Mrs. JACKSON. It causes the waste of materials in coloring when there is a world shortage of oils, and a waste in time as 11,500 hours were spent in 1947 in coloring 600,000,000 pounds of margarine, which could have been colored at no expense or waste in factories.

9. Forces the removal of the natural yellow color of the oils used in margarine, which is not required in any other food product, in order to remove any resemblance to butter.

10. Permits the same coloring to be added to butter 8 months of the year with no mention of its presence.

11. Does not deny the fact that margarine is equal to butter nutritionally, according to the best medical authority, and no other nutritional food has legislative restrictions on its sale. Both must contain 80 percent fat, and margarine contains 15,000 units of vitamin A, equal to average butter.

The CHAIRMAN. Sorry, Mrs. Jackson, your time has expired. We thank you very much for your statement.

Mrs. JACKSON. Then I would like to file my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will be done.
(The complete statement of Mrs. Jackson is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. DENNIS E. JACKSON, PRESIDENT, CONSUMERS CONFERENCE
OF GREATER CINCINNATI, OHIO

To the Members of the House Committee on Agriculture:

On behalf of the Consumer Conference, its 63 cooperating organizations representing thousands of homes in Ohio and other States, from Florida through Missouri to Oregon, we wish to present our reasons for urging you to remove the restrictive legislation on the manufacture and sale of yellow margarine, which has wrought a hardship on women since 1886, or 61 years.

Such legislation:

1. Is in the interest of a single industry, the dairy industry, which is contrary to the principles of a democracy.

2. Is contrary to the practices of competition in trade and the free enterprise system, such as we are supposed to have in democratic and capitalistic America. 3. Is contrary to the wishes of the people as shown by the fact that there are about 20 bills now before the Congress for repeal.

4. Is contrary to farm interests. Margarine is made of surplus skim milk produced on farms; further margarine manufacturers have announced their intention to use only domestically produced fats and oils.

5. Is not needed to distinguish margarine from butter because Federal and State laws will always see that the public knows which product is being purchased in stores and in restaurants.

6. Is against the only food product carrying a Federal tax per pound and license fees for the privilege of making and selling a pure food product.

7. Is an inflationary measure in these times when butter sells for around $1 a pound and when 80 percent of the families in the Nation, including a large percentage of the farmers, buy margarine. The tax and fees make it cost 12 cents to 15 cents more a pound.

8. Causes a waste of materials in coloring when there is a world shortage of oils, and a waste in time as 11,500 hours were spent in 1947 in coloring 600,000,000 pounds of margarine, which could have been colored at no expense or waste in factories.

9. Forces the removal of the natural yellow color of the oils used in margarine, which is not required in any other food product, in order to remove any resemblance to butter.

10. Permits the same coloring to be added to butter 8 months of the year with no mention of its presence.

11. Does not deny the fact that margarine is equal to butter nutritionally, according to the best medical authority, and no other nutritional food has legislative restrictions on its sale. Both must contain 80 percent fat, and margarine contains 15,000 units of vitamin A, equal to average butter.

12. Is obsolete and does not give the public a fair deal. Congressmen are supposed to represent not only the interests of the voters back home but the

public as a whole. We are sure there are more users of margarine in each Congressman's district than of butter, so we urge in the general public interest that present margarine legislation be repealed.

We also wish prosperity to the butter interests, but let their good product stand on its own feet. They cannot supply demand at lower prices.

The CHAIRMAN. May the chair inquire if Mr. Truitt is in the room? Is there a representative of Best Foods in the room?

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, who is going to pick the witnesses, the opponents or proponents of the legislation?

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman wishes to appear

Mr. POAGE. Did this gentleman ask to appear here as a witness? Mr. GILBERT. I did not.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. POAGE. Then why is he called, Mr. Chairman? Do I know of any proponent of this legislation that has called him? If the opponents of this legislation want to call witnesses, they will have an opportunity to do it and then can call this gentleman or Mr. Truitt or anybody they want to, but I do not think that it is a fair proposition to let the man who admits that he is opposed to the legislation pick those who are going to come and present the case for this legislation. We have some witnesses here who represent a lot of people and we would like to hear from them.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Does the gentleman not feel that in accordance with the agreement that we have certainly given the proponents of the legislation considerable time?

Mr. POAGE. According to the agreement, I think so, but there was nothing in the agreement to let you pick those to speak for the proponents.

