interest of but a handful of American citizens. The dairy industry is the financial livelihood of 1 out of every 15 of this country's 130,000,000 souls. Oleo has and can have little effect on winning the war; the dairy industry of America stands out as a No. 1 war essential industry. Oleo has little appeal to our lend-lease neighbors; products of the dairy industry are insisted upon for shipment abroad. The American Jersey Cattle Club represents a sizable part of the dairy industry of America. According to Government figures, 42 percent of all dairy cows in America are of the Jersey breed. Our interest in any legislative plans the oleo people may have is exceedingly great. We have no objection to oleo being offered for sale as such to the American people. We have no objection to it going abroad in lendlease as oleo. We have no objection to oleo advertising its products as such, or telling the truth fully as to what goes into its manufacture. We do vigorously oppose any and all attempts at imitation and resulting fraud. If the unregulated, untaxed, premeditated imitation that the oleo people ask is permitted, there could be but one result and that would be thousands of innocent people being sold a product for butter that is not butter. The price spread of 27 cents today between the two products is ample reason for the above thinking. We do vigorously oppose any and all attempts to take oleo out of the immediate control of the Department of Internal Revenue. The tax on uncolored oleo serves the very useful purpose of keeping this minority group where the public's interest will be protected. We do vigorously oppose any and all attempts to reduce the tax on yellow oleo. There is only one purpose in adding color to this product and that is to make it appear as butter. The tax here should be maintained for the same reason that it was first legislated into law, and that is to make oleo sell on its own and not masquerade as another product-butter. Give the imitator any color but yellow, the long recognized color of butter and butterfat. We do vigorously oppose any and all attempts at advertising, use of Government influence, and testimony of partially experienced scientists who would lead the public to think that any substitute product is equal to butter in nutritive value for the human body. Great scientists (Hart, Elvehjem, McCollum, and others) are still finding superior factors contained only in butterfat. We would emphasize the fact that butter is forced to demand many ration points--more than does its imitator oleo. We would further caution all who are faced by the powerful and high financial interest behind the substitute product that there is a sizable spread between its production and manufacturing cost and its retail possibilities. By contrast, butter is produced, manufactured, and distributed on a strict and narrow spread that in many instances, past and present, the retail price of such has not paid the actual cost involved. The yellow oleo tax should be unchanged and maintained as a protection for the American consuming public and for the economic purpose of agriculture's largest single group. Nothing should be permitted to interrupt, jeopardize, or hazard the production of milk and butterfat on American farms, already harried by labor, machinery and feed shortages on the one hand, rationing, "freezes" and subsidies on the other. STATEMENT OF G. J. ZIMMERMAN, OMAHA, NEBR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NEBRASKA COOPERATIVE CREAMERIES Nebraska people are opposed to H. R. 2400 repealing Federal oleomargarine legislation because: (1) Oleomargarine is a competitive product to butter and to protect the consumer must be governed by certain standards. The people of Nebraska would be against repeal of butter standards as well. (2) We believe that no unfair burden should be placed on oleomargarine sold as such but believe any oleomargarine made to resemble butter should be prohibited. In the event that it is impossible to prohibit the manufacture of oleomargarine made to resemble butter, a tax exceeding the difference between the manufacturing cost of butter and oleomargarine should be levied on oleomargarine if it is colored any shade of yellow. Oleomargarine colored any other primary color should be free of color tax and should bear only enough tax to absorb the expense of policing and managing the sale of oleomargarine. * * * (3) Enforcement must not be relaxed. At this time, oleomargarine is being served in any number of eating places. A recent case involving an Omaha hotel can be cited to show reasons for vigilance in the Nebraska law which provides that, "No owner, manager, or employee of any place where food is served to the public shall offer, deliver or serve in any way to any person therein, whether compensation there for is received or not, any imitation butter or imitation cheese, having a yellow color or any shade of genuine yellow, unless the person so served is notified either by a statement on each bill of fare or by distinctly legible printed signs or verbally at the time said imitation butter is served." The hotel referred to above printed on their menus information advising that due to the butter shortage oleomargarine would be served on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of each week. They were found serving oleomargarine on Tuesday, made possible because they had colored oleomargarine. If the public is to be protected, regulations and enforcement must be maintained. Due to the difficulty in protecting the consumer, either the manufacture and sale of yellow oleomargarine should be prohibited or ample taxes should be collected to insure adequate enforcement. * * * (4) Certain sections of the Federal regulations provide severe penalties for failure to comply with the regulations. Oleomargarine interests are all out for repeal. This should serve as a warning that they contemplate operating their industry contrary to the methods permitted by the regulations. Among these regulations are specifications for the style, weight of package, cost levels, records to be kept, bonds, definitions for wholesalers, and other requirements designed to protect the consumer. In no way can these regulations be interpreted as a protection for the dairy industry, but their enactment was inspired by the desire to protect the public. (5) Any claim that repeal is desired because of the butter shortage is branded untrue by the announcement recently by the War Production Board that we are experiencing a shortage of all fats. (6) Any claim that repeal is desired to give the poor man a spread for his bread is branded untrue by past history of the oleomargarine industry wherein the price of the product has never been governed by the cost but by the price of butter. In other words, in the past the price of oleomargarine has always fluctuated with the market quotations on butter. STATEMENT OF KARL B. MUSSER, SECRETARY, THE AMERICAN GUERNSEY CATTLE CLUB, PETERBORO, N. H. House of Representatives bill, H. R. 2400, should be killed in committee. Even consideration of it on the floor of Congress would be detrimental to the war effort consisting of needed production of vital dairy products. Dairymen feel that their efforts in protecting this vital industry over a period of 25 years would be wiped out and the future is black. In addition to the unfairness of misleading the public by making every effort to approach the true product, butter, in flavor and color, we do not yet know what harm may be done to the health of the American people by depriving them of it through discouraging the production. STATEMENT OF FLOYD S. BARLOW, OF WOOSTER, OHIO, FIELD SECRETARY, THE OHIO GUERNSEY BREEDERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. I, Floyd S. Barlow, field secretary of the Ohio Guernsey Breeders' Association, Wooster, Ohio, represent 300 owners of purebred Guernsey cattle, who are leaders among dairymen of the State of Ohio, present our reasons why we believe bill H. R. 2400 before the House of Representatives should not be enacted: 1. We do not believe the elimination of the oleo tax at this time would in any way help the present food-fat situation. It would not, in our opinion, relieve the butter situation or make more oleo available because of the shortage of all fats. 2. We believe that since no conceivable good can be accomplished by removing the tax now, it should remain to continue with the return of normal times to serve the public-both consumers and dairymen alike. Oleomargarine is one product and butter another. The law should continue to differentiate between the two products so that one does not infringe upon the other and that there may always be a clear distinction easily understood and recognizable by those who buy either. STATEMENT OF THE MINNESOTA DAIRY INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, ST. PAUL, MINN. The Minnesota Dairy Industry Committee is composed of members representing State and regional organizations. Its members are: E. H. Phillips, Swift & Co., South St. Paul, Minn., Minnesota Egg, Butter, and Poultry Association. T. T. Wing, St. Paul, Minn., Dairy Products Association of the Northwest. A. D. Sibbald St. Paul, Minn., Northwest Creamery Owners' Association. W. S. Moscrip, Lake Elmo, Minn., Twin City Milk Producers' Association, W. B. Fadden, St. Paul, Minn., Minnesota Association of Direct Cream Shipper Creameries. (Vacancy), Associated Milk Dealers of Minneapolis and St. Paul. R. A. Trovatten, St. Paul, Minn., Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Dairy and Food. Bernhard Swenson, St. Paul, Minn., Department of Agriculture, Dairy and Food. W. B. Combs, division of dairy husbandry, University of Minnesota. The officers of the Minnesota Dairy Industry Committee are: D. T. Carlson, president; John Brandt, vice president; Oscar Swenson, treasurer; W. B. Combs, secretary; J. B. Fitch, assistant secretary. 1. It is the desire of the Minnesota Dairy Industry Committee to enter a protest against House Resolution 2400, now before the House Agricultural Committee of the United States Congress. The Minnesota Dairy Industry Committee is made up of all branches of the State's dairy industry. The State of Minnesota ranks second to Wisconsin in total milk production, and with its annual production of more than 300,000,000 pounds, is the leading butter State of the Union. Dairying is the principal industry of the State. Minnesota dairy farmers, therefore, have a keen interest in any legislation that promises to place a product on American markets which would be made to imitate butter. This, in our opinion, would be the result should H. R. 2400 be enacted. 2. Butter is manufactured in every State in the Union, about 38 percent of it in farmer-owned and controlled creameries. These farmer-owned factories are perhaps the most important factor in setting the prices paid by all types of creameries for the raw material from which butter is made, with the result that a greater percentage of the consumer dollar is returned to the producer than is true of any major agricultural product. Furthermore, this widespread participation of the farmer in its manufacture prevents monopolistic control and distribution of the butter business. This is contrary to the situation that exists in the manufacture of oleomargarine. Oleomargarine is manufactured by a relatively small number of corporate organizations and in only a few States. This situation lends itself to monopoly, and if further advantage were given by the repeal of the present existing regulations, it might readily encourage the centralization of ownership and control of the production and distribution of a product for which proponents of the Fulmer bill make so many claims. It is a fact that there are no farmer-owned or controlled plants manufacturing oleomargarine. There is no evidence to be found that the farmer has ever been interested in the production of oleomargarine. On the other hand, we do know that the manufacture of butter, cheese, and ice cream originated on the farm. We find farmers the world over cooperating in the manufacture of butter and cheese and in the handling of milk and its products. Oleomargarine is a manufactured product, made in imitation of the very product on which a large proportion of the farmers of Minnesota and America depend for their livelihood. 3. If oleomargarine is permitted to be sold on the market without a 10-cent tax, it would become practically impossible for any department of the Government to enforce a regulation which would require that this product be properly labeled when sold on the markets in the United States. The result is likely to be that the American housewife, the American laborer, and their children would be sold an imitation product without their knowledge. Labeling of such products is not a suf ficient safeguard against fraud. Past experience has proven this fact beyond doubt, and by no means can any argument be set up which would prove this statement untrue. The Fulmer bill would have the effect of permitting fraudulent practices to exist in the distribution of a product made in imitation of butter. 4. Should oleomargarine be colored yellow in semblance of butter, such a product might easily be mistaken for butter by the consumer. It is our contention that a 10-cent-per-pound tax on this product is essential, that the consumer may clearly understand that she is purchasing an imitated product. Butter has been known for generations for its delicate golden yellow color. The public has become accustomed to think of butter as possessing a yellow color. The addition of yellow color to a product made in imitation of butter is deceiving and tends toward fraud. It is a direct attempt to give the impression that the product is exactly like butter. By incorporating yellow color in oleomargarine to make it look like butter does not add to the nutritive value of the product. The dairy farmer and the consumer have a right to expect any product made in imitation of butter to be regulated in its sale and distribution by the Federal Government. A tax of onefourth cent per pound, which permits Government regulation and control, is not an exorbitant tax. The need of a tax for control was recognized as early as 1886. 5. If oleomargarine is permitted to be sold on the market without a 10-cent tax, it would be practically impossible for any department of the Government to enforce any regulation that might require that this product be properly labeled when sold on the markets in the United States. And even the labeling of such products is not a sufficient safeguard against fraud. 6. Furthermore, it is our contention that, should the tax and other regulations pertaining to oleomargarine be removed, as is proposed by the Fulmer bill, the ultimate result would be the sale to the public of a cheap fat at a high and unfair price. The suspicion may be justified that if the oleomargarine interests were permitted to color their product in imitation of butter, they would increase the price to the consuming public. Under present conditions, the consumer can purchase these products for more nearly what they are worth. 7. Under present regulations, oleomargarine may be made to contain up to 0.01 percent, by weight, of a preservative, sodium benzoate or benzoic acid, or their combinations. Such a product is not permitted in the manufacture of butter. Such a product certainly does not add to the food value of oleomargarine. This same statement holds true in the case of other ingredients that are permitted by regulation to be added to oleomargarine, namely, emulsifying agents and diacetyl, a flavoring agent. 8. Canada does not permit the sale of oleomargarine. It does have one or two oleomargarine manufacturing plants, but those plants manufacture oleomargarine solely for export to England. 9. We have many protests coming from consumers at this time which indicate their dissatisfaction with attempts to force oleomargarine into consumptive channels in this country. It is contended that if oleomargarine is of the high nutritive value that is claimed by its manufacturers, this product could well be delivered for lend-lease to foreign countries and leave butter for our military forces and civilian use, and |