held longestin storage, and for the improvement of defective storage facilities andprocedures. No subsistence was really nonperishable, even under ideal storageconditions, because all products undergo deterioration and harmful changesrendering them, in whole or in part, unfit for food purposes. Another in-storageinspection, but one closely related to food procurement inspection, was theinspection of canned subsistence before the expiration of the so-called recoveryperiod (usually a year for practically all canned meats) during which thecivilian contractors, pursuant to contract requirements, made replacements inkind or compensated the Army for losses incurred because of defective materialsor workmanship or faulty cans; infrequently, contractors exempted themselvesby granting invoice discounts of one-half of 1 percent to cover normal losses.Of course, during the war there was no recovery action on subsistence after itwas shipped overseas.
709
The importance of in-storageinspections and the quantities of food involved can be appreciated by the factthat the Army could not procure its needs on a hand-to-mouth basis.Approximating the weight of the ration at 5 pounds of food per day persoldier and the maintenance of a 90-day supply level in the Zone of Interiorand a 9-month supply which would assure uninterrupted deliveries of food tothe theater troops, an estimate has been made that a military force approachingthat of World War II would have to have on hand every day 11 billion pounds offood (54); to these operating stocks there would have to be added theproduction reserves for products of seasonable availability and the emergencyreserves. A part of this daily stock was in transit, but the larger share wasstored at various points along the chain of Army subsistence supply. Of thistotal quantity, 38 percent would be meat and dairy products, but meat and dairyproducts represented 60 percent of the cost of the Army ration.
Within the depots in theUnited States, the Army Veterinary Service generally encountered no seriouslosses among the canned meat and dairy products newly arriving from contractors'plants. Of course, there were shipments in which the railroad cars had been"humped" at a terminal, and the cases and cans were seriously damagedand bent during the unloading of the cars; the latter were set aside for specialveterinary inspection, repacking, and early redistribution, generally to anearby Army installation. A major reason for relatively low rates ofsubsistence losses was the fact that the depots resorted to the use of forklifttrucks and other mechanical materiel-handling equipment. This, together withextensive utilization of pallets, constituted the most significant QuartermasterCorps development of the war in regard to the handling and storing of suppliesand resulted in considerable savings of manpower, warehouse space, handlingtime, and damages over the older manual system. An unfortunate practice,however, was the tendency to develop piles which were too high, causing thecases of canned foods at the bottom to be crushed or collapsed. The hazards tosafety of personnel by leaning or toppling stockpiles and overloading beyondthe prescribed maximum weight for warehouse floors generally became the realreasons for stabilized stacking and for limiting the height of the stacks.During the war, the turnover of subsistence in the Zone of Interior depots wasgenerally rapid so that the Army Veterinary Service encountered no seriousproblems with stock rotation. Overseas, to the extent that it was possible,stock rotation or policy for the issue of oldest stocks first generally wasfollowed; obviously, only the newest and best on hand was selected for shipmentwith task forces or for long-time reserve storage.In order to maintain the proper fluidity (or prevent separation of thesolids) in evaporated milk, the cases were turned over periodically.
As the result of the depotuse of pallets, which were small wooden platforms constructed to provideclearance for the entry of the forks of the lift truck, quartermaster studieswere made on the development of palletized
710
units of subsistence, andsome thought was given to the requirement that civilian contractors should shiptheir products to the depots as palletized units. In the Pacific theaters,palletized unit loading of subsistence was advanced, and sledlike pallets wereused to bring supplies ashore to the beaches during the combat phase. On Oahu, T.H., a veterinary officer developed apalletized unit load of canned soups, fruit juices, and other foods desirable orneeded in the feeding of wounded patients that was used at frontline or beachfirst aid stations and hospitals. It must be recognized, however, thatpalletized loads of subsistence cases, whether held together by metal strappingor by adhesive, were difficult and costly to disassemble for inspection of thecomponents and then to reassemble.
Actually, subsistence lossesat the depots in the Zone of Interior were negligible only insofar as theseconcerned newly procured subsistence and its storage in warehouses. Losses andsubsistence damage occurred when the depots, because of the lack of warehousespace, stored the canned foods in open or uncovered areas and in sheds roofedbut without side walls. Infrequently, these stockpiles were not properly builton floor dunnage to protect against flooding, were tightly wrapped withtarpaulin without a peaked?roof structure to facilitate the drainage ofrainwater and to provide air circulation, and were maintained under extremelyadverse conditions of summer heat and freezing weather. Another feature ofveterinary reports on subsistence losses in depots was their references tosubsistence which, as excess to the needs of Army camps, was returned to depotstocks. Large quantities of these returned foods were found to be deterioratedor spoiled as the result of their age or mishandling in the camps. Othershipments were received from offshore Army bases, particularly from the Alaskanarea after the Aleutian campaign. During 1943, more than 70,000 cases of fieldration C were returned to the Columbus Army Service Forces Depot from theNewfoundland Base Command; 97 percent of the M-units (meat) in 40,000 cases werefound to be sound and suitable for issue after reconditioning. Some returnedshipments were freed of most of their spoiled foods before shipment from thesebases, and others were not. At one or more depots, the Army Veterinary Servicesupervised reclamation operations and repacking crews to prepare the returnedsubsistence for redistribution in the Zone of Interior.
Most of the Army's supply ofmeat and dairy products that were handled by the quartermaster depot system werestored in Army facilities, and there was no large-scale commercial storageprogram such as was established for the warehousing of canned fruits andvegetables or by the quartermaster market centers for the holding of perishablesubsistence in commercial cold storage plants. However, some canned meats, fish,evaporated milk, and dried eggs were placed in commercial dry storagewarehouses, but the Office of the Quartermaster General did not encourage theinauguration of veterinary surveillance inspections over these stored items (23).
711
When, in early 1943, itbecame necessary to place considerable quantities of canned meat products incommercial storage, the Chicago Depot [which was accountable for these stores]became alarmed because these shipments were going in and out of warehouseswithout being checked upon, and sought approval of a plan for further VeterinaryCorps inspection of the commercial storage stocks. The Office of theQuartermaster General replied [in February 1943], however, that since the meatsstored in public warehouses were inspected before storage and usually remainedin storage a relatively short time, the expense of routine inspections would begreater than the benefits. The practice of noninspection of such stock [andfor sanitary condition of commercial warehouses] was followed for some time,although there was evidence that it was unwise. Toward the end of the year 1943a practice of making spot inspections of canned meat stores shipped fromcommercial warehouses * * * to other depots or ports was adopted. The Depot alsorecommended that canned meats kept in commercial storage for extended periodsshould be given a spot inspection every 90 days. The spot inspection given priorto shipment was only to determine that shipping containers were in goodcondition and properly strapped.
Under the procedures whichwere set up with regard to the utilization of commercial warehousing, there wasno inspectional program except that which the civilian storage contractorsconducted for reporting overages, shortages, or damages, and their charges forrecooperage of damage containers. These contractors were also authorized todetermine whether damaged canned foods were causing an unsanitary condition inthe warehouses and, if so, to destroy them.
Of course, there was littleconcern over in-storage inspections of Army canned products in the Zone ofInterior because of their inherent stability or so-called storage life, and theywere classified as nonperishable. Canned meats had excellent keeping qualitiesif stored at temperatures ranging from 40? to 70? F., for periods up to 4 or 5years or for a somewhat shorter period of time if the canned meat productscontained fruit or vegetable constituents. Where the temperatures fluctuated,and especially if it exceeded 90? F., the storage life was considerablyshortened; alternate freezing and thawing of canned meats also shortened thestorage life and seriously damaged the texture and palatability in those cannedmeats containing starchy products. It may be mentioned that the latter, and thecanned evaporated milk as well, were not always sterile. Though this problem ofsterility was actually one of production control at time of procurement, mentionmust be made that studies were made to determine safe processing (cooking)procedures for canned meats and that some real consideration was given to definea sterile evaporated milk product in Federal specifications.