Mr. GoFF. Mr. Chairman. I am neither a proponent or opponent, but I would like to hear what Mr. Andersen has to ask this witness. It would be helpful to me in making up my mind..

Mr. ABERNETHY. First, we have to determine whether or not he is a witness.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the Chair say this, that if the gentleman wishes to appear, it is his privilege to do so. If he does not wish to appear there is no way the committee can compel him to appear. It is entirely up to the gentleman, whose name I do not even know, but who is a representative of Best Foods. If he desires to appear, he may do so.

Mr. POAGE. We have no objection in the world to him appearing but why should he be charged to us?

The CHAIRMAN. I assume if he makes a statement it will be on behalf of the proponents.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, certainly the chairman is not going to indulge in any assumption that the ranking member is going to call somebody here whom he thinks is going to present something that will be helpful to our cause. Now, surely the chairman does not assume that to be true. I think the intelligence of the ranking majority member is such that he is going to call only those witnesses whom he thinks are going to hurt our case. I do not know this gentleman either.

Mr. COOLEY. Why do we not ask him a question, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he is a proponent or an opponent and get that out of the way.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask the Chair to proceed with the call of the witnesses who have been brought here by the proponents to testify on this legislation.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Then the gentleman objects?

Mr. ABERNETHY. I am not objecting to anything. I am respectfully asking the Chair to proceed with the witnesses we have called. Mr. ANDRESEN. You are objecting to having in the record that no representative shall appear here for the oleomargarine industry as such or the representative of Best Foods, who has put in the largest amount of money, the first installment being $50,000 to finance this campaign.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us leave this to the witness. I would like to ask the witness if he desires to appear. If so, we will be glad to hear him. If he does not desire to appear we will proceed with other wit

nesses.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I respectfully, Mr. Chairman, renew my request that the Chair proceed with the call of witnesses that have been submitted to the Chair in behalf of the proponents.

Mr. COOLEY. Before we do that, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the witness one question, if I may, just on his eligibility and competence and so forth.

Are you for or against the bill? Are you a proponent or an opponent? If you are a proponent, I think it is perfectly proper to hear

you now.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Cooley, what difference does it make who he is? Who is going to determine that? Are you going to let the opponents determine who shall appear for the proponents? I think as the author of one of these bills I have some right to determine who is going to testify in behalf of my bill instead of simply letting every stranger walk in the door and say that he is going to be the man to testify in behalf of that bill.

If you allow this thing, Mr. Chairman, I think that in all justice you are going to have to agree that when the opponents put on their testimony that we be given the right to call witnesses for the opposition.

Now, if you accept that proposition, I am willing for him to call any witness for the proponents that he wants to. If I am going to have the right to call witnesses for the opposition, that is all right. Now, do I get that right?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let the Chair say that this gentleman has not been called as a witness. He is here.

Mr. POAGE. Now, wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. This gentleman was called. This gentleman was called right here in this room within

the last 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asked if there was a representative of Best Foods present. That is the only question that the Chair has asked. This gentleman came forward. He has not been called as a witness so far.

Mr. POAGE. Then stand aside, Mr. Gilbert, if you will, please. Mr. GILBERT. If I stand aside, I will stand aside.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place in the record at this point the statement filed with the Clerk of the House by Paul D. Truitt, the executive secretary of the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers.

Mr. COOLEY. I object to it, Mr. Chairman. Let him do it on his own time.

Mr. PACE. Do it on your own time.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his courtesy.

Mr. COOLEY. I have already objected.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be a representative of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GERTRUDE PARKS, REPRESENTING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. PARKS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I might think I was in a woman's club, from the procedure I have heard here.

I would like to say to Mr. Murray that I was born and raised in Wisconsin. Maybe he will wish I had not been born before I get through, but I know plenty about the dairy interests in Wisconsin.

I am Gertrude Parks and I represent the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, with an aggregate membership of well over 6,000.

We started objecting to these taxes as early as 1942 and are continuing to do so.

Our women have believed for many years that the antimargarine laws are wrong in principle. But in the last few years with tne butter shortages during the war and dollar-a-pound prices afterwardmany of our housewives and homemakers have actually gotten their hands in the margarine-mixing bowl for the first time. And I can assure you that the attitude now is far from being just an academic

one.

