the well-established and larger enterprises in the industry. Their reputation and the size of their investment compels them to be prudent. Look for the shady practices among new entrepreneurs who have no reputation or little investment to lose, and to whom the idea of a quick killing, with no thought of building for permanence, may therefore hold appeal. This applies alike to all industries, and no industry should be smeared because legal control is inadequate. It is my considered judgment that removal of adequate tax control from oleomargarine would be followed by such flagrant frauds by new entrepreneurs that the industry would plead for return of regulation. Now, let us turn our attention to color. It is argued that, since butter is artificially colored during part of the year, the same artificial coloring should not be denied to oleomargarine. In this connection, outspoken statements are made that butter is at times white. The statement is also made that the oleomargarine manufacturer is put to the added expense of bleaching to escape the 10-cent tax on yellow margarine. Now, let us look at the facts.

The color of milk fat is dependent upon the pigment content of the cow's diet. With this knowledge at our disposal it is possible to so plan a cow's diet that the butterfat becomes absolutely colorless. This has been done as an experiment, at considerable expense, to prove that the cow is absolutely dependent upon the pigment content in her feed. These facts hardly justify the unqualified statement that butter is at times white. What are the facts under conditions as they actually exist?

In tests run at the University of Wisconsin on four commercial milk supplies, it was found that the natural color of butter is at its lowest ebb during March and April-toward the end of the winter feeding season. But even at this low ebb, it never went below 2 Lovibond tintometer units when measured by the procedure prescribed in connection with the color standard for yellow oleomargarine. In this standard, oleomargarine becomes subject to the 10-cent tax when it exceeds 1.6 Lovibond units of yellow and red combined. Butter at its lowest showed 2 Lovibond units, consisting of 0.4 red and 1.6 yellow. In ordinary terms, this represents a definite yellow color. During May, June, July, and August, when most of the butter is made, butter from these same four commercial sources ranged from 4.2 to 5.6 Lovibond units, a deeper shade of yellow. It is to compensate for this seasonal variation in color that artificial coloring of butter has long been recognized, even before there were any United States, and certainly before there was any awareness that nutritional significance could be attached to it. Yellow has long been recognized as the typical color of butter. Frequent allusions to this fact are found in literature and even in ancient writings. To color a substitute or imitation product yellow is to create the illusion or psychological reaction that it is butter. You can say this in different ways. You can say that consumers are conditioned to certain colors and that color is therefore necessary to consumer acceptance. You can even stretch scientific credulity or veracity and say that color is therefore a factor in nutritive value. You can coin other roundabout ways of saying this, but in ordinary language you are just plainly imitating butter when you color oleomargarine yellow.

The plea that bleaching of oils for oleomargarine is necessary is so misleading as to border on outright misrepresentation. Considerable

loss of color naturally accompanies the steps of the refining process. The bleaching is generally practiced, and is not confined to oil used for oleomargarine. In a volume entitled "Soybean Chemistry and Technology" by Markley and Goss, on page 231, we find as follows:

After the soybean oil is refined, washed, and dried, whether by the batch or continuous method, it is then bleached to remove most of the coloring matter. Keep in mind that this is in a chapter on refining methods applied to soybean oil for the food industry.

For those of you who are interested in possible competition of imported oils, let me point out that coconut oil is to be feared not only on the basis of cost, but also on the basis of its composition. You heard Dr. Deuel say that of the vegetable oils coconut oil most closely resembles butter oil. This is a well-known fact and is commonly pointed out in texts on the subject of fats and oil. Butterfat contains a generous proportion of short-chained fatty acids, and butter owes its melting behavior, gradual transition in hardness over a fairly wide temperature change, and the way butter cleans up in the mouth without the lingering of a fatty film, to these fatty acids. None of the other animal fats or vegetable oils approach butterfat in this respect, but coconut oil comes closest. This direct special interest to coconut oil not only as the cheapest, but possibly also as the best source of fat for oleomargarine.

It is readily conceivable that the present alliance of interests might terminate suddenly if and when the chestnuts have been pulled out of the fire.

