search workers in textiles, foods, nutrition, directors of home-service programs of business firms, public health, and social-welfare home economists and homemakers.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. You may proceed.

Miss WYCKOFF. Because the American Home Economics Association believes that "all families must have the minimum essentials for wellbeing" and that the discriminatory taxing of margarine tends to keep families from having one of the essentials of well-being, an adequate diet, I am urging the removal of the Federal license fee and excise taxes from margarine as provided in H. R. 2400. Specific reasons to support this action are as follows:

First, since a certain amount of fat and vitamin A are needed in the diet and there isn't enough butter to meet the need, the barriers to the use of fortified margarine should be removed.

If all families are to have butter or butter-like, vitamin A rich spread for their bread, we will have to use both butter and margarine. Butter is more scarce now but there never has been enough to go around to all of the families. Just now, the War Food Administration says we will have about 11 pounds of butter per person next year. That is about 1 level tablespoon full per day-not nearly enough to "butter" our daily bread as we would like it. We will have to finish out with vitamin A fortified margarine if we are to get a vitamin A rich fat to use as table fat.

Homemakers and nutritionists, institution managers, and all others who were concerned to know the food value of the 90 percent of the margarine which is fortified with vitamin A are indeed pleased with the publicity given the National Research Council's finding that "when fortified margarine is used in place of butter as a source of fat in a mixed diet, no nutritional differences can be observed."

When butter is not even available, the homemaker cannot see why she should pay a protective tax on margarine. The tax brings inconveniences, first, in finding margarine in the small market, and, second, in finding colored margarine at a reasonable price in any market. She cannot see why an unnecessary tax should be allowed to increase her difficulties in shopping and in meal preparation. The busy homemaker cannot see why a tax should keep her from being able to buy colored margarine, which is ready to serve to her family in practically any market. Her family does not like margarine as well as butter and to have to color it at home or serve it white only adds to the lack of satisfaction which the family gets from this necessary substitute for butter.

Second, it is unfair for low-income families to carry the brunt of the margarine tax load and to have less adequate diets because of it. It is well known that a large percentage of American families do not have money to buy an adequate diet. If the margarine taxes were repealed on both the Federal and State levels, part of the food dollar which now goes to buy a table fat would be available for buying other needed foods.

The family spending and savings survey made by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics shows that when people can afford it they buy butter rather than margarine.

This survey shows further that the low-income groups do not have enough table fats of any kind. Nutrition committees in some of the

States report that low-income families are using prepared mustard and lard on their bread.

Third, some school-lunch programs and other food services are hurt by the margarine tax.

Most schools serving lunch do so at cost, as many children could not afford to patronize the lunchroom otherwise. By the present interpretation of the Federal law, school lunches, other than those operated by the public school, who color margarine for use in the lunch must pay a $600 license fee, plus 10 cents a pound tax, which makes its use prohibitive. The service of uncolored margarine is not acceptable either to children or adults, as they have been conditioned to demand a yellow spread for their bread.

Other food services besides the school lunch suffer from this manufacturer's tax on colored margarine-many hospitals, cafeterias for war workers and for civilians who are helping to win the war on the home front, cannot afford to serve colored margarine. Some of them present their patrons with the white margarine, others put up a sign "Sorry, no butter." Margarine does not have the fine flavor of the best butter and it seems unreasonable to give it another handicap by serving it white.

Fourth: No wholesome food should be penalized because it is not some other wholesome food. There is no more reason to tax margarine because it is not butter than to tax rayon because it is not wool or silk. Many types of rayon resemble wool and silk in appearance and can be sold competitively at much lower prices. Labeling these textiles for what they are has proved a satisfactory means of preventing the fraud of passing off one product for another. There are adequate provisions in the Food and Drug Act for the labeling of margarine to prevent its being passed off for butter.

Fifth Home economists who teach nutrition and consumer buying have no alternative but to point out that the margarine tax discriminates unfairly against a wholesome food.