We see no reason why the mixing bowl should be needed. The butter manufacturers color their product in the way that housewives prefer it; the margarine manufacturer is equally willing to do sousing exactly the same ingredients-but the law throws unsurmountable obstacles in his path. It is difficult even to find a grocery store that carries colored margarine. And if one is found, it is necessary to pay the tax collector an extra 10 cents per pound. With food budgets stretched the way they are today, no housewife is willing to throw her money around that foolishly. That is true for all of us, but it is particularly true for people in the low- and middle-income groups. They simply cannot afford dollar a pound butter. They are the people whose diet is always on the skimpy side anyway, and they are the ones who are in greatest need of an inexpensive, nutritious, palatable table spread.

There is an old saying that "man cannot live by bread alone," but as far as butter is concerned, the bread is certainly "alone" today on many a table.

fed

I can assure you, gentlemen, that American housewives are pretty up with this situation. They do not like to have to go to a second store to get margarine because their regular grocer cannot see his way clear to paying for an expensive license to sell it. They do not like the idea of taking their margarine home, waiting around for an hour or so until it gets to the right consistency to mix, and then wasting 10 or 15 minutes and much of the margarine-in a mixing operation that the manufacturer is perfectly willing to do for them.

And why is this necessary? Because some antiquated laws were passed years ago when oleomargarine was far different from the wholesome, palatable, nutritious product it is today. Then, I will concede, the butter industry may have had some slight justification for the maze of restrictive laws that it then urged and which have been on the statute books ever since.

That situation has now changed. Medical authorities agree that margarine is the nutritional equivalent of butter. It has the same calorie content and provides the body with an equivalent amount of energy. Its vitamin content is at least as high as that averaged by butter (although no one eats average butter), and has the added virtue of being uniform in vitamin A content throughout the year.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is sorry, but your time has expired. Mrs. PARKS. Then I should like to file my complete statement. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it will be made a part of the

record.

(The complete statement of Mrs. Parks is as follows:)

BY MRS.

STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, PRESENTED GERTRUDE PARKS, WASHINGTON

I am Mrs. Gertrude Parks. I represent the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, with an aggregate membership of approximately 6,000 women. I am vice chairman of the department of legislation and I was formerly president of the federation.

Our federation's official policy on margarine legislation dates as far back as February 1942, when a resolution was passed favoring the repeal of all special taxes on margarine.

Our women have believed for many years that the antimargarine laws are wrong in principle. But in the last few years-with the butter shortages during the war and dollar-a-pound prices afterward-many of our housewives and homemakers have actually gotten their hands in the margarine mixing bowl for the first time. And I can assure you that the attitude now is far from being just an academic one.

We see no reason why the mixing bowl should be needed. The butter manufacturers color their product in the way that housewives prefer it; the margarine manufacturer is equally willing to do so-using exactly the same ingredients— but the law throws unsurmountable obstacles in his path. It is difficult even to find a grocery store that carries colored, margarine. And if one is found, it is necessary to pay the tax collector an extra 10 cents per pound. With food budgets stretched the way they are today, no housewife is willing to throw her money around that foolishly. That is true for all of us but it is particularly true for people in the low- and middle-income groups. They simply cannot afford dollar-a-pound butter. They are the people whose diet is always on the skimpy side anyway, and they are the ones who are in greatest need of an inexpensive, nutritious, palatable table spread.

There is an old saying that "man cannot live by bread alone"; but, as far as butter is concerned, the bread is certainly "alone" today on many a table.

I can assure you, gentlemen, that American housewives are pretty fed up with this situation. They don't like to have to go to a second store to get margarine because their regular grocer can't see his way clear to paying for an expensive license to sell it. They don't like the idea of taking their margarine home, waiting around for an hour or so until it gets to the right consistency to mix, and then wasting 10 or 15 minutes—and much of the margarine-in a mixing operation that the manufacturer is perfectly willing to do for them.

And why is this necessary? Because some antiquated laws were passed years ago when oleomargarine was far different from the wholesome, palatable, nutritious product it is today. Then, I will concede, the butter industry may have had some slight justification for the maze of restrictive laws that it then urged and which have been on the statute books ever since.

That situation now has changed. Medical authorities agree that margarine is the nutritional equivalent of butter. It has the same calorie content and provides the body with an equivalent amount of energy. Its vitamin content is at least as