while all the other fats are inert deposits, also that milk contains from 9 to 13 more fatty acids in the composition of its fat than any of the other fats.

It would therefore seem logical that present control legislation on oleomargarine be not disturbed, that our nutritionists exercise great care lest they go off the deep end on some of their crack-pot theories, even as our scientists did 25 years ago on their theories that a food could be measured by the number of calories produced. Also, beware of the person or persons who admonish us that we should forget everything but the winning of the war. Let us win the war, but not forget that though we win it we will lose it if we fail to preserve fundamental Americanism in our economic, social, and political life at home. We can both win it and preserve the good things that are worth fighting for.

So don't be fooled by misstatements of fact into passing the type of legislation provided by H. R. 2400.

STATEMENT OF HON. MILES HORST, HARRISBURG, PA., SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The intent of the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania in enacting the oleomargarine law was entirely to protect the public health and to prevent fraud and imposition. The legislature, by its enactment, intended to regulate and supervise the transfer of property in oleomargarine from vendor to vendee; namely, the execution of the contract of sale by the vendor; and the time when the sale takes place within the meaning of the act is the time when the contract of sale is executed by the vendor.

The original oleomargarine law of Pennsylvania, May 21, 1885, forbade the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within the State of Pennsylvania. This act was a police regulation of the State of Pennsylvania for the purpose of protecting the public health and preventing fraud.

In the case of Powell v. Pennsylvania, a man was charged with having sold oleomargarine in violation of this act. He contended that the act was an unreasonable exercise of the police power, and the case went to the Supreme Court of the United States upon that proposition. The Supreme Court held in 127 U. S. 678, 32 L. Ed. 253, that the act was a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State for the protection of the health of the people, and for the prevention of fraud, and was not inconsistent with the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. That decision was rendered April 9, 1888.

A new act was passed May 29, 1901, which was amended June 5, 1913. These acts, which now constitute the statute law on the subject. are not designed to prohibit the sale of oleomargarine but to regulate it in such a manner as to protect the health of the people and to prevent deception and fraud. Provision for licensing wholesale and retail dealers and for inspection are made. If this provision was not made and the fee for licensing was not imposed, it would decrease the efficiency of the regulation and inspection.

"Every statute providing for inspection and regulation of an article of commerce increases the ultimate cost to the consumer. The consumer must necessarily pay this cost to insure the best product. It is, of course, desirable to eliminate the middleman, if possible, but, on the other hand, if it be necessary to have a middleman in order to secure efficient inspection and regulation of the product then the consumer must pay the middleman's profit" (opinion of Deputy Attorney General George Ross Hull, dated September 25, 1920).

I quote further from the above opinion of George Ross Hull who stated, when asked this question:

Is not the Pennsylvania law relating to oleomargarine primarily for the purpose of raising revenue, and, if so, would not the payment of your State license fee satisfy your office and fully comply with the laws of your State, admitting that an article of interstate commerce may be sold in Pennsylvania under the rulings of the Federal courts?

Answer. The oleomargarine law of Pennsylvania is not a revenue measure but is a police regulation. This has been frequently recognized by both the United States and the State courts.

In view of the fact that the State of Pennsylvania has in its oleomargarine law a provision for a commensurate fee for licensing, the violations are kept at a minimum. The wholesale and retail dealers are gladly cooperating in the enforcement of the act, inasmuch as the total number of prosecutions recorded in the last 5 years has not amounted to over a half hundred.

STATEMENT OF W. S. MOSCRIP, OF LAKE ELMO, MINN., PRESIDENT, THE HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Using the cloak of the war emergency, those interested in the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine colored in imitation of butter are renewing their efforts to secure the repeal of all Federal regulatory and tax measures protecting the public and the dairy industry from fraud. They continually cloud the issue by repeated statements that their interest is in making available to the undernourished and the poor a wholesome spread for bread now barred from them by burdensome taxation and regulation.

To show how brazenly untrue and untenable this position and statement is, one has only to point out that uncolored oleomargarine carries but one-fourth of 1 cent per pound of Federal taxes. The whole question at issue is their desire and determination to be permitted to produce and sell the consuming public of the United States a product colored and prepared so that it looks like, tastes like, and smells like butter.

In considering the proposals, may I suggest to the committees of the Congress that they have before them all the while just one word, and keep that word in mind all the while when they advance their specious arguments. That word is "why?"

Why do they prepare it so that it smells like butter?

Why do they insist upon being permitted to color it so that it looks like butter? You may draw your own conclusions. All the other colors of the spectrum are available to them. For the duration I would suggest red, white, and blue in alternate layers.

All the odors known to man, other than butter, are theirs to use. Every flavor known to foods is available to them other than that of butter.

country are doing a thorough job of defending olive oil-and olive oil is a product of a foreign country. Should such a product receive greater consideration than the native American product-butter?

The writer would like to point out to the committee a fundamental difference between oleomargarine and all other imitations or substitutes. Today we have imitation maple sirup which is a substitute for the genuine; imitation fruit nectar which is a substitute for genuine fruit drinks; chicory, a substitute for coffee, and imitation vanilla and lemon flavors which are substitutes for genuine lemon and vanilla flavors. You will note that none of these substances are taxed, whereas oleomargarine is, and the fundamental reason for this difference is that all of these imitation products are sold on their own merits which the oleomargarine interests now claim they intend to do. But the history of oleomargarine since it was first invented gives the lie to their present statements for the oleomargarine interests have always attempted to substitute oleomargarine for butter without the consumer being aware of it, and it was only when stringent regulations and restrictions were placed on their product that the public became aware of what it was purchasing. That is the real reason why today oleomargarine has restrictions placed on it. Had they, as we previously suggested and as they now claim they will, disposed of their product without attempting to substitute it for butter, there would have probably been no objection at any time, but even today when they wish to color their product yellow, they also wish to add to it ingredients which will make it taste, smell, fry, and look like butter. They have accomplished a part of their program through the efforts of regulations which were promulgated not so long ago by the Federal Security Agency, but the real key to success for their product can only be attained if they are successful in having it colored to resemble butter and sold tax free.

On the subject of fraud in the food industry, the chemist in charge of food regulation feels that he is well qualified to speak. Many types of fraudulent products are worthless, and the food control official so recognizes and objects to them on these grounds. Other types of fraudulent products do have some merit, but are objected to because of the false claims which are made for them, or because they are offered as substitutes for genuine articles and the consumer is not made aware of their true nature. Oleomargarine falls into this latter category.

We do recognize that oleomargarine has merit and has a proper place in the field of foods. If the oleomargarine interests would offer their product solely on its merits, no food regulatory official would ever have objected to it. The sole objection comes from the fact that their attempt has always been to market their product as butter. The American public has always associated yellow color in fats with butter, and it is for this reason that we feel that the use of this color should be confined in these products to butter.

The oleomargarine interests seem to be of the opinion that they are being discriminated against and that theirs is the only product in which the use of color is forbidden. Both State and Federal Governments prohibit the use of artificial color in foods such as canned apricots, canned peaches, canned tomatoes and alimentary pastes, and many others. They also prohibit the use of artificial color in jellies and jams when labeled as pure preserves. The reason that color is

not permitted in these products is because the natural color of the vegetable or fruit is an indication of the quality of the merchandise, and to give it an artificial color would induce the purchaser to believe that the product is better than it really is. While the prohibition of the use of color in these products is not exactly analogous to the case of oleomargarine, still it does have a similarity in that the intention or opportunity at least would exist for the oleomargarine manufacturer to dispose of his product as butter, thus allowing him to represent his product for something better than it is.

Oleomargarine should seek its proper field of competition. Just as condensed milk does not compete with fresh milk, and as corn sirup does not compete with maple sirup, so oleomargarine should not attempt to compete with butter. And of this situation the cotton growers of the Southern States should be aware. The proper field of competition for cottonseed oil and its manufactured products such as Crisco, Snowdrift, and the like should be similar oils and lard, and with the imposing of a proper competitive tariff we think that cottonseed oil could become a legitimate competitor of cocoanut oil. Furthermore, butter, the product of the dairy, has its origin in milk, a mammary secretion. Because of this fact it is different from all other fats, whether they be vegetable or animal. This difference is evidenced in many ways. Chemically the composition of butterfat varies from that of other fats so that it can be very easily distinguished from other fats. Its flavor and aroma are likewise different from that of other fats, and that is the reason in America today that it is the only recognized spread for bread. It would seem that because of these different chemical and physical properties that butter possesses, that Nature has provided for a means of distinguishing it from all other fats.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GEORGE W. SUGDEN, MANKATO, MINN., PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA STATE FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS AND DIRECTOR OF GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

My testimony, in opposition to Representative Fulmer's bill, H. R. 2400, is in the dual capacity of a responsible officer of the Minnesota State Federation of Women's Clubs which has in its membership both city and country women, and as a woman who lives in an urban community but owns three farms, one of which is devoted primarily to dairying.

I believe that Minnesota is a typical State in which the progressive citizens recognize interdependence as between the urban and rural communities to a very great extent, in fact to a major extent. Our towns and cities depend upon the welfare of our farming communities and particularly upon the welfare of the dairy farmers who constitute our largest single element in farming. Recognizing that fact, we have developed a philosophy that goes deeper than the mere question of whether someone, somewhere, can buy something-perhaps not as good-but a little cheaper. In fact our general attitude is not so different from that of our border neighbor to the north, Canada, which for many years has maintained a policy which requires the complete prohibition and sale of oleomargarine.

In facing this fact as a State, however, we took into consideration the fact that the Federal Government in 1886, and by later laws, had

imbedded oleomargarine into the national diet by legislation, which not only was designed to protect the consumer but also to protect the law abiding manufacturer, handler, and seller of the product. An example of our community attitude is shown in the action of the Mankato Chamber of Commerce which has circularized Minnesota Members of Congress in opposition to this bill and has also conveyed its views to similar business bodies in some 14 or 15 States.

Being a State that has a large economic interest in livestock products, aside from dairying, we followed the Federal pattern but required that oleomargarine sold in our State contain 65 percent of domestically produced animal fats. Knowing also that no additional nutrient values could be added and deciding to protect our people from the possibility of fraud and deception, our State prohibited the manufacture and sale, within its borders, of oleomargarine colored in semblance or imitation of butter.

Our experience with our State law has produced good results, but I am advised by State officials responsible for enforcement, that even now it requires them to be constantly on the alert.

In this program of protecting consumers, our State authorities have been greatly aided by the Federal statutes which, in 1902, placed a tax of 10 cents per pound upon the manufacture or sale of colored oleomargarine. Without that tax I am quite sure that the problem of enforcement would be much more difficult and the State cost of enforcement would be much greater since many inspectors would have to be added to our State pay rolls in order to protect our own State law.

I am convinced that the principal issue, as presented by the Fulmer bill, is to permit a vast increase in the production of colored oleomargarine. I am also convinced that if this, or some similar bill, were to become a law, no uncolored oleomargarine would be manufactured except for sale in States like our own which prohibits manufacture and sale of the colored product.

I have been surprised and somewhat shocked to find out how many people are mixed up in their minds as to what the issue is. Many think that the 10-cent tax is upon the uncolored oleomargarine and that if the Fulmer bill passed, the price of oleomargarine would be reduced 10 cents per pound. As a matter of fact, there are no nutritive values in colored oleomargarine which are unpossessed by the uncolored product. The Federal tax on the uncolored product is only one-fourth of a cent a pound. But how we can untangle this misapprehension is one of the problems which must be faced by the thinking people. I think that if the women of our country realized the vast possibilities of deception and fraud which would flow from removing the 10-cent tax, they would resist all arguments to the contrary.

Recently I made inquiry among our State officials who are supervising sanitariums for tuberculosis patients. I asked them whether they served butter or oleomargarine to these patients. Invariably, I received the reply that they served butter only. Also in my home town. of Mankato, our relief organizations, in giving purchase orders for food to the needy, has found that where table fats are to be purchased these people get butter because they also think they have a right to the best natural food available.

So little is really known about the virtues of synthetically produced imitations of butter that I really don't think the time has arrived