The storage of perishablesubsistence offered a variety of technical problems that were quite differentfrom those encountered in the storage of canned food products. Of course, therewere many of the same basic problems such as the economical use of floor spaceand stacking methods, lot identification, and sanitary practices in and aboutthe cold storage plants, but these were compounded by the factors of frequentand rapid handling into and out of the refrigerated rooms, and of the holdingtemperature and
712
humidity, and keepingqualities of the products. The Army Veterinary Service conducted in-storageinspections at the Army cold storage plants located in the camps and stationsand at the distribution points and commercial cold storage plants whichreceived, stored, and handled perishable food for the quartermaster marketcenter system. The inspections of refrigerated warehousing in the Army campsand stations were accomplished routinely as a part of station veterinaryservice. Beginning in January 1941, a construction program was begun by the WarDepartment for building new cold storage plants at 46 Army camps, but a greatmany antiquated plants were continued in operation.Other camps had no cold storage plants, utilizing refrigerated railroadcars as points of issue to troops. In the latter instances, the stationveterinarians set up a products surveillance inspection program that was closelyrelated to the inspections of the products at the time of issue.
By the end of 1942, the needfor long-range storage of perishable subsistence in the vicinity of the portsof embarkation and cargo ports where large stocks had to be maintained to loadout refrigerator ships for oversea destinations had become obvious. Equallyimportant was the factor of seasonable availability of products, such as eggs,butter, and cheese, which had to be stockpiled in order to be available to meetmilitary needs for a whole year. Thus, beginning in early 1943, shell eggs,butter, and cheese were procured under long-range storage programs of thequartermaster market center system. Later in 1943, poultry and boneless beefwere stored. Most of the products were placed in commercial cold storage plantsand handled generally by the plant employees. All plants were subjected to acomplete veterinary sanitary inspection before Army subsistence was stored inthem, and the stored products were inspected routinely, at least once every 30days.
Because perishable productsof animal origin were stored in more than 500 cold storage plants in allsections of the country and involved as much as 400 million pounds at one time,it became very essential to determine that the products were properly stored andthat correct temperatures and humidity were maintained and to assure that no lotdeteriorated to such an extent that it could not be issued as fit for humanconsumption. This procedure was considered so valuable that detailed reports ofthe in-storage inspections were made routinely each month to the market centerproperty officers. In this manner, subsistence showing evidence of beginningdeterioration was placed in distribution channels before spoilage occurred.Fortunately, no great losses were experienced; in fact, as the result of theveterinary in?storage inspection and reporting procedures, losses encounteredby the property officer, Field Headquarters, Perishable Subsistence Section,during the peak of buying and storing were less than five one-thousandths of 1percent. Where losses occurred as the result of actions by plant owners, thecontracting officers, of course, could initiate claims. The commercial plantswere often in widely scattered locations, and, at times, plant operatorsundertook
713
to receive or ship productswithout proper notice to the inspecting veterinary personnel. Also, many of theestablishments were antiquated and frequently experienced operating difficultieswhen attempts were made to convert the "chill space" into freezerunits as the Army shifted emphasis to the use of frozen foods.
Inspection of refrigeratedsubsistence destined for oversea shipment emphasized the test of the product'ssanitary condition and of the packing. Overall, the procedures for inspectingrefrigerated subsistence involved a great deal of coordination between themarket center, port, and service command veterinary personnel. For example,the products being shipped through the New York Port of Embarkation were stored,at one time, in 70 or more plants located outside of the immediate port area, inPhiladelphia, Baltimore, Boston, and Syracuse. On call of the New Yorkquartermaster market center, the veterinary personnel nearest to the coldstorage plant inspected the carlot or truckload shipments which were moveddirect to the ship loading docks and piers. A shipside sanitary inspection wasconducted also, where products-if for some reason or other not in propercondition-could be turned back. Sometimes, a 3- to 5-day period of continuousoperations was required to load out a "reefer" ship-these veterinaryinspectional procedures being conducted throughout. The loading-out inspectionof non?perishable subsistence was just as complete but did not require as closecoordination and constant veterinary supervision. Of course, usually more thanone ship was being loaded out at any given time. The same filler (or backupstorage) and port inspectional activities were operated at the other ports ofembarkation, and at San Francisco the loadings became a joint Army-Navyoperation in which storage holdings and preshipment inspections were conductedby the Army Veterinary Service regardless of the destinations of the ships. Inthe Central Pacific Area, the Army furnished the food from its storage holdings,and the Navy the shipping, to ration all Armed Forces personnel in the combatareas and on the advanced island bases.
Overseas, the in-storageinspections concerned subsistence which was vastly different from that inspectedat the depots, distribution points, commercial dry storage warehouses, andcold storage plants in the Zone of Interior. For example, it was severalmonths older, had been handled as many as 15 to 50 times (sometimes by nativelaborers, and frequently crushed and squeezed), transported under suboptimalconditions, and then exposed to varying climatic conditions (in the arctic coldor tropical heat and where it was dry or humid) and stored in the open or intemporary warehouses and portable refrigerators (fig. 98). Some stockpiles ofcanned subsistence were maintained a year or more before they were drawn upon,especially the packed field rations which were held for much longer periods oftime. Under suboptimal conditions of storage in the theaters, large quantitiesof these stockpiles became useless or spoiled long before they should have. Thewastes of war became tremendous, because this spoilage occurred in sub-
714
sistence items which were ofhigh quality, packed in containers specially designed for food protection, andtransported over long distances (fig. 99). "Even though the use ofmanpower, materials, and the time necessary to provide suitable storageoverseas are critical considerations in a theater of operations, the factremains that unless they are expended in assuring good subsistence, items willspoil. The welfare of the troops, which depends to a large extent upon thedelivery of the supplies in the proper condition and at the proper time, willsuffer correspondingly" (54). Fortunately, there always seemed to bereplacement subsistence available as well as the means for transporting it fromthe major areas of supply, and, thus, the losses that occurred never had aserious effect on any particular campaign or battle during the war. However,opinions prevail that the U.S. forces on Bataan peninsula would have fought alonger defensive campaign against the Japanese invaders in the Philippines in1941-42 if they had been better rationed (55); after that time, there wererelatively few places where large numbers of troops, isolated by enemy action,could not be supplied by airdrop.
Matters relating tosubsistence storage, just as the care of Army horses and mules, was a phase ofpreventive military veterinary medicine in which
715
veterinary officers actedonly as advisers to those who were accountable. Recommendations that weremade to lessen or prevent food deterioration and spoilage required the earlyrecognition of bacterial, chemical, and other symptomatic changes of beginninglosses, followed by technical supervision of the actual procedures which weretaken to segregate the spoiled from the sound supplies and to prevent furtherdeterioration or losses. A great many technical details were involved in theprofessional conduct of these veterinary in-storage inspections. These includedknowledge of the protectiveness of the various types of containers, the natureof so-called epidemic spoilage in the piles, the effects of environmentalconditions, the viral growths in, and chemical reactions of, foods as well asinsect infestations and rodent damages, and the sanitary features of storageconstruction and materiel not excluding such matters as selection of sites,dunnage, stacking size and arrangement, and protection front pilferageand enemy attack.