More than half of the members of the American Home Economics Association are teaching home economics to students in high school and colleges and to adult groups. Their teaching reaches into hundreds and thousands of homes. Thousands of home economics trained homemakers are teaching their children to buy wisely. This teaching must be truthful and unbiased. The tax on margarine can only be presented as it is a discriminatory tax against the consumer, which affects most seriously those in the low-income bracket; and that its purpose is the protection of another industry. After students have considered the philosophy of full production and consumption to meet human needs and the right of all families to the minimum essentials for human welfare, it is inevitable that they will question this tax which tends to keep an abundant supply of a wholesome food from the people who need it most.

Because of these five reasons, the cost which affects the low-income group, the inconvenience to the housewife, the hurt to the schoollunch program, and then the matter or principle, that it just is not sound to tax a wholesome food because it is not some other wholesome food, or to support some industry, we recommend the passage of H. R. 2400.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. POAGE. Do you, or did you ever teach school?

Miss WYCKOFF. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. And how did you get around the dilemma you just described?

Miss WYCKOFF. You know, when you begin teaching school you have more courage, perhaps, than when you know too much.

Mr. POAGE. When you began you told the truth, and then you found the butter people didn't like you to tell the truth?

Miss WYCKOFF. It so happens I didn't get into any difficulties.
Mr. POAGE. You were teaching in the city?

Miss WYCKOFF. No; in a small town.

Mr. MURRAY. I would like to ask the witness if she realizes we are making all the margarine now that we have allocations of fat for.

Miss WYCKOFF. One of my points was that low-income families need to put every dollar that they can get into the best food that they can get. If you take off the State and Federal taxes, and they would have just that much more money to put into the food dollars. We are using butter and oleo both.

Mr. MURRAY. Do you realize that that quarter of a cent may or may not be offset by subsidies on these vegetable oils going into oleomargarine?

Miss WYCKOFF. I don't understand your question.

Mr. MURRAY. I said, did the lady realize that this quarter-of-a-cent Federal tax may or may not be more than offset by the subsidies that have been extended to the vegetable fats?

Mr. POAGE. Will the gentleman from Wisconsin tell us whether that is a fact or not?

Mr. MURRAY. The gentleman does not ever make statements that he cannot back up.

Mr. POAGE. I am asking whether it is a fact or not.

Mr. MURRAY. I made the statement.

Mr. POAGE. Did you make it as a statement of fact?
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. MURRAY. That is the point, that probably the subsidies will offset the quarter-of-a-cent tax. I haven't figured it out, but have you taken into consideration that there will be subsidies for these vegetable fats, which will show millions of dollars loss each year? Some of this fat is funneled through this oleomargarine.

Miss WYCKOFF. The consumers are interested in getting food at the least cost at which it can be produced, and they expect business to take care of the cost of production, and they expect business to take care of the cost of production of it. When you put a tax on oleomargarine, just because it is oleomargarine and. not butter, it should be still lower if you have subsidies to help offset it.

Mr. POAGE. I don't understand the gentleman yet.

Mr. MURRAY. I would like to get this straightened out. If 12 cent a pound on vegetable fat we will say, is the arbitrary figure set up as a subsidy on cottonseed and soybean oil, the oleomargarine manufacturers will have a small subsidy, then whoever buys the oleomargarine is still paying the quarter of a cent tax, and still has a big advantage.

Mr. POAGE. Will the gentleman from Wisconsin yield there. I don't understand his question. Do you mean to say as a fact that

there was a subsidy paid on these oils that are used in the making of oleomargarine in excess of the half of a cent a pound?

Mr. MURRAY. I am surprised that the gentleman from Texas did not read the President's message.

Mr. POAGE. I am not saying what the facts are. I am asking whether you said that or not.

Mr. MURRAY. I am saying that the Government is subsidizing fats, which will cost some $30,000,000 according to the President's message. Mr. POAGE. I am not questioning that is the fact, but I didn't understand you so to state.

Mr. MURRAY. Some of this fat funnels through and has been a subsidy on vegetables oils

Mr. POAGE. I am not questioning what is happening. I am asking whether you said it, whether you so stated. And, if so, how much is the subsidy on cottonseed oil.

