Page images
PDF
EPUB

whole controversy that the fight between the butter people and the margarine people is not on the question of the color of butter, but the question of one color, namely, yellow.

Mr. HOPKINS. You are asking me that question?

Mr. RIZLEY. Yes.

Mr. HOPKINS. I think the controversy probably-I think, and sincerely; I believe many people, and I do not condemn them for it, really think that the margarine people are trying to make something to imitate butter so that they can sell it to the American public. The American margarine manufacturers want to make a product that the housewife wants. They are not talking about butter. They are talking about a product that she wants.

Now, let us just forget all about the relationship between the margarine manufacturers and the butter people. What is the function? What is the proper function of any manufacturer; to do what? To give the consumer the thing that is a good food product, at the most reasonable price. Is that not it? A good wholesome food for the most reasonable price. We want to make it appetizing, and that is why we decorate the packages, and do a lot of things, as all merchandisers do. We want to appeal to the housewife.

Mr. RIZLEY. What is the definition of butter?

Mr. HOPKINS. I am afraid that I cannot answer that. I do not know. Butter is a manufactured product, of course.

Mr. RIZLEY. It does not have to be called butter. You can call it vegetable butter, could you not? Could you not call it that under the law?

Mr. HOPKINS. I think under the law you would have to call it oleomargarine.

Mr. RIZLEY. Could you not call it a vegetable product?

Mr. HOPKINS. I think that you would have to call it oleomargarine under the pure food and drugs laws.

Mr. RIZLEY. There was a time, it seems to me--I am not sure about this-but it seems to me that there was a time when we used to buy oleomargarine under the name of butterene, or something like that. Is that right?

Mr. HOFKINs. I think so.

Mr. RIZLEY. Well, now, why was that? Was not that for the purpose of at least practicing a little deception on the buying public? Mr. HOPKINS. I have no information on that; but I could be easily persuaded to believe that.

Mr. RIZLEY. I want to ask you this question. You are here, as I understand it, speaking for all of the manufacturers of oleomargarine? Mr. HOPKINS. No; I am speaking for the manufacturers who belong to the national association.

Mr. RIZLEY. Yes; some 18 of them?

Mr. HOPKINS. That is right.

Mr. RAZLEY. And do you furnish, or does your association-I mean, you or any of your 18 manufacturers, have any one either in an official capacity or an advisory capacity now on any of the various food agencies of the O. P. A.?

Mr. HOPKINS. In an advisory capacity?

Mr. RIZLEY. Either one.

Mr. HOPKINS. Do we employ somebody on either of those?

Mr. RIZLEY. I mean, do you have out of any of your 18 companies, have any of your men been loaned or are they employed as dollara-year men, or do they have any people in the O. P. A.?

Mr. HOPKINS. I could not answer that question at all, because I do not have the slightest idea.

Mr. MURRAY. I think it is only fair to say that they have, and also the dairy industry has, too.

Mr. RIZLEY. I know that they have, but some of our industries have not been considered important enough to get anybody down there on any basis.

I think that is all.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Any questions?

We thank you, Mr. Hopkins.

Mr. HOPKINS. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE ROGERS, ROCHESTER, N. Y.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Rogers, we will hear you.

Mr. RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for this courtesy, because it means a lot to me to get away tonight.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Rogers, will you give your full name and proceed with your statement?

Mr. ROGERS. My name is George Rogers. My address is 1458 Dewey Avenue, Rochester, N. Y. I represent the Monroe County Retail Food Merchants and New York State Retail Food Merchants. I have a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman, and then I will be glad to answer any questions after that.

There is no question but that our Government has adopted a most wise policy with regard to prices, and I am sure that we are all in accord with the "hold the line" policy to guard against inflation. It is for that reason that I am appearing in opposition to a Federal tax and license upon oleomargarine. Statistics have clearly indicated that oleomargarine is a healthful product and is a substitute for butter, which has become a very scarce commodity.

It is my belief that the tax was originally placed upon olemargarine to assist the farmer and assure him of a stable market for butter. This is no longer necessary, for my 30 years' experience as a food merchant convinces me that for the past 6 months there has been a distinct shortage of butter and a crying need for a substitute, such as oleomargarine.

Certainly there is no reason to tax this product under the present circumstances, and I cannot believe that oleomargarine will ever take the place of butter in the minds of the American family. We would all prefer butter and will use it whenever it can be obtained.

There is one additional factor which must also be considered, namely the large number of points which butter requires and which could be used in part for other necessary foodstuffs, if an adequate substitute were placed upon the American table in the place of butter, and I firmly believe that oleomargarine is that substitute.

I likewise believe that there should be no distinction between colored and uncolored olemargarine, for the American housewife finds her time very limited and should not be put to the trouble of mixing

this product when it can be served to her without deterioration by the manufacturer properly colored and ready for use.

It is also my understanding that several of our States which formerly had laws prohibiting the use of oleomargarine in their State institutions, and I believe New York is one of them, have now rescinded this restriction, and I am sure they would not have done so if there was any question as to the merits of the product.

In regard to the $6 license fee for the retailer, a good many merchants, myself included, find that in ordinary times the sale of oleo is so small that it does not pay us to handle the product and thereby denying a good many poor families of this good butter substitute. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Any questions?

Mr. MURRAY. Just one. I would like to say your mayor from New York today said they were furnishing butter for the hospitals and oleomargarine for the penitentiary.

Mr. ROGERS. Furnishing it for all State institutions now, but before the first of this year it was prohibited in any State institution.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Rogers, can you give us an estimate of about what percentage of the grocers of New York City handle oleomargarine? Mr. ROGERS. I am not from New York City. I am from Rochester, N. Y.

Mr. POAGE. Can you give us an estimate of the number in Rochester? Mr. ROGERS. Less than 10 percent.

Mr. ROGERS. Less than 10 percent.

Mr. ROGERS. And none of them handle colored oleos.

Mr. POAGE. You mean that you could not buy colored margarine in Rochester?

Mr. ROGERS. I could not buy it?

Mr. POAGE. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. I mean up until a few months ago, you would probably have to go to 40 or 50 stores before you would find anybody who had it; yes, sir.

Mr. POAGE. That is what I mean. And those who did have it were simply the large chain stores; is that right?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. POAGE. In other words, this legislation forces the average citizen to trade with the large chain store, if he is going to buy colored margarine?

Mr. ROGERS. That is right, and it is unfair to the small merchants.

Mr. POAGE. And whatever profit there is in handling this must go to the large chain stores, under the present set-up, and not to the local independent merchants.

Mr. ROGERS. That is true, sir.

Mr. POAGE. In other words, the local independent merchant of Rochester, N. Y., is penalized, as well as the citizens of Rochester, N. Y., who do not buy some kind of a table spread. In order to protect the butter manufacturers, not the dairymen, not the milk producer; be cause he has a ceiling on everything in the world he has got; but the butter manufacturers.

Mr. ROGERS. That is true.

Mr. POAGE. That is all.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Andresen.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Rogers, the reason why you say the merchants in Rochester do not handle oleo is on account of the $6-a-year tax? Mr. ROGERS. It is because of the $6-a-year tax. They do not make enough money in some instances to pay the $6. The profit would not amount to $6 in ordinary times.

Mr. ANDRESEN. That would not be a very large quantity of oleo. Mr. ROGERS. No, sir.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I do not know how much margin you have on oleo. Mr. ROGERS. I can figure about 3 cents a pound in ordinary times. I would not sell 5 pounds a week. How long would it take you to get $6.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you think removing the tax would increase the sale of it?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you think that it would have to be colored to increase the sale of it?

Mr. ROGERS. NO; but it would help tremendously.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Why do think it would help?

Mr. ROGERS. Did you ever have to mix it up?

Mr. ANDRESEN. No.

Mr. ROGERS. I have, and it takes from 15 to 30 minutes, and it is a very wrist-breaking job. I wish that you gentlemen would buy a pound of uncolored oleo and take an ordinary spoon and mix it up, or anything else you can find that you can do it better with. I could not find anything better. It takes a heavy iron spoon, or you will break it. And it is a 15- to 20-minute job, and a very wrist-breaking job, and that is why the ordinary housewife does not want to do it. Mr. ANDRESEN. She prefers it colored?

Mr. ROGERS. Colored.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you think the reason for that is because it looks like butter?

Mr. ROGERS. No, it is not. It is because-perhaps to some extentbut it is because she does not want the trouble of coloring it.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Of course, we do not object to the ladies buying oleo. What we are afraid of is that there might be some unscrupulous person-you do not have any of those in Rochester.

Mr. ROGERS. No; none at all.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Or some who might sell this colored oleo as butter. Mr. ROGERS. I cannot imagine, sir, how they could do it.

Mr. ANDRESEN. There have been a lot of cases testified to; a good many cases in New York City the mayor testified to.

Of course that is different than from Rochester.

Mr. ROGERS. That is true.

Mr. ANDRESEN. That is all.
Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Pace.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Rogers, what is the average price per pound for margarine in your home city?

Mr. ROGERS. From 23 to 29 cents for the uncolored.

Mr. PACE. Would you say an average of 25 cents a pound?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. PACE. Now, let us look at this broad proposition. It has been mentioned here several times that if any housewife should purchase

a pound of oleomargarine thinking that she had butter, that some terrible fraud had been committed. To begin with she will only have lost 25 cents if she took it and threw it in the garbage can. So, the financial loss would not be so terrific.

In the second place, if she went ahead and used it, she would have acquired a very safe nutritive food, which she had gotten, would she not?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. PACE. There would not be anything harmful in it to her or to the members of her family?

Mr. ROGERS. No, sir.

Mr. PACE. It would be nourishing; it would look good; and it would taste good; and it would do her good.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. PACE. Consequently do you not think, to be perfectly frank and fair, that it is a little harsh in this investigation to use the words "subterfuge" and "fraud", and "criminal conduct" and "deception," when we refer to the possibility of a person who is blind, cannot see, or cannot read the large letters on the package; cannot read the signs on the wall; do you not think that it is a little harsh to use the word "fraud," where a person might acquire a package of oleomargarine instead of a package of butter?

Mr. ROGERS. I certainly do.

Mr. PACE. Do you not think that those who seek to maintain a law which they admit to you frankly is unfair; is wrong; there is nothing else like it on the statute books of the Nation; that it is maintained purely to try to strike down a competitive commodity; admit that that is the sole purpose and hold their hands up in horror and say that a great fraud might be perpetrated on some sweet innocent housewife; do you not think that that is a little ridiculous? Mr. ROGERS. I certainly do, and I would like to go a little further. I think that the grocer has been the forgotten man during this war. I think that the O. P. A. has repeatedly sponsored over the radio statements and accused the grocers of this country of being thieves.

I have been in the business for 30 years, and I resent such tactics of the Government, particularly over the air, or anywhere else, asking for people to go out and watch "the thieving grocers" and so forth. I think we are the forgotten men in this war.

Mr. PACE. And you would not, and none of your respectable associates, would not undertake to sell a commodity, one commodity, represented as another commodity?

Mr. ROGERS. I know of no one who would.

Mr. PACE. I have no personal interest in the manufacture of margarine. If there is a margarine manufacturing plant in my State, which is Georgia, I do not know of it. Is there one, Mr. Hopkins? Mr. HOPKINS. I believe there is.

Mr. PACE. Maybe there is in Atlanta, but that is a State unto itself.

I have no interest in the manufacture of margarine. It happens now, or it seems, that there is more milk production, more soybean oil, and more of other oils that are not native to my section than there is of cottonseed oil, which is native and that manufacturing has drifted away from cottonseed oil so that that interest is diminishing, but it does seem to me, Mr. Rogers, that you as a mer

« PreviousContinue »