Another feature ofsubsistence supply to the Pacific theaters and probably elsewhere was thatrefrigeration equipment for storing perishable products was not fullydeveloped nor adequate in availability. It lagged behind the growing emphasisthat was placed on the oversea supply of fresh frozen meat and dairy products inlieu of canned or nonperishable items. The China-Burma-India theater had almostno refrigerated facilities. There was more than one reported instance ofstockpiling incoming shipments of perish?
716
able foods under a tarpaulinand of issuing the items which had thawed out; what could not be force issued,within 2 to 3 days, spoiled. Individual unit or messhall refrigerators on someof the smaller island bases became points of quartermaster holdings ofperishable food supplies.
Inspection Prior to Issue
Among the several classes ofveterinary food surveillance inspections, class 7 inspection, conducted onsubsistence at the time of quartermaster issue to troops, was the mostimportant. It included inspections of Government-owned foods sold to the ArmyExchange Service, officers messes, or individuals who were authorized to makesuch purchases, or at the time of issue to Navy and other consuming agencies.This was the final veterinary sanitary inspection given to food. It marked thefinal inspection at the end of the Quartermaster Corps chain of food supply;insofar as it was practical, the products were inspected piece by piece. Alongwith this inspection, veterinary officers supervised the maintenance ofsanitation that would be observed in the containers and vehicles which wereutilized by the units in transporting the issued rations to their messhalls.The units themselves were responsible for providing covered vehicles, cleanpaulins, and other devices which would fully protect the issued foods againstsun, heat, dust, rain, insects, and other damaging or contaminating agencies.
At the individual Army campsin the Zone of Interior, no major problems arose concerning the issue ofcanned foods, though issues sometimes included items that otherwise were notsuitable for shipment from the Zone of Interior to the oversea theaters, such asrusty cans, old packs, and improper packing. On the other hand, the technicalsupervision of issues of perishable products was a greater problem; furthermore,most camps did not have sufficient refrigerated space when the camp trooppopulations approached their normal or maximum levels. Camps, at which combatdivisions were organized and trained for oversea deployment, frequentlyutilized incoming refrigerated cars at railroad sidings for issue points. In thehandling of food products at the Army cold storage plants that wereconstructed in the camps and airbases, the station veterinary personnel acted asadvisers to the local quartermaster on the methods of stacking and on thetemperature and storage life of the various items. Generally, these Army plantsin the Zone of Interior were designed to include a freezer room maintained at10? F. for holding frozen foods, a chill room (at 32? F.) where fresh meatsand products were stored pending their issue, and cooler rooms (at 35? F.) forstoring shell eggs and dairy products, and another cooler room for holding freshfruits and vegetables. The larger plants also had ventilated storage rooms (at50? to 60? F.) and a special refrigerated room where the perishable foods werebroken down for quick issue to units. This classification of refrigeratedstorage was necessarily modified as the war progressed, because greateruse was being made of frozen products than of those in a chilled
717
state; refrigerated plantmechanisms were overburdened in the conversion from chilled storage to thefreezer holding of products. Of course, there were a number of technicalitiesregarding this, not excluding the requirement that beef, lamb, and vealcarcasses if received in a frozen condition were required to be defrosted beforetheir issue to ration breakdown units (56).
At the issue or rationbreakdown points, the veterinary inspection problems were variable, dependent tosome extent upon the type of rations being provided to the troops. DuringWorld War II, reference was made to as many as 12 types of field rations (15,55). The field ration, type A, which was issued in the Zone of Interior, was anissue in kind, following a prescribed menu schedule, as compared to thegarrison ration where the issues of components were made on the basis ofmonetary credits, that was used in the peacetime Army; the changeover to fieldration A was made in the summer of 1941. Ordinarily, this ration typeincluded fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh meats, fluid milk, and othercommodities which regularly were not found in any other field ration. Fieldration B was issued overseas in the theater commands in the manner that theA-ration was used in the Zone of Interior; its component items (or variety)generally were the same except that those of a perishable nature, requiringrefrigerated transportation and storage facilities, were replaced bynonperishable products (canned or dehydrated). Generally, the theater commandswere provided with refrigerated subsistence, and many procured fresh foodslocally so that usually the issues made there included a mixture of the A- andB-ration components.
Then there were C- andD-rations which were developed before the war as so-called combat rations andindividual emergency or survival types. The D-ration, once called the Logan bar(in 1937), of course, was a 4-ounce chocolate bar; three bars constituted aday's ration. Old packs of D-rations, under conditions of storage in the Tropicsat temperatures approaching the melting point (120? F.) of the chocolate,tended to whiten, because of the separation out of its fat constituents, andfinally to crumble into a tasteless powder; it was not completely protectivelywrapped against insect contamination in the Tropics; also, molding of theD-ration bar was observed. The C-ration, packed eight rations per case, includedthree M- (or meat) units and three B- (or biscuit) units in cans and laminatedbags of accessories such as toilet paper, cigarettes, chewing gum, and waterpurification tablets. By the end of the war, 10 different canned meats weregrouped into six different menus for the C-ration, and production was begun onthe division of the meat contents of the cans into chunk-sized pieces (about?-inch cubed) rather than into ground, potted style.
During the earlier part ofthe war, reference was made also to the new mountain and jungle ration types(essentially 4-in-1 rations) and the 5-in-1 ration for use by armored tankcrews, but these were replaced later by the 10-in-1 ration, suitable for thegroup feeding of 10 men for 1 day when B?rations were not supplied. Theoriginal single or individual ration package
718
for paratroopers wasmodified and became the K-ration. Both of these contained canned meat and dairycomponents. There were also a number of survival or emergency types: Liferaftration for the Army Air Forces, the parachute emergency ration for the Army AirForces, the airborne lifeboat ration, and such so-called supplementary types asthe hospital ration supplement, aid station beverage pack, kitchen spice pack,and the aircrew lunch for in-flight feeding. It may be added that the assemblyof rations, originally undertaken at Army quartermaster depots and later bycivilian contractors, was conducted under the supervision of the VeterinaryCorps. Before the contracts were awarded, the commercial establishments wereinspected for sanitary and operating requirements.
Ordinarily, the ArmyVeterinary Service did not inspect the meat and dairy components of the rationsafter their issue from quartermaster distribution points; that is, in thetroop messes. Though sanitary inspections of messes were the assignedresponsibilities of medical inspectors and unit surgeons, much use was made ofVeterinary Corps officers in the combat divisions and at Army Air Forces basesduring World War II to conduct these inspections. In fact, one air force inthe Zone of Interior merged its medical inspectors with, and under thesupervision of, base veterinarians. Procedures for conducting such inspectionswere outlined in various Army publications that included descriptions on thefactors which would be utilized by inspectors when determining the soundnessand wholesomeness of the meat and dairy products received at the messes (57).Other sanitary inspection features were the condition of mess buildings, foodstorage, cleaning of utensils and disposal of wastes, menus and food serving,physical examination of foodhandlers, and training status of mess personnel inmess sanitation, it being emphasized that "when improperly handled andstored, meat and meat products are subject to rapid deterioration and during thetime products remain in the company kitchens, messes, or refrigerators, verycareful supervision should be exercised by medical officers to assure the use ofonly sanitary products." Actually, unit commanders alone were responsiblefor mess sanitation and for the enforcement of sanitary regulations, but in thisthey were guided by the recommendations made by the unit surgeons, medicalinspectors, or veterinary officers who were conducting the inspections (58).
Only in a few knowninstances were meat and dairy products, previously passed as acceptable byveterinary officers at issue points, rejected by unit surgeons and medicalinspectors at the troop messhalls. In the Southwest Pacific Area, somecondemnations were regarded as being unwarranted, and steps were taken todiscontinue this waste of foods after their issue to units. In one Pacific area,the original "trier" holes made in cured and smoked hams by theVeterinary Corps officers at commercial meat establishments were beingscrutinized as evidences of ham skipper infestations and resulted in unwarrantedcondemnations of this product by troop messes. The molding
719
of bacon and ham was thefrequent cause of complaints (though it was readily corrected by proper trimmingor by using a vinegar wash in the messes), but any or all complaints, regardlessof their nature, were reviewed at the distribution points to determine whetherthe remaining products were sound and wholesome for continued issue. It must bementioned that mess officers of units and organizations also had responsibilityto see that all foods received in the messes were clean and wholesome and infull quantity and that mess sergeants, permanent kitchen personnel, cooks, andbakers were routinely trained in Quartermaster Corps schools in the properpreparation and handling of meat and dairy products.
FOOD PROTECTION ANDCONSERVATION
Restating its objectives forprotecting the health of troops against their consuming deleterious foods andfor safeguarding the interests of the Government, military meat and dairyhygiene included a number of operations and inspectional services which are notidentifiable with any particular one of the foregoing classes of inspections.Packing and packaging, for example, was recognized as a matter forprocurement inspection to take care of, but this was not a problem of inspectionuntil the subsistence was entered into military traffic and then stored forvarying periods of time under adverse environmental conditions. Also, therewere problems of subsistence salvage and the food conservation programs. TheArmy Veterinary Service also assisted in the investigation of foodbornediseases in troops, and closely related to these investigations were theantibiological warfare programs and the veterinary considerations of protectingand decontaminating subsistence in the event of chemical warfare.
Packing and Marking, andPackaging and Labeling
Subsistence packaging andpacking was an important feature of veterinary food inspection operationsduring World War II; it was directly related to the food losses that wereexperienced in the oversea theaters. Though considerable improvements were madein packaging and packing materiel and techniques before the end of the war,there seemed to be nothing that could withstand, or be sufficiently protectiveagainst, all of the rough handling, exposures to adverse environmentalconditions, and insect-rodent contamination. The term "packaging" referred to the immediate container forthe products (such as cans for meat andsausage casings) whereas the packing was the outside shipping container-thebarrel, box, or crate. The latter were marked, while the markings on packageswere designated labels. Generally, inspections of these containers for meat anddairy products were conducted by the Army Veterinary Service in conjunction withits products procurement inspections, but the main interest in them wasmanifested overseas when the products arrived and were stored. Before World War II, little or no attention
720
was directed to the militaryrequirements for adequate subsistence protection. At the beginnng of the war,commercial packaging and packing was generally acceptable; in regard to this,the following was noted (15):
Industry's peacetimepackaging efforts were based largely on eye appeal and low cost. The fact thatcommercial products were consumed within a few months and that handling intransit was closely controlled eliminated any need for more than a minimumamount of protective packaging.
No Army specificationscovering packaging and packing for overseas shipment existed at the outbreak ofthe war. Federal specifications covered packs for commercial use only, andearly procurements of subsistence were packaged and packed accordingly.Flexible packaging materials, such as cellophane and coated or waxed glassine,offered little moisture protection, and industry had given slight attention tosealing bags and cartons tightly. Corrugated fiber boxes were generally used asshipping cases.
These commercial techniques,suitable to domestic distribution, were inadequate in the field. Early shipmentsof canned goods packed in commercial containers arrived at overseas destinationswith cases broken open and the cans scattered loose in the holds of ships andover docks. Furthermore, packages broke and spilled their contents, and foods inflexible packages picked up moisture. Subsistence losses due to failure ofpackagingand packing materials at the beginning of the war were substantial.
In the wartime trends forimproved packaging and packing, the inspection of these came to be an integralpart of the veterinary food procurement inspections of meat and dairy products,because without proper packaging and packing all the other work of subsistenceinspection became valueless. Also, proper packaging and packing was a matter ofsanitation, because without it, subsistence became contaminated, infested,damaged, and inedible. Wherever the acceptance testing for products was made,then the acceptability of packaging and packing was also determined, usuallyinside the commercial food establishments. A great many detailed specificationand inspection requirements were imposed on Army subsistence which was destinedfor oversea shipment; these included such factors as design, workmanship, andmateriel; number and application of straps or wires, adhesive, nails andnailing,liners, and weight and cube measurement; and the presence of the boxmanufacturer's compliance stamp. After the inspection for acceptance orcompliance with the pertinent specifications and contract, the packaging andpacking were reinspected for general condition, along with the sanitaryinspection of the contents or products, at every shipping point and periodicallyduring storage. Nearly all packaging and packing defects or faults resulted inthe development of unsanitary environments and in the losses or contaminationof products.
The greatest packagingdefect was the tin can container itself, resulting in the losses of largequantities of foods in the oversea theaters. There were many factors involved,not excluding poor workmanship which was evidentby improper sealing (or crimping), buckled cans, and poorly cleaned (orgrease-covered) cans. However, these were the least frequent causes of cannedfood losses; another factor was the interior lining (or lacquer) of the can-thisnot being as completely protective to prevent product-tin reactions
721
so that products showeddiscolorations, and pinholing of the cans occurred. More important factors werethe structural design and size of the cans, the tin composition of the can andsolders, and the labels. The long rectangular cans of luncheon meat, and thesoldered, snap-on cans of evaporated milk were a problem common to all rationdumps that included these items; almost invariably, no case of these productsarrived at final issue points which did not include seriously bent cans-somealready with spoiled product that had spewed or spilled over the other cans inthe same case. The packing of the cans in wooden cases did not prevent, onlyminimized the damage to the long, rectangular cans which occurred incident tohaphazard handling during transshipment. Of course, the use of wooden casesintroduced another factor, as was observed in canned corned beef of SouthAmerican origin; namely, poor workmanship evidenced by the penetration of thecans by nails. This became so serious in certain shipments as to raisequestions of possible sabotage. Another type of can, having a serious inherentdefect and used for packaging molasses and powders, was the large container withthe plugged-in lid (friction top); damage or denting of the body of the canfrequently resulted in the flipping of the lids and the spilling or exposure ofcontents.
Of course, the programs thatwere taken in the Zone of Interior to conserve the Nation's tin supplyresulted in an inferior can (with thinner tin plating, or electrolyte plate, andreduced tin content of solders) which rusted under the conditions that wereencountered in the theaters. Paper can labels (and possibly the glues) andordinary cardboard cartons that retained the moisture hastened the rustingprocesses on the cans, particularly under hot, humid climatic conditions. Thesedefects were lessened when the Army required precoated or outside-lacquered cansand later turned to precoated cans and demanded, as substitution for the paperlabels, the identification of the canned product by a lithographed, embossed, orink-stamped statement on the side or end of the can. The precoating, witholive-drab coloring, accomplished in commercial establishments, as contrastedwith precoating with a clear lacquer, which was done by the can manufacturer,also satisfied the military needs for camouflage because there was little elsethat exposed concealed positions or ration dumps as clearly as the tin canreflection of sunlight.
Failures or defects of thepacking containers also were numerous and resulted in approximately the samelarge quantities of food losses as did improper and inadequate packaging.Commercial corrugated-fiber boxes were inadequately protective for overseashipments, but the initial subsistence supply to nearly all theater commands wasmade in this kind of case. Sometimes, wirebound or nailed wooden boxes were usedfor overpacking, but this procedure soon was discontinued except in theinstance of foods packaged in glass containers. By the winter of 1942-43, theQuartermaster Corps was referring to the packing of subsistence in a carton madeof weatherproof fiberboard, containing a lamination or layer of asphalt (ortar) which was resistant to wetting, and to a new, solid-fiber V-board box. The latter was
722
of several grades; the V-1grade, being the best, was resistant to moisture and retained its strength when wet and was widely utilized for packing Army boneless beef.Unfortunately, experiences with the new V-board box indicated that corrosionoccurred on the exterior of the cans which was believed caused by highmoisture content of the fiberboard or chemical constituent of the laminatingadhesive (59). Whether shipped in wooden boxes or fiber cartons, subsistencesupplies were bound by strapping that reduced the need of thicker box lumber andmade possible the greater use of fiber containers. Improper application of thestrapping, tensioning or looseness, and poor sealing of the strap ends causedsome packing failures. However much as was accomplished in the development ofpacking materiel and procedures, the fact remained that subsistence did notbecome indestructible or nonperishable. Though packaging defects weremoderately corrected, there remained the constant factor of human carelessnessin handling, shipping, and storing foods.
Just as packaging andpacking became major points of veterinary subsistence inspection during thewar, so did labeling and marking. Labeling referred to the identity of product,weight, manufacturer, and date of manufacture on the food package; marking, onthe other hand, pertained to the outside packing case to identify the contentsand gave shipping and handling instructions. The problem with paper labels oncans, as contributing to the rusting condition on canned foods, was notedpreviously, but it may be noted that the same moisture that caused the rustingof cans also resulted in the complete loss of labels from the cans, and thus noidentification of contents remained. Commercial-type paper labels were continued on Army subsistence procuredfor use in the Zone of Interior, but, soon after the war started, specificationsand contractual documents provided for imprinting or embossing labelinginformation on the cans, particularly the nature of the contents, that weredestined for oversea supply. Canned milk, salmon, and a few other products,however, continued to be procured with paper labeling. During the initial packaging and packing, veterinary inspections weremade of the placement, legibility, size, and permanence of the labels andmarking; of the nomenclature of products, together with the number, size orweightaverages of contents, weights (net, tare, and gross) and cubage, contractor, dateof packing, and the Quartermaster crescent mark for subsistence items; and of other information as was required.
Subsistence Salvage and FoodConservation
The return of deterioratedsubsistence into a suitable condition for distribution and issue to troops maybe regarded as subsistence salvage. It was conducted spontaneously along thechain of Army food supply, at depots, at ports, and even at ration issue dumps,since there was no quartermaster unit or organization such as had beendeveloped for shoe repair or salvaging of scrap metals. Invariably, itwas set up under veterinary supervision whenever
723
FIGURE 100.-Veterinary foodsalvage operations at a quartermaster depot in the European theater.
any sizable quantities offood showed beginning signs of deterioration, such as in a component of theC-ration cases or where the outside packing containers were so damaged thatfurther shipment, storage, or even issue was impossible (fig. 100). It had forits objective the separation of spoiled subsistence from the good, which wasrepacked and continued in the Army supply system, so that complete losses ofgiven packs or lots were minimized. Canned subsistence was more frequentlysalvaged than was the perishable type. Subsistence salvage during the war becamean extensive operation in many theaters and in the Zone of Interior.
Butter, for example, thathad been stored on a Central Pacific island base for a long period of timeunder conditions far below optimum and had developed a mold growth on theinterior surface of the liners, was renovated by a local dairy plant. Various attempts were made also to set up processing lines atoverseacold storage installations for removing excess mold growths and slime on theexterior of bacon and hams, but this occurred early in the war period. Later,these products were usually placed in freezer storage, if available and if thebacon and hams were going into long-term storage. It may be mentioned that thesecured and smoked products and ham were specially prepared, sometimes coveredwith asphalt or packed in salt, and specially boxed so that they could be keptat outside temperatures, but, by
724
the end of the war, theseproducts were regarded generally to be as perishable as fresh meats. Probably,the most commonly salvaged fresh food product was shell eggs; usually however,this operation was accomplished at the issue points where the problem was solvedeither by veterinary personnel inspecting (or candling) the eggs individually(which was done at the smaller bases) or by the prior determination of the rateof egg spoilage and egg breakage and recommendation for a proportionateoverissue of the eggs to the messhalls where the mess personnel did their ownsorting.
Both shell eggs and freshfruits and vegetables were affected by the so-called epidemic spoilage, in whichone broken egg or one rotten, slimy head of lettuce became the point of spreadof losses through the case and then downward through contiguous cases. Therewas no stopping this spread of spoilage as long as such lots were kept instorage, but proper, careful handling of these products at Transportation Corpsports and oversea destinations and at Quartermaster Corps storage and issuepoints would have prevented many of these losses. Salvage operations on wholeshipments of frozen boneless beef in fiberboard boxes and on other items thatwere wetted by seawater, bilge water, and dirty harbor water because of enemyattacks on a ship, required particular care, as did those relating to cases offood that were contaminated by the slime dripping from the uppermost defrostedlayers of a lot or load of subsistence in refrigerated plants, in railroad cars,or in ships whose refrigeration equipment had failed. It was directed in onetheater of operations that Veterinary Corps officers would exercise discretionand high standards of professional opinion in their salvage activities, takinginto consideration, in appropriate order, both the medical aspects that wouldproceed to the one extreme of complete condemnations to protect troop health,and the quartermaster aspects that would regard condemnations of contaminated,and threatened contaminations of, foods as only an adverse cutback into thecommand's supply.
Stockpiles of cannedsubsistence, particularly those of a fluid consistency such as evaporated milkand those whose contents had liquified during their spoilage, which spewedover the interior of the cases when the affected cans burst, suffered the sameepidemic spoilage as did shell eggs in cold storage. Overseas, any subsistencesalvage operation was difficult to properly establish and maintain because ofshortages in numbers of availability of personnel, equipment, and cleansingagents. The major problem was that there were no boxes for repacking the cannedproducts even after they were cleaned. The repacking of canned foods in clothsacks was unsuccessful, as was the so-called loose-can issue to troops.
There was no recordedinstance of the utilization of fumigants to exterminate insects and mites inthe oversea stockpiles.
In the Zone of Interior,food salvage operations at depots became a major veterinary inspection activityduring the last years of the war period, when large quantities of subsistencewere returned from offshore bases or were
725
returned as surplus to theneeds of nearby Army camps and airbases. Possibly the most expansive of theseoperations related to the foods returned from the Alaskan-Aleutian area; thedepot veterinarian at the Utah (Ogden) Army Service Forces Depot reported on thesalvage inspections of 420 carloads or 35 million pounds of canned meat anddairy products, with losses totaling 8 percent for leaker cans, swellers,springers, damaged, and badly rusted or seriously dented cans. This covered theperiod from 1944 to the fall of 1945. At the Columbus Army Service Forces Depot,Columbus, Ohio, the depot veterinarian described this salvage program as follows:
In the last quarter of 1944a reconditioning inspection of C-ration returned from off-shore bases has becomea new and important subsistence activity at the Depot. Lots, packed as early as1940, have been included in returned shipments from ports of debarkation. Thereconditioning of this item is a laborious and time-consuming operation. Tofacilitate inspection in initial screening is done at box opening on a conveyor.Cans are then wiped clean and derusted with steel wool. The necessaryindividual manipulation in can cleaning makes it possible to accomplish apiece inspection. No borderline cases are accepted. The net value of anindividual unit or a ration is so slight, as compared with its significance toan ultimate soldier consumer, that deliberations in favor of extreme economy arenot justified. In spite of severe inspection the average percentage of returnedC-ration items during the period of October through December 1944 was only.013% of the total pounds reconditioned. The loss in the bread andconfection unit exceeds that of meat foods. Cleaning, reboxing, andreestablishing equality of the pack is more of a justification for the operationthan is the incidence of spoilage. The low spoilage rate in this item speakswell for the original processing methods as well as the durability of thecontainers. Laboratory examinations of some lots packed in 1941 or shipmentsrecovered from transports damaged in convoy (possibly salvaged out of sunkenships) has revealed "sound edibility" of all numerous samplessubmitted.