Mr. MURRAY. I didn't say there was any on cottonseed oil. I say that there was a subsidy of millions on some vegetable oils.

Mr. POAGE. Well

Mr. MURRAY. I didn't say there was a subsidy only on cottonseed oil.

Mr. POAGE. I am asking you, is there a subsidy on cottonseed oil and soybean oil. Those are the two main products that go into oleomargarine.

Mr. MURRAY. I don't know from memory. Flaxseed, I know is holding its own, but there has been a subsidy of some 12 cent per pound on cottonseed and soybean oil.

Mr. POAGE. Flaxseed does not go into oleomargarine.

Mr. MURRAY. Oh, the gentleman is away behind on his information.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Gentlemen, this seems to be simply a controversy between you, and the witness is here to be questioned. Proceed, Mr. Murray.

Mr. MURRAY. As to these school lunches, isn't it rather a reflection on all of us to have our children drinking that skim milk that is being given out at the schools? When the butter fat is being obtained by the man with the price?

Miss WYCKOFF. I am not ready to speak on any other subject but this one, because I speak for an association.

Mr. MURRAY. But if we are to furnish food cheaply and fairly to our people, we have to take everything into consideration. We are using lots of skim milk in our schools now. If we want to provide food, taking your premise, and I subscribe to it, and we want to give the low-income groups all the food we can, I personally do not want to subscribe to a program that puts a price of 2% cents a quart on skim milk, because the food value, as you must know from your experience, would make it really worth more than that in comparison to whole milk at 15 cents a quart. Isn't that right?

Miss WYCKOFF. I am not ready to speak on anything except this margarine matter. I am sorry.

Mr. MURRAY. There are a lot of ways you can get that vitamin A. You could squeeze the juice out of sweetpotatoes and still get it.

Miss WYCKOFF. That is the homemaker's point of view. She doesn't like that. She wants butter first, if she has the money, and if she can't get that, she wants colored margarine that she can feed to

her family without having to buy it, and then go home and take the time to stir in the color.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. We thank you for your appearance.

We will next hear Mrs. Caroline F. Ware, representing the American Association of University Women.

STATEMENT OF DR. CAROLINE WARE, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

Dr. WARE. My name is Caroline F. Ware; I live in Vienna, Va., and I am the authorized representative of the American Association of University Women, an organization of approximately 70,000 college and university graduates, organized in approximately 900 branches from one end of the country to the other.

For many years our association has supported legislation in the consumer interest. We arrive at our legislative program only after exhaustive study by the branches of our association, and after adoption at our conventions of such legislative program, and it is under that authorization that I come before you today.

We are supporting this bill to repeal the taxes and license fees on margarine as a piece of needed legislation in the consumer interest. We are opposed to trade barriers and other measures which obstruct the flow of food to consumers. The present margarine tax and license fees constitute such barriers. We are strongly in favor of measures which insure that consumers will know what they are buying. We are opposed to this legislation as we would be to legislation which put a burden on rayon, as mentioned by my colleague, or, if the rubber people didn't like leather and got a special tax on leather, we would also be against that. In other words, we are against special penalizing legislation which interferes with the free flow of commodities, especially food commodities from the producer to the consumer. Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you yield for a question?

Dr. WARE, Yes.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you believe in a free flow of commodities over the world or just within the Nation?

Dr. WARE. That seems to me to be a question which is irrelevant at the present time.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You mentioned that you were in favor of a free flow of commodities. You said that?

Dr. WARE. Yes; and I am speaking

Mr. ANDRESEN. And against barriers.

Dr. WARE. I am speaking with reference to flow within the United States and will, if I may, decline to enter into a consideration of the flow of commodities outside the United States.

On the other hand, we are strongly in favor of measures which insure that consumers will know what they are buying. The Food and Drug Administration's standards for oleomargarine, together with the requirement that the product be identified by the label lets the consumer know what he is buying and assures him of a product which meets minimum standards.

Were the label requirement not added, I could not come here and speak for my association in support of this measure, but it is because there are adequate regulations which make the consumer know what

92417-43- -18