OLEOMARGARINE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1943 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Orville Zimmerman presiding. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. The committee will please be in order. At our adjournment on yesterday we agreed to hear the consumers who are interested in the proposed legislation. I have here Miss Hofstetter, who represents the American Home Economics Association. Is Miss Hofstetter ready to testify? (There was no response.) Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Dr. Caroline Ware, American Association of University Women. The CLERK. She can appear after 11. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mrs. Elizabeth Schorske, representing the League of Women Shoppers. We will be glad to hear you Mrs. Schorske. STATEMENT OF MRS. ELIZABETH SCHORSKE, REPRESENTING THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN SHOPPERS Mrs. SCHORSKE. Mr. Chairman. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mrs. Schorske, will you give your name and your address? Mrs. SCHORSKE. Elizabeth Schorske, Arlington, Va. I am representing both the National and the Local League of Women Shoppers. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Will you tell us something about this orgaization? Mrs. SCHORSKE. I will be glad to. We have a membership of 2,000 women in 6 or 7 cities in the United States. The cities include Miami, St. Louis, Chicago, Cincinnati, New York, Washington, and a few other places. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. What is the purpose of this organization? Mrs. SCHORSKE. The purpose of this organization is to more or less organize consumers to protect their own interests and those of all housewives in matters of this type of legislation, for example, which fall perfectly well within our field. We originally started out to do things in the labor field, but ever since the war we have more or less changed our approach and really worked more on the other problems, like surveys of food, and we testified here for food subsidies and things of that kind. Mr. HOPE. Let me ask you, you said your organization worked with the labor people? Mrs. SCHORSKE. Yes, sir. Mr. HOPE. Is the organization affiliated with any of the recognized labor organizations? Mrs. SCHORSKE. No; and we have never organized unions as such. What we tried to do was investigate labor problems when they came up and tried to decide for ourselves, from the woman's point of view, whether one ought to buy in such a store-say a strike is on in a department store, we have tried to figure out where the rights of the strike were, whether they were with the employer or with the employees, and if we decided that the employees had something to say and the strike had not been decided one way or another, we would try to keep women from violating those picket lines and things like that. Mr. HOPE. You are not an auxiliary or affiliate of any organized labor group? Mrs. SCHORSKE. No, no. This is really just a group of housewives, mostly, and looking after their interests. Mr. HOPE. You are independent of any other work? Mrs. SCHORSKE. We are not at all. Mr. HOPE. That is, you are independent of any other organization. Mrs. SCHORSKE. That is right; we are independent of all other organizations. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. You may proceed. Mrs. SCHORSKE. Our work in many ways parallels that of the League of Women Voters, I think, except with more emphasis on consumer groups. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. You may proceed with your statement, if you have one. Mrs. SCHORSKE. The National and Washington League of Women Shoppers supports the repeal of the tax imposed by the Federal Government on margarine. This tax has a detrimental effect on the manufacture, distribution, and availability to the shopper of this product. In many areas the housewife is given no choice as to tablespread, and almost nowhere can she buy colored margarine. For the housewife to color her own margarine consumes valuable time; and when this operation can be performed so inexpensively and efficiently by the industry, there seems little point in all of us turning dairymaid and churning in the yellow coloring. We prefer butter to margarine, but particularly now when there is not sufficient butter to go around, margarine can be used as an adequate substitute. Another wartime factor to be considered is the economy and efficiency with which margarine can be produced. Although we are not experts in the production field, we are aware that figures exist, which have already been recited to you gentlemen, pointing out what vast savings in land and manpower accrue in producing an equivalent amount of margarine as compared with butter. It is our understanding that the essence of the free-enterprise system is the ability of the consumer to exercise her preference between a choice of products. This taxation of margarine is the almost solitary exception and is definitely discriminatory. Moreover it seems to us absolutely essential that the low-income group have this choice of tablespreads. The difference in price-50 percent and ration points-between butter and margarine is so great that butter is often prohibitive for the low-income groups, and no table spread at all is the result. This is pretty poor diet. By the way, something was said here yesterday to the effect that lard and margarine had the same price, 17 cents a pound; but that is not true, at least, in the district. Lard is 17, but margarine, the cheapest place you can get it, that we have ever found, is 24 cents a pound. It varies from 24 to 27. Mr. McCORD. Mr. Chairman. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. McCord. Mr. McCORD. Will the lady yield for just one minute at that point? Mrs. SCHORSKE. Yes. Mr. McCORD. I think I asked the chairman [Mr. Zimmerman] the price of lard and he said about 14 cents, and I told him that I understood that margarine was 17 cents. Mrs. SCHORSKE. Margarine maybe, there may be some Mr. MCCORD (continuing). I am talking about the difference in price. I asked the chairman [Mr. Zimmerman] what the price of lard was and he said about 14 cents and I called his attention to the fact that I understood that margarine was about 17 cents. I just wanted to get the record straight on that point. Mrs. SCHORSKE. The only thing is, I want to point out that margarine really is not 17 cents: at least, around in Virginia and the District. Mr. McCORD. I understand that it sold here the other day, uncolored margarine, at 17 cents. Mrs. SCHORSKE. Well, I will tell you why I say this, because all of our women went out and canvassed every single retail grocery store in the city just about 6 months ago-maybe less; 4 months ago. Mr. McCORD. I am talking about last Thursday. Mrs. SCHORSKE. We could not find margarine any place for less than 24 cents. I was talking about the low-income group and a substitute for butter. From the nutritive viewpoint, the Pure Food and Drugs Act protects those consumers who do use margarine as a butter substitute. In the case of fortified margarine (and 90 percent of all margarine is fortified), there is a scientific evidence for the position that it is as nutritive as butter. The consumer group in our organization made a survey based on the weekly low-cost marketing list recommended by the Bureau of Home Economics at the end