This procedure for salvagingfoods was only one of several accepted procedures in the much larger programof food conservation. Another procedure was the "forced issue," orthe issue of subsistence stores in larger than prescribed quantities if suchstores were shown to be deteriorating and such issue would prevent losses.Actually, large quantities of subsistence were saved in this manner, but yetlarger amounts were thrown away. The real fact was that the estimated losses for1943 in the subsistence which was sent overseas to the North African,Southwest and South Pacific, North Atlantic, and European bases and theaterswere set at $150 million and quantitatively exceeded their consumption andreserve requirements by 21 percent; it was estimated further that possibly 400million rations would have to be sent to replace the estimated losses of 1944.Referring to these data and indirectly to Veterinary Corps reports of meat anddairy hygiene inspections that were recording these subsistence losses, theChief of Staff, U.S. Army, directed requests to at least two theater commanders,as follows (60, 61):
* * * make every effort toreduce subsistence losses in your theater to an absolute minimum. There aretimes when over-issues of subsistence are necessary because of some particularlystrenuous operation, but over-issues do not account for more than a smallportion of losses. According to advices I have received the main causes oflosses are
726
pilferage, rough handling,lack of ventilation, unorganized piling, and a number of other controllablecauses.
Accompanying this letter isa statement of the situation and the steps which so far have been taken, by ArmyService Forces, Washington, D.C., to correct the situation so far as it lieswithin the control of authorities here. I wish, therefore, that you give thismatter your personal attention to see that supply discipline is enforced andthat controllable losses are held as low as possible.
In most oversea area,theater commanders were well aware of the benefits of food conservation programsthat were taking place. Probably, the Asiatic?Pacific theaters were more awareof this than any other, because in no other theater were there the extensivefood losses, the adverse environmental conditions and tropical climate, andthe shortages in materiel. What the Army Veterinary Service was attempting toaccomplish, in regard to the transportation of subsistence, its handling, andstorage, became topical subjects in a variety of official letters, memorandums,circulars, and publications which were addressed or disseminated throughregular command channels of communications from the respective theaterheadquarters level, and these became the basis for the food conserving practicesthat were set up within the veterinary classes of surveillance inspectionprocedures.
Food Poisoning and FoodborneDiseases
The experiences with foodpoisoning and foodborne diseases in the Army during World War II was apractical test of the importance of mess sanitation, and, insofar as the ArmyVeterinary Service was concerned, these experiences only proved that the majorsanitary defects along the entire chain of Army subsistence supply from thecivilian contractor to the consumer troops, particularly that of meat and dairyproducts, existed in the messhalls or beyond the place of veterinary class 7inspection. Actually, there is no record that foods, both meat and dairyproducts and foods other than of animal origin, which were issued underVeterinary Corps supervision, were the cause of food poisoning and foodbornediseases as a result of their being unsound, unwholesome, or contaminated at thetime of their issue. Of course, there were outbreaks; one survey pointed to atleast 190 outbreaks involving 22,364 reported cases of illness (62), but thecauses were generally ascribed to messhall practices and sanitation and touninspected foods.2 Furthermore, no scandalous inquiries like the embalmed-beef scandal ofthe Spanish-American War occurred. In the two world wars, the Army VeterinaryService, along the entire Army's subsistence supply chain, was inspecting andrejecting large
2Of this number ofoutbreaks, Dack selected 76 reported outbreaks as highly suggestive ofstaphylococcus food poisoning involving 14,214 men, 6 as suggestive of Streptococcus faecalis food infection involving 1,015 men, and 4 as botulisminvolving 34 men, of which number 12 died. Regarding the botulism outbreaks, theregular Army food supply was not involved; one originated with lend-leasesupplied canned beets of Australian origin and the others from home-preservedfoods. The outbreaks occurred more often where there was less cause for theiroccurrence; thus, in the Zone of Interior, outbreaks were reported more oftenthan in any oversea theater where messhall facilities were comparatively atlower levels of efficiency, and the largest single outbreak occurred at a namedhospital mess in the Zone of Interior and involved 1,637 cases.
727
quantities of food forimproper grade or sanitary qualities; this resulted in the "best andhealthiest fed" Army of modern times.
In this Army its foodanimals were inspected at the time of slaughter, its canned foods were generallysterile, its fresh milk supply originated from tuberculosis-free dairy herds andwas pasteurized, its cheese was aged for 60 days, and later for 90 days beforeissue, to prevent the dissemination of typhoid fever and brucellosis (63).Bacteriological standards, particularly in regard to Escherichia coli,Salmonella sp., and other pathogens, were established for many foods; and porkproducts which were normally used without need for further preparation in themesshalls were free of Trichinella spiralis. Also, food containers andcooking utensils that were cadmium plated, and galvanized and zinc-coated messgear (meat cans and cups, M1942) were gradually withdrawn from supply to themesshalls and soldiers or were restricted in their uses, in order either toprevent incidents of cadmium, zinc, and antimony poisoning or to eliminateequipment which, with deep scratches of soft metals, readily corroded (orrusted) and had hard-to?clean surfaces. Of course, cleaned motor oil and greasecans were particularly dangerous for storing or cooking foods because of theirlead lining. There was no record to indicate a lessened efficiency of troops incampaign or the disruption in assault operations as consequences of foodpoisoning or food?borne diseases.
The various aspects of foodpoisoning and foodborne diseases in troops were accorded the same attention bythe Army Veterinary Service as it gave to the diseases of military animals.In troops, as in animals, the food ration was recognized as the cause ofdiseases either because it failed to provide adequate quantities of proper foodconstituents or because the food served as an agent for transmitting causativeviral organisms from one human being to another and from animals, and as acarrier vehicle for poisons; also, certain foods themselves are poisonous, suchas poisonous fish and poisonous plants. In a great number of the outbreaks thatoccurred, Veterinary Corps officers were requested by the concerned unitsurgeons and medical officers to participate in the epidemiologicalinvestigations; in several theater commands, various letter directives andother publications set forth the administrative details for such investigationsto include the veterinary considerations. The importance and frequency of theseinvestigations were recognized particularly in the oversea theaters. Theprocedures which were established in the Central Pacific Area eventually becamethe pattern used in the publications of the Army for defining the professionalveterinary aspects of conducting all investigations (64, 65, 66, 67).
Antibiological Warfare andFood Protection in Chemical Warfare
The veterinary aspects ofantibiological warfare and the defenses against chemical attack regardinganimals were generally well evaluated before World War II, but those in regardto the food supply received only passing
728
attention. Actually, thatany deliberate biological and chemical contaminations of foods weremilitarily important had been variously described from one extreme to the other.Fortunately, there was never any real field test during World War II as to themedical effects of biological and chemical warfare that would involve the Army's food supply; on the other hand, definitive defensive measures orpreparedness programs were developed (fig. 101).
Early in 1944, for thestated reason that the enemy then could be considering biological warfare asa sort of desperation action, the oversea theaters were advised on certaindefensive measures which they would adopt, if the situation so warranted; thesemeasures were identifiable with those already operational in the Central PacificArea (68) (fig. 102). In the interim, precautionary measures wereestablished in the Zone of Interior. Thus, in March 1942, the Surgeon General'sOffice was advised that procedures should be taken to guard against thesabotage of meats, utilizing the veterinary personnel who were alreadyperforming inspection duties in commercial food establishments. The reports ofextraneous material in meats being prepared for canning were causes forconducting investigations of suspected sabotage, although similar conditions asthey had occurred in peacetime were only the result of normal operating mistakesor carelessness. These probably occurredmore frequently along production lines operating at above-normal levels and
729
where the establishmentswere employing new, inexperienced personnel. As an example, the separation ofcanning lines in meat plants from those lines where glass containers were beingfilled removed further difficulties of meats being found with fragments ofbroken glass. At one time, The Quartermaster General questioned the award ofsubsistence contracts to establishments which were owned or operated by residentenemy aliens in the United States. In February 1944, the War Department,recognizing that the fluid milk supply was a particularly good medium for thedissemination of disease among military installations and the nearby civilianplants which were engaged in war production, requested Veterinary Corpsofficers to report on threatened or suspected subversive activities just asthey were doing on meat production (69). Conducting security measures within theestablishments in which veterinary class 3 inspection personnel were locatedwas made more difficult after 1943, when, against original recommendations bythe Surgeon General's Office, these establishments were authorized toemploy prisoners of war as laborers.
730
Comparable with the wartimeproblems of protecting the Army food supplies against potential enemy uses ofbiological warfare agents, there were the veterinary considerations fordetecting, protecting, and decontaminating foods which might have been exposedto an enemy chemical warfare attack. Of course, varying classifications existedon the many kinds of war gases, screening smokes, and incendiaries, and a greatmany factors necessarily entered into discussions on the specific measures thatwere to be taken with respect to the handling of exposed foods. For example,the food products in themselves might not be affected, but the outsidecontainers might be contaminated so as to be dangerous for personnel to handleor contact. Fortunately, there were no chemical warfare attacks on the Armyfood supplies so that the various means and methods that were developed beforeand during World War II were untested. Most elemental of these developments wasthe designation of the Army Veterinary Service to determine the safeness offoods after their exposure to chemical warfare agents and the definition ofrelationships with the Chemical Warfare Service, as follows (70):
The officers of theVeterinary Corps will be called on to decide whether or not food is suitable tobe used for human consumption, and since considerable danger to human life, aswell as economic loss is involved, it is necessary that the decision be correct.Without a knowledge of what thechemical agents may do or may not do, it is not possible to arrive at adecision and food may needlessly be destroyed or dangerous food may be sent outto troops. In most cases the tendency will be to err on the safe side, butoccasions may arrive when it is necessary to use the supplies and a knowledge ofadequate decontamination procedures will make a great deal of difference.
* * * [Also, the VeterinaryCorps officer will have to] distinguish between dangerous food and food whichmay be adequately decontaminated and used.
Protection is provided bythat type of wrapping [or food packaging and packing] material used under thespecification set up by the Quartermaster Corps, and the Chemical WarfareService provides the information as to the adequacy of this protection. TheQuartermaster is also responsible for matters of protection duringtransportation up to the distribution point. When decontamination is undertaken,it should be left up to the Chemical Warfare Service to provide the ways andmeans of doing it. The function of the Medical Department Officers is only toadvise and decide whether the foodstuff in question is safe for the use oftroops.
During the war, specialcourses of training and instruction on the veterinary aspects of chemicalwarfare were conducted by the Army Veterinary Service at the Medical FieldService School, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., and at the Chemical Warfare School,Edgewood Arsenal, Md. At the last-named installation, Veterinary Corps officerswere engaged in research investigations on animal health hazards and in thedesign of protective equipment and procedures in regard to military animals andthe Army food supply. The principles of veterinary professional services underconditions of chemical warfare attack that were developed at the ChemicalWarfare School were set forth in official Army training manuals (71, 72, 73).
731
References
1. AR 40-2150, 8 Oct. 1921.
2. AR 40-2150, 9 Oct. 1942.
3. TM 8-450, 1 May 1941.
4. Moore, H. K.: Organization and Operation of the Veterinary Corps FoodInspection Service.Mil. Surgeon 96: 237-241, March 1945.
5. Dildine, S. C.: ArmyVeterinary Inspection of Foods of Animal Origin. Mil. Surgeon 100: 390-401, May1947.
6. Letter, FieldHeadquarters, Perishable Branch, Subsistence Division, Office of theQuartermaster General, Chicago, Ill., to all quartermaster market centers, 2June 1945, subject: List of Establishments Disapproved for Use of the Army Dueto Insanitary Conditions.
7. Memorandum, Lt. Col. C.A. Hardigg, QMC, Office of the Quartermaster General, for Col. R. A. Kelser,VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, 10 June 1941, subject: Inspection of Fruits andVegetables.
8. Letter, Maj. E. F.Shepherd, QMC, Field Headquarters, Perishable Subsistence Section, Office ofthe Quartermaster General, Chicago, Ill., to Chief, Perishable Section,Subsistence Branch, Office of the Quartermaster General, 15 Oct. 1941, subject:Inspection Report on Trip to Scott Field.
9. Letter, Brig. Gen. R. A.Kelser, Veterinary Division, SGO, to The Quartermaster General, 12 Apr. 1944,subject: Rejections of Canned Fruits and Vegetables and Flour, with 1stindorsement thereto, 7 Aug. 1944.
10. Letter, Col. J. F.Crosby, VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, to The Quartermaster General, 5 Dec.1944, subject: Rejection of Subsistence Supplies in Theaters of Operation.
11.Letter, Col. R. A. Kelser. VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, to The QuartermasterGeneral, 25 May 1941, subject: Rejection ofSubsistence Supplies in Theaters of Operation.
12. Quartermaster Corps Manual QMC 25-1, 15Nov. 1944.
13. AR 600-10, 8 July 1944.
14. Letter, The AdjutantGeneral, to corps area and department commanders, 8 July 1939, subject:Inspection of Meat, Meat Food Products, Dairy Products and Forage. Reprintedin Army Vet. Bull. 33: 328-329, October 1939.
15. Risch, Erna: UnitedStates Army in World War II. TheTechnical Services. The Quartermaster Corps: Organization, Supply, and Services.Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953.
16. AR 40-2150, 9 Oct. 1942.
17. Letters, Col. R. A. Kelser, VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, to ContractDepartment, Swift & Co., Chicago, Ill., to Lt. Col. C. E. Cook, VC,Veterinarian, Fourth CorpsArea, and to Lt. Col. F. M. Lee, VC, Veterinarian, Kansas City QuartermasterDepot, 26 March 1941.
18. Letter, Lt. Col. C. A. Hardigg, QMC, Office of the Quartermaster General, to Quartermaster, FourthCorps Area, 21 Apr. 1941, subject: Inspection Service on Contracts for ArmyStyle Beef.
19. Memorandum, Col. R. A. Kelser, VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, forMilitary Personnel Division Reserve, SGO, 25 Apr. 1940.
20. Letter, SurgeonGeneral's Office, to the Adjutant General's Office, 30 Jan. 1941, subject:Allotment of Additional Veterinary Corps Reserve Officers.
21. Memorandum, Lt. Col. J. Mather, Ordnance DepartmentRepresentative, Federal Specifications, Office ofSecretary of War, to The Surgeon General, 8 Nov. 1934, and memorandum in reply,10 Nov. 1934.
