11 STATEMENT OF S. F. RIEPMA, PRESIDENT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARGARINE MANUFACTURERS Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: My name is Siert F. Riepma. I am president of the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers, a trade association representing most of the producers of margarine. I believe that my remarks express the view of the entire industry and also of the agricultural producers and the processors of margarine ingredients. Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you in connection with the proposal H.R. 12061 and also the identical bill H.R. 15819. These bills relate specifically and only to the notice that eating place operators are required to give patrons when yellow margarine is served. Their purpose is not to remove the federal law on notification but to make it a better law by simplifying it. The present law has a double requirement for consumer notification that is unique in federal and state requirements for any food. The operator of a restaurant serving yellow margarine must notify the patron in two ways: (1) by notice, which may be a wall notice or a menu statement, and (2) by individual serving labeling, which may be by some kind of labeling of the pat of margarine or the dish on which it is served, or by the pat being in a triangular shape. This requirement is in Section 406 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It was put there when Congress, in 1950, removed the old federal taxes on margarine (Act of March 16, 1950, 64 Stat. 20; copy enclosed). There was concern in Congress that patrons in public eating places should be notified by package labeling. There was also a desire that the eating place operator have reasonable options as to how he would notify. At that time most states had laws for restaurant notification when margarine is served. They still do. (A summary of the state requirements is appended to this statement.) The act of 1950 established federal jurisdiction on top of the states' jurisdictions on the basis that the commerce power justified such an extension of federal authority into intrastate business. Over the years the enforcement agency, the Food and Drug Administration, reported the percentage of violations to be decreasing. In 1960 the Commissioner told a committee of Congress that he preferred local to federal enforcement of this type of consumer protection, and that "It is hard to justify putting very much money into finding out whether a restaurant is selling oleomargarine as butter when we have not been able to uncover all the cancer cures" (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings... Labor-Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations (Washington, 1960), p. 262). The situation is much different now from what it was in 1950. Americans today are eating out more than ever before. Margarine use in homes has increased two and a third times. Restaurants have increased their use of margarine also, both as a cooking ingredient and as a served food. The amount of margarine utilized in restaurants is not known; one general estimate is 100 million pounds per year. While margarine is now becoming a commonly used food away from home as it has become in the home, after the experience of twenty years, the federal double notification law can only be regarded as difficult to enforce, burdensome to comply with, and not returning demonstrable benefit to anyone. The states have the original margarine notification laws, and their experience is instructive. When in 1950 the federal double notification requirement was enacted, most states already permitted yellow margarine in eating places, nearly all with some form of single notification. None of them found it necessary to adopt the federal double notification. Indeed, some states relaxed their laws on the use of yellow margarine in eating places. All the states that did not permit the sale of yellow margarine have since acted to repeal such prohibitions. In the process some have adopted the federal language. It is reasonable to believe that they will follow the example of Congress if it enacts H.R. 12061 or H.R. 15819. Meanwhile such enactment would create more, not less, uniformity with existing state laws. One of the states with a federal-type law is New York. It is interesting that when New York later enacted notice requirements for certain substitute dairy products called "melloream," the regulations adopted required only one of several 12 optional means of notifying patrons. Apparently this single notification was deemed preferable to the double notification for margarine which had been copied from the federal law. (During the last session a bill was introduced and approved by a committee to convert margarine notification to single method, just as H.R. 12061 would do.) Undeniably the federal double requirement presents the eating place operator with a bewildering and unusual job of complying with the law. It is hardly surprising that many eating place operators regard compliance as just too much red tape. They have enough to do to stay in business in the face of rising food and labor costs. A great many Americans are now getting a substantial part of their eating done away from home. Many use margarine at home, and many have been directed to use margarine by their physicians. Enactment of H.R. 12061 or H.R. 15819 will help make this nutritious food available to them without sacrificing the principle of notification. Indeed, by simplifying the requirement we will encourage compliance and make enforcement easier. I respectfully request your distinguished Committee to report affirmatively one of the bills, H.R. 12061 and H.R. 15819, as a needed and desirable modernization of an outmoded federal provision that hinders, rather than helps, consumer protection, business enterprise, and the proper regulatory functions of the federal government. 