16

operators, and stands in the way of those restaurants that wish to make this particular food available to their patrons.

2. The principle in the law of giving notice when yellow margarine is served is not changed. The method of giving notice is more flexible.

Speaking as one who has had some considerable personal acquaintance with restaurant operations, including our own House restaurant, may I say that this proposal is right in line with the realities of running a good public eating place today, as more and more families have turned to margarine, so are more and more restaurants using it in their cooking or as a table spread.

No one denies their right to do it, and some doctors and patrons encourage them to do it. Because colored margarine so closely resembles butter, Federal and most State laws demand that patrons be notified. I simply propose that the notification be made as simple and therefore as useful as possible.

This proposal is a step toward one of our crying needs, more uniformity and simplicity in laws dealing with informing consumers. There is a maze of State laws covering notice when margarine is served. H.R. 12061 would bring the Federal requirement closer to most State laws.

My own State, Illinois, is moving in that direction. Last year, it simplified the law a bit to bring it more into line with Federal law, and I am sure it will follow our lead if we simplify the Federal, and so will the other 16 States that have the Federal-type law.

The interest of consumers and restaurant operators in simpler, more effective notification is so obvious that I will not go into further explanation. But I would like to recall the hearing before the committee which I chair, the Select Committee on the House Restaurant. We had a hearing last October, you may recall, for we are trying to improve our House Restaurant facilities.

At that hearing we were privileged to have present the wives of several Members of Congress. We also heard testimony about good nutrition from Dr. Jean Mayer, the distinguished nutrition authority and chairman of last year's White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health.

Dr. Mayer gave some interesting testimony. He emphasized the importance of restaurants that try to provide good food in light of modern nutrition, at reasonable prices. He observed that we as Members of Congress are a first "target" in any large-scale nutrition education program in this country. Dr. R. J. Pearson, Jr., attending physician at the Capitol, also gave testimony.

These men are preoccupied with large national questions of good diet and nutrition. We printed in the hearings reports two dietary booklets recommending certain margarines. We have some of those books, and I would ask you to keep them in your files.

Dr. Mayer spoke for 45 minutes. I chaired the committee. The Congressmen's wives there were all very interested.

The restaurant industry is right in the front line of American eating. Anything we can do to remove unnecessary regulations and costs from food and eating places is a step forward.

17

You remember, Mr. Chairman, and you, too, Mr. Rogers, some years ago when Hamer Budge, now with the SEC, introduced legislation for the trout farmers. This bill was on the floor for 3 days. It would have required the restaurant industry to put up big signs at conspicuous places that we serve "un-American" trout if it was Japanese, Danish, or other trout.

This bill before us now is a good one. Believe me, I do not like to have a big sign posted about serving food when it is stated on the menu. I would appreciate it if we got action on this legislation. Thank

you.

Mr. JARMAN. Let us be clear. In your opinion, would the simple solution be to have it on the menu?

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Perhaps, for those eating places with menus. The point is to do away with double advertising or notification.

Mr. JARMAN. Congressman, let me ask one question off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Kluczynski, don't you think it would be one way to simply put it on the menu?

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. For restaurants with menus, that would be all. That would cover everything.

Mr. ROGERS. Fine.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kluczynski, I was down in the restaurant here-off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. NELSEN. Some years ago many of the States levied taxes on the sale of oleo margarine, and I recall in our own State of MinnesotaI, a dairy farmer, opposed the levying of a tax on this competitive product on the basis that this would be contrary to our free enterprise system.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Yes.

Mr. NELSEN. But I held tenaciously to our right to the color. My criticism of the oleo people is that they do attempt to imitate the color to promote the sale of their product, and I think the public should be notified. I would agree, however, that maybe we do have too many rules and regulations.

You are always a pleasant and interesting witness to have before us. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. You are very fine this morning, and I hope you keep that spirit until we get this bill out.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Preyer.

Mr. PREYER. No questions.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clear up my thinking about if it would be sufficient on the menu. I think probably we would have to have either a sign posted or a note on the menu because of cafeterias. Would that be true?

Mr. RIEPMA. Yes. The restaurant should be given flexibility.

Mr. ROