With the enactment of these drastic laws of the late eighties and early nineties in this State and the resultant difficulty of maintaining any adequate supplies of colored oleomargarine within the State, the manufacturers moved their headquarters into the State of Wisconsin, centering them in and about Superior, Wis. In this era of Minnesota's history there was a tremendous transient population in the logging and lumber camps and in the mining camps of northern Minnesota. Because of the nature of the location of these camps and the difficulty of getting to them, it was an excellent place to dispose of large quantities of oleomargarine colored to resemble butter. The fact that the dealers continued to try and dispose of their colored oleomargarine in this manner indicates that at all times the thought has been in their minds to reap the large profits that could be obtained by disposing of their product as butter. There can be no doubt that the sales of oleomargarine would have been practically nil had the lumbermen and miners, and in fact any purchaser, known the true nature of the product.

Due to the diligent action of our department, the sales of oleomargarine that were represented as butter gradually decreased; and during the era from 1900 to approximately 1915 the great bulk of oleomargarine which was sold was truthfully represented. Stringent labeling laws and licensing requirements were successful in enforcing the provisions of the law so that the public would be well aware of the true nature of any oleomargarine they purchased. Most of the violations still occurred in public eating places where colored oleomargarine was served at meals and represented to be butter. During the last war when prices skyrocketed the tendency to dispose of oleomargarine as butter again became prevalent. The records of the department show a great increase in the sale of colored oleomargarine during the last war. The reason for this was that the great profits which could be obtained because of the high price of butter made the risk a worth while one for the law violator. The accompanying table, showing the violations both prior to and during the last war demonstrates the truth of these statements.

TABLE I.-Table showing number of samples of butter analyzed and number and percent to consist of oleomargarine

TABLE II.—Table showing number of samples of oleomargarine analyzed and number and percent found colored

As is well known, the era of prosperity generated by the last war continued on until the depression years of the early thirties. During all of this time there was a considerable sale of colored oleomargarine which gradually tapered off as the price of butter declined. When butter had reached its extremely low price in 1932, there was no sale of colored oleomargarine in Minnesota because the risks involved were no longer worth while from a financial standpoint.

This situation has remained up until the present time, but once again with the price on the upgrade, it has become apparent to the distributors of oleomargarine what tremendous profits could accrue to them if they could dispose of their product with artificial color added to it. Today, in addition to the artificial color which they wish to add, they also wish to add imitation flavor and other ingredients which will so closely make their product resemble butter in all characteristics that they feel quite confident that the layman will be unable to distinguish their product from butter. The experienced regulatory official is well aware of this fact and that is the reason he is opposed to the coloring of oleomargarine. From an economic standpoint he feels that it is his duty to assure to the layman genuine butter when he pays the price for it and because of the past history of oleomargarine he feels confident that any relaxing of the present oleomargarine law will only allow history to repeat itself and that once again oleomargarine will be sold to the public as butter.

The regulatory official is only too familiar with the statements and arguments which are presented by interests which, when they feel the time is ripe, seek to have legislation enacted which they know only too well is for the benefit of themselves and which is offered in the guise of being a benefit to the American public.

The case of the substitution of oleomargarine for butter is the reason for the existence of the Minnesota State Department of Agriculture, Dairy, and Food, for this department was created originally to suppress not oleomargarine sold on its merits, but oleomargarine sold to the public as butter.

Today we have the case of cottonseed oil and corn oil being substituted for olive oil. There are many current court actions taken by many States and the Federal Government which involve the substitution of these cheaper oils for olive oil. The olive oil interests in this

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 Amer ican 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