I should like to add a comment or two to clarify points where I am sure the record is definitely not straight. We have statements in the record that our consumption of table fat is in the neighborhood of 15 to 16 pounds. We have other statements to the effect that the amount of table fat should be a higher figure. Figures ranging from 30 to 36 pounds have been mentioned in that connection. There is a confusion of terms as to table fat and dietary fat. An amount of dietary fat actually consumed per capita has been grossly misrepresented by Mr. Montgomery of the CIO and by several others who have touched on this subject. As the record at these hearings now stands, we consume 6 pounds less fat than dietary requirements. At other points in the record it has been stated we consume only 15 or 16 pounds of table fat as against the requirement of 30 to 36 pounds. An impression has been created that we need to double our table fat to give our citizens an adequate diet. Here is the actual recommendation by the Food Nutrition Board and it is given in that same Bulletin 118. I will not read the quotation in full, but they recommend a total dietary fat of 68 pounds, which is to consist of two forms, visible fat and invisible fat. They recommend 28 pounds of visible fat and 40 pounds of invisible fat. They spell out what they mean by visible fat. Visible fat includes butter, oleomargarine, lard, shortenings, salad and cooking oils. Their recommendation is that the per annum per capita consumption of those oils should be 28 pounds to satisfy the minimum requirements.

The testimony that Mr. Montgomery introduced shows that those items which I have just mentioned as being classified as visible fat shows a per capita consumption of 42.3 pounds in 1945, 42.3 pounds in 1946, and 44.3 pounds in 1947. These records were established

during a time when the fat supply was generally recognized as short in relation to demand. But even so the actual use of visible fat at no time dropped below 150 percent of the recommended minimum figure of 28 pounds.

There is also testimony in the record by Mr. Douglass developed under cross-examination that the hydrogenated cottonseed oil solidified and then color measured by a tintometer showed 1.3 Lovibond units. Under cross-examination, it was brought out that 10 percent of the unhydrogenated oil might be added in actual practice. Mr. Douglass stated that that was the maximum, in his experience. He also estimated that with such a 10 percent addition, the color might be increased or would be increased 30 percent and by calculation then arrived at a figure of 1.6 to 1.7 Lovibond units.

The point of developing this information by cross-examination, I am sure was to demonstrate that in actual practice it would be necessary to bleach in order to keep the product free from the 10-cent tax, when, as a matter of fact, the figures that were arrived at do not prove that point. It was through an oversight, no doubt, that it was neglected to add that the color measurement of 1.3 was made on the hydrogenated oil in the solidified state, or 100 percent pure fat. When that is converted into oleomargarine, you are adding skimmed milk, salt, and other constituents in amounts of 19.8 percent, approximately, roughly 20 percent, so that, on the basis of dilution alone there would be a decrease in color. In addition, you have the whitening effect that would result when that fat is made up into oleomargarine where the method of mixing, stirring, and chilling are so designed as to achieve fine crystallinization. That would have a very decided whitening effect in the same sense that crystalline snow looks whiter than ice. In addition to that, you have the whitening effect of emulsifying the skimmed milk and moisture into that fat and so you will have a much lighter-colored product after the finished product has been made from that oil which even though it had contained 1.6 or 1.7 percent Lovibond units, it would unquestionably have been below the limit of 1.6. In closing, I express my appreciation to this committee for the privilege of offering this testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Doctor.

M. GOFF. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to have the answer to one question raised by Mr. Poage.

The CHAIRMAN. With the understanding that that is not going to open up that question at this point, the Chair would like to wait until all the witnesses have testified before we ask questions.

Mr. GOFF. I will make it just one question.

Is there any difference in the caloric content of butter in the March and April months when it is lighter in color than in the summer months when it is at its darkest point?

Dr. SOMMER. The caloric value would be the same.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, he has asked that question two or three times about the caloric value, and what I am asking about is vitamin content, not caloric value.

Mr. GROSS. Point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has asked that question. You may proceed.

Dr. SOMMER. May I answer the question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. SOMMER. To save time, I will try to cover all the facts in a concise manner and even anticipating questions. The vitamin A potency of the milk fat resides in the carotene that is present and which imparts color and which then gives rise to vitamin A. In other words, carotene is pro vitamin A. In the milk fats you have carotene and you have the vitamin A present. The proportions in which the two exist differ somewhat with bread, so that color is no reliable indication of itself of vitamin A content. But in general it is true that the color content and vitamin A content depends upon the feed. If we have the cows feed on succulent grass or on properly cured hay, that has not undergone bleaching, or on fodder in the form of corn silage or legume silage or grass silage, so that there has been no bleaching, it is possible to keep the color and vitamin content of that milk fat and hence of the butter uniform throughout the year. It is difficult to make a sweeping answer that fits all localities and all feeding practices, but, in general, it is true that the total vitamin A activity of milk fat is lower during the winter feeding months. There can be no question about that. It is at its lowest ebb at that time of the year. Mr. GOFF. Thank you

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Dr. Sommer.
The next witness is Mr. Leo Peters, of Henderson, Ill.