732
22. Office Order 107,Surgeon General's Office, 22 Nov. 1934.
23. Massen, Marion: CQMDHistorical Studies: Report No. 7, March 1946, subject: Canned Meats Procurementfor the Armed Forces During World War II.
24. Memorandum, Brig. Gen.H. D. Munnikhusen, Office of the Quartermaster General, for The AdjutantGeneral, 6 Jan. 1941.
25. Memorandum, Col. R. A.Kelser, VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, for Military Personnel Division, SGO, 10Jan. 1941.
26. Radiograms, The AdjutantGeneral, to commanders of New York and San Francisco ports and of Boston,Chicago, Jeffersonville, Kansas City, and San Antonio depots, 18 Jan. 1941.
27. Radiograms, The AdjutantGeneral, to corps area commanders, 18 Jan. 1941.
28. Letter, ChicagoQuartermaster Depot, Chicago, Ill., to The Quartermaster General, 18 Dec.1941, subject: Veterinary Inspection Service, with two indorsements.
29. Brown, Jean: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Kansas City Quartermaster Depot, Mo. [Official record.]
30. Letter, Office of theQuartermaster General, to all depot commanders, 10 Feb. 1943, subject: CourtesyInspection of Subsistence Supplies.
31. Circular Letter No. 48,Office of the Quartermaster General, 12 Mar. 1943, subject: Procurement,Storage, and Distribution of Non-Perishable Subsistence Supplies.
32. Greenlee,C. W.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Fifth ServiceCommand. [Official record.]
33. Shook, L. L.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, SixthService Command. [Official record.]
34. Wight, A. C.: World WarII History of the Army Veterinary Service, Eighth Service Command. [Official record.]
35. Circular Letter No. 42,Office of the Quartermaster General, 19 Mar. 1941, subject: Purchases of FreshFruits and Vegetables.
36. Circular Letter No. 169,Office of the Quartermaster General, 21 July 1941, subject: Purchases ofPerishable Subsistence Supplies.
37. Circular Letter No. 263,Office of the Quartermaster General, 6 Oct. 1941, subject: PerishableSubsistence, Purchase of.
38. Circular Letter No. 117,Office of the Quartermaster General, 16 June 1941, subject: Establishment ofField Headquarters, Perishable Subsistence.
39. Dildine, S. C.: WorldWar II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Field Headquarters, PerishableBranch, Subsistence Division, Office of the Quartermaster General, Chicago, Ill. [Official record.]
40. Letter, Office of theQuartermaster General, to The Surgeon General, 9 Oct. 1941, subject: Point ofOrigin Inspections.
41. Memorandum, Col. R. A.Kelser, VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, for Military Personnel Division, SGO, 13Oct. 1941.
42. Radiograms, The AdjutantGeneral, to Field Headquarters, Perishable Subsistence Section, Office of theQuartermaster General, Chicago, Ill., and all quartermaster market centers, 17Oct. 1941.
43. Radiograms, TheQuartermaster General, to Field Headquarters, Perishable Subsistence Section,Office of the Quartermaster General, Chicago, Ill., and all quartermastermarket centers, 27 Nov. 1941.
44. Davis, W. C.: BeefGrading and Stamping. Service Leaflet No. 67, U.S. Department of Agriculture,September 1930.
45. Service and RegulatoryAnnouncements No. 137, Rules and Regulations of the Secretary of AgricultureGoverning the Grading and Certification of Butter, Cheese, Eggs, Dressed Poultryand Dressed Domestic Rabbits for Class, Quality (Grade), and Condition. Bureauof Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, December 1932.
733
46. Tentative U.S. Standardsfor Grades of Swiss Cheese. Office of Distribution, War Food Administration, 15Oct. 1941.
47. Letter, The AdjutantGeneral, to corps area commanders, 12 Sept. 1941, subject: Inspection of Butter,Eggs, Cheese, and Poultry Purchased by Quartermaster Marketing Centers.
48. TransportationDepartment Bulletin No. 1, Protective Service Instructions and Maximum Loadingfor Meats, Fish, Poultry, Lard, Shortening, Eggs, and Dairy Products. FieldHeadquarters, Perishable Branch, Subsistence Division, Office of theQuartermaster General, Chicago, Ill., revised 1 Dec. 1944.
49. TransportationDepartment Bulletin No. 2, Protective Service Against Heat or Cold for Eggs andCheese. Field Headquarters, Perishable Branch, Subsistence Division, Office ofthe Quartermaster General, Chicago, Ill., revised 8 Oct. 1945.
50. TransportationDepartment Bulletin No. 6, Protective Instructions on Canned Poultry, CannedCheese, and Canned Butter-Army Spread. Field Headquarters, Perishable Branch,Subsistence Division, Office of the Quartermaster General, Chicago, Ill.,revised 28 Dec. 1944.
51. Circular No. 75,Overseas Shipment of Refrigerated Cargo, as amended by Supplement No. 1, 7July 1943. Office of the Chief of Transportation, 2 June 1943.
52. Transportation CorpsCircular No. 105-3, Overseas Supply-Overseas Shipment of Refrigeration Cargo.Office of the Chief of Transportation, Army Service Forces, 31 March 1944.
53. AR 30-2320, 19 Mar.1943.
54. Gelman, G., and Tennant, H. R.: Safekeeping of Subsistence. Quartermaster Food and Container Institutefor the Armed Forces, Chicago, Ill., 15 July 1946.
55. Stauffer, A. P.: U.S.Army in World War II. The Technical Services. The Quartermaster Corps:Operations in the War Against Japan. Washington: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1956.
56. WD Supply Bulletin,Storage and Issue of Carcass Beef, Lamb, and Veal, December 1944.
57. FM 8-40, 31 Dec. 1942.
58. AR 40-205,31 Dec. 1942.
59. Memorandum No.S30-24-43, HQ ASF, 1 Aug. 1943, subject: Corrosion Taking Place Inside"V" Boxes.
60. Letter, Chief of Staff,War Department, to Commanding General, NATOUSA, 22 Mar. 1944, subject:Subsistence Losses in Theaters of Operations.
61. Letter, Chief of Staff,War Department, to Commander in Chief, SWPA, 22 Mar. 1944, subject:Subsistence Losses in Theaters of Operations.
62. Dack, G. M.:Staphylococcus and Enterococcus Food Poisoning and Botulism. [Official record.]
63. Letter, Brig. Gen. R. A.Kelser, Veterinary Division, SGO, to Col. A. Marble, MC, Consultant inMedicine, HQ Sixth Service Command, 4 June 1945.
64. Letter, HQ USAF, CentralPacific Area, to all medical and veterinary officers, 17 July 1944, subject:Food Poisoning in the Army.
65. Letter, HQ USAF, MiddlePacific, 26 Dec. 1945, subject: Food Poisoning in the Army.
66. TB MED 226, 28 June1947.
67. SR40-930-1, 19 Dec.1950.
68. Kester, W. O., andMiller, E. B.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, U.S. ArmyForces, Pacific Ocean Areas. [Officialrecord.]
69. WD Memorandum No.W40-44, 8 Feb. 1944.
734
70. Mace, D. L., andUndall, R. H.: Veterinary Considerations of Chemical Warfare. C. W. SchoolMimeo No. 180, Chemical Warfare School, Chemical Warfare Center, EdgewoodArsenal, Md., March 1943.
71. TM 8-285, 15 Apr. 1944.
72. TM 3-220, 15Nov. 1943.
73. FM 21-40, 6 Sept. 1944.