13 SPECIAL STATE LAWS CONCERNING MARGARINE IN PUBLIC EATING PLACES-Continued Mr. JARMAN. Next we shall hear from our colleague from the State of Texas, the Honorable W. R. Poage. Mr. Poage has a brief statement he would like to present to the committee. Welcome, sir. Proceed as you see fit. STATEMENT OF HON. W. R. POAGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, I appreciate this opportunity to offer my views on the bills before you, H.R. 12061, and H.R. 15819, by my distinguished colleagues, Representatives Kluczynski and Michel, and Representative Friedel, respectively. I endorse the proposal in these bills to simplify the present burdensome requirements in the Federal law. I must say I sympathize with those who have had to comply and enforce those unusual requirements. The real benefactors of the change, however, will be the many Americans who are eating away from home and who for one reason or another would like to be able to choose between margarine and butter. Both foods are good products of our agriculture and our food industry. As the original author of the present requirement, in section 407 (C) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, it is my feeling that these proposals are fully in harmony with the original purpose, which was to notify patrons in a reasonable and suitable manner. When the House adopted my proposal removing the old margarine taxes in 1949, it thereby adopted what we then considered to be a useful notification rule, requiring notice by sign or menu and also identification of each serving. In the course of the debate the House further adopted an amendment allowing triangular shape to be one form of identifying each serving. The Senate and House Conference Committee then adopted this notification provision without comment. Twenty years have gone by. Margarine has become the principal table spread. It is understandable that restaurants should be using it increasingly. It seems both timely and appropriate to replace the double-notification requirement with a single notification one, as the bills before you propose. Thank you for your consideration. 70-212 O 714 14 Mr. JARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Poage, for taking time from your busy schedule to share your thoughts with us today. Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it has been my pleasure. Mr. JARMAN. We understand that Mr. Sam D. Fine, Associate Commissioner for Compliance of the Food and Drug Administration is in the hearing room. Mr. Fine, would you have any comments to make on the proposed legislation? STATEMENT OF SAM D. FINE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLIANCE, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. FINE. Sir, our comments were given by the Secretary in a letter to your committee on February 20. I think it would be appropriate if I read a portion of that letter into the record, if I may. Mr. JARMAN. That letter will be a part of our record, of course. "We would have no objection to amending the act to require only a single notice in restaurants that margarine is served. A prominently displayed sign, a conspicuous notice in the menu or labeling stamped on or accompanying individual portions should adequately protect the consumer against deception. However, we would recommend against inclusion of the fourth option i.e., serving individual portions which are triangular in shape. We doubt that this option alone sufficiently informs the consumer that he is being served margarine." You see, in the bill you have four options. There are "ors" in each case there, and you could end up with nothing to inform the consumer except a triangular shape, and if you are in a rather warm restaurant and the triangular shape starts melting, it could appear to be that other spread, the more expensive spread." Mr. JARMAN. Let me see if I understand what you just said. Doesn't H.R. 12061 remove that second requirement so that it would leave it under the terms of that bill, simply a posting of a sign on the wall or making a statement on the menu? Mr. FINE. As I understand it, and again looking at our bill report, you have four options: One, a notice that is displayed conspicuously, or a notice that is set forth in the menu, or that each serving be labeled, or that each serving be in the triangular shape. Mr. ROGERS. That is present law. Mr. JARMAN. That is section 407. Mr. FINE. The present law requires a dual way of telling you that oleomargarine is being served. Under the present law you will have this information on the menu or on the wall, and you will have it on the serving or a triangular pat. Under this bill, you could end up with no words. All you could end up with would be a triangular pat as one of the four options. Mr. JARMAN. In leaving four options, would this make for the uniformity that we are seeking through this legislation? Mr. FINE. We say in our bill report of February 20 that we doubt that the fourth option alone is sufficient to inform the consumer. There 15 are no words to tell him this. All he can do is look at the shape of the pat. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, why wouldn't it be just as well to set one requirement, that it be stated on the menu; isn't that the best method to get it across to the patron? Mr. FINE. Yes, I would think so. Mr. ROGERS. Let us say that. Mr. FINE. I would think so. Mr. ROGERS. Would you have any objection to that? Mr. FINE. I would have no objection to that. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JARMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. FINE. Thank you. Mr. JARMAN. The Chair has noted the presence now of our good friend and colleague, Congressman John Kluczynski of Illinois who has just come in by plane to Washington and reached the committee room. It is a great pleasure, John, to have you with us. We have gone ahead with the beginning of the hearing, and we would appreciate any comments that you would like to make. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have a prepared statement, and if it is all right I will read it, or put it in the record. Mr. JARMAN. The committee will be glad to hear you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. All right, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The bill before your distinguished committee is H.R. 12061, which bears my name and also that of our colleague Representative Michel from Illinois. Another esteemed friend, Representative Friedel, has introduced an identical bill which you also have before you. The purpose of H.R. 12061 is so simple that I can describe it in just two sentences. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 407 (c), requires public eating place managers possessing colored margarine to make that fact known to their patrons by double notification-a notice on the wall or in the menu, plus identifying each serving or making their serving triangular in shape. H.R. 12061 would make a single form of notice sufficient instead of the existing double notice. Under H.R. 12061 an eating place operator would comply by doing any one of the four things already in the lawwall notice, menu notice, labeling each serving, or using triangular pats. The reasons for this bill I will sum up as follows: 1. The double notice requirement is not necessary, has proved difficult to enforce, is unnecessarily burdensome on eating place |