STATEMENT OF LEO PETERS, HENDERSON, ILL.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Leo Peters. I am here at the request of Mr. Holman. I have had the misfortune to develop a rather new package for margarine. He has requested that I demonstrate it. While I demonstrate it, I will make a few comments and then that is the extent of my statement unless there are some questions.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may proceed.

Mr. POAGE. Who made that package you have here? Who manufactured it?

Mr. PETERS. Cudahy Packing Co.

Mr. POAGE. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. PETERS. The invention itself is the inner wrapper, which is made of a special plastic. There is no similar plastic like it. The formula was developed for this purpose only. The color is carried on the inside in a gelatin capsule which, in turn, is sealed in a perforated trap. The perforations permit the color to run out and the perforations are small enough to retain the broken fragments of the capsule within the trap so it does not get into the margarine.

Mr. PACE. What becomes of the capsule?

Mr. PETERS. It stays in the trap. Would you like to see one?
Mr. PACE. Yes.

Mr. PETERS. If you would like to have me, I will color the margarine for you and if you would like to time it, now is the time to start timing.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Show them how it is done.

Mr. PETERS. You break the capsule like this and then you just knead it back and forth. That is all there is to it.

Now, the advantage-what it does, saleswise, is these things: It eliminates greasy hands; it eliminates greasy bowls and forks and spoons to wash; it eliminates wasted product because after this is

finished, you can chill it and it strips off fairly clean. It does a thorough job of coloring without any streaks. That is, if the woman does it long enough, say a couple or three minutes. It enables her to place it back in the carton and reshape it to its original shape so that when she serves it, she has a fairly uniform shape in serving. Mr. COOLEY. Do you have a patent on that?

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. POAGE. How much more does that cost than the other margarine?

Mr. PETERS. This margarine?

Mr. POAGE. Yes.

Mr. PETERS. You mean to the retailer, what it sells for?

Mr. POAGE. No; to the housewife.

Mr. PETERS. Today in the city of Washington, some of the brands are selling at the same price as others and Cudahy's is 2 cents higher than the old package.

Mr. POAGE. That is what I am talking about-Cudahy's.

Mr. PETERS. That is right. You can buy that in the city of Washington today for 41 and most of the other brands for 39 cents.

Mr. PACE. Is that what makes the difference in the price to the housewife: that container?

Mr. PETERS. Yes.

Mr. ANDRESEN. How many manufacturers have the rights to use this package?

Mr. PETERS. At present there are eight.

Mr. PACE. Do you make the package yourself?

Mr. PETERS. I do not at present. I started out making it myself and then because some of my licensees were worried that I might hold the price up on them if I manufactured it myself, I licensed anybody who wants to make it, free of charge. There is no royalty attached to making the bag. They have to have a license, but the license is royalty-free. Anybody who wants to make it is free to do so. Mr. PACE. But you have to pay for using it?

Mr. PETERS. The package is all colored.

Mr. PACE. But you have to pay to use it?

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the record show that it took Mr. Peters just 21⁄2 minutes to color the oleo he was molding.

Mr. JOHNSON. I checked with you and you are right. It did not take a half hour and make a lot of mess, and waste the time that some people said it would.

Mr. PETERS. No. I have some chilled packages here that I took from the hotel with me. I can cut one open.

Mr. POAGE. Yes, let us see you finish the process, because it is not worth much to have it in the bag.

You cannot eat it out of that.

Mr. PETERS. I will finish it for you. It is a little soft.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Would you put the names of those companies into the record who now produce this container?

Mr. PETERS. Yes.

Mr. ANDRESEN. And they do not have to pay any royalty for using that package?

Mr. PETERS. The margarine companies do, yes; but the manufacturer of this bag does not.

74354-48 -27