of May. This low-cost marketing list represented a minimum-only the barest minimum-of foods essential to provide a family of four in Washington with a diet meeting only the minimum nutritional standards. The cost of this minimum diet was $11.40 per week, this amounts to approximately $600 per year. In the year 1941 city families in the United States with an average income of $1,671 spend $558 or nearly one-third of their income on food, and families with an income of $2,103 spend $674 for food. Since prices have increased considerably in the last 2 years, it is reasonable to conclude that a family of four today would require an income of at least $2,000 to provide this minimum diet. Taking Washington, a city with comparatively high wages for an example, the number of people whose incomes are less than $2,000 would still run into the thousands Obviously with such a narrow margin available to obtain a minimum nutritional standard, low-income groups cannot afford to pay twice the amount for butter as for a margarine of equivalent nutritional value. Not only low-income groups but all housewives are interested in making their small contribution toward checking inflation by keeping cost of living-and eating-down. The availability of a cheaper product in usable form would be a great assistance to us, especially during war. In conclusion let me reiterate that margarine deserves the same treatment as all other products. It is inexpensive, nutritious, and it is needed desperately now. We consumers want it. That is my statement, Mr. Chairman. Any questions? Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Any questions? Mr. MURRAY. I have one, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MURRAY. I want to call the lady's attention to the fact that I was the one who read out of the paper last week showing that Sunny Brook margarine-whatever kind Sunny Brook is-was selling for 17 cents a pound, and that lard was selling for the same price in the same store the same day. I just happened to tear that advertisement out. Mrs. SCHORSKE. I do think that that is an exceptional case, that we did not find. Mr. MURRAY. And is it reasonably probable, why the margarine people are interested in the product, is because the chances are that it is easier to make a profit on it than it is on butter, because butter has always been handled on very narrow margins. Mrs. SCHORSKE. And actually, so far as concerns the use of the cheaper product, or which is better, that is for us to decide. Mr. MURRAY. And you realize that all of the oleo is being made now that can be made? Mrs. SCHORSKE. I realize that; but my point is that it should be colored. There is no reason why we should do that. I think, especially for certain purposes after the war, as to distribution, there are some areas where it is now distributed where it will not be distributed, and that might be helpful to the low-income groups to have that product available. Mr. MURRAY. You are interested in the low-income groups. Mr. MURRAY. How could you tolerate, without making a protest against it, what is happening at the present time when the people with the price can buy all of the milk they want and all of the cream that they want without any points and yet they have to have their five points along with them to get even cottage cheese at the present time which is made out of skim milk. Mrs. SCHORSKE. I think that is a separate problem, and I agree with you that it is a pretty bad state of affairs. Mr. MURRAY. There is a bad state of affairs. Mrs. SCHORSKE. Yes. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Murray, will you yield at that point? Mr. MURRAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I will say that my family cannot buy all of the milk we want in Washington. I do not know about you. Mr. MURRAY. Of course you cannot, because, and that is due to the fact that the most senseless part of the whole food program is what has been done with dairy products. I am not blaming you for that. So far as the low-income groups are concerned, when anyone tells you that this food is being distributed fairly, they just either have not taken time to find out. The man with the price is able to get just about what he wants. He can go and buy a quart of 19 percent butterfat cream, and yet if he sends his wife over to the store she must have ration points to get a 7.2 fat can of evaporated milk. The more you look into it, the less fairness you find and the less sense it has to it. I appreciate your position because especially at this time, it is your duty to see that the low and middle-income groups have somewhere near an equal chance with the higher-income groups. Mrs. SCHORSKE. That is correct. Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Let me ask Mr. Murray then, I presume you are in favor of getting this tax off and giving these low-income people an opportunity to buy colored margarine, and put them on an equal plane with the high-income groups. Mr. MURRAY. I would say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Zimmerman] that I will frame my own position. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I am asking you. Mr. MURRAY. I know you are asking me, and I am saying that it does not make any difference whether you take the tax off or not, we are getting all of the oleomargarine we can get any way, whether we take the one-fourth cent per pound tax off or not. The only thing is the question of the housewife doctoring it up or not; that is the only question. Mrs. SCHORSKE. There is the question of distribution. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Do you agree that there is not equality for the low- with the high-income groups; do you agree to that? Mr. MURRAY. Of course I agree; or they would not be buying these four or five-dollar steaks, when the average family cannot get a soupbone without taking his book along and giving up points, for the kind we used to buy for the dog. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. We are talking about oleomargarine. Mr. ANDRESEN. This is all very interesting, Mr. Chairman, but I would like for us to confine ourselves to the testimony of the witness. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. In view of the statements that have been made, I think it ought to be clarified. You are in favor of having, when the war is over, when we can make all of the oleomargarine that we want to; you are in favor of giving the low-income groups an opportunity to buy and to be put on an equal footing with the high-income groups, are you not, Mr. Murray. Mr. MURRAY. I always take the position that the products that are produced in my district, and this is all I have ever asked for, is for a fair consideration with the other parts of the dairy industry. We have not received it up to this time. That is all I have ever asked for. Then we will take our chances. The Wisconsin dairymen do not need any crutches to carry them around on, if they do not have discriminatcry legislation, that we have had, so far as the manufactured dairy products is concerned in this Nation. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. You admit that the most discriminatory legislation we have had is against margarine, in favor of the dairy group, would you not? Mr. MURRAY. I will admit that the oleomargarine trusts deceived, and defrauded the people in this country, on their own admission, until 92417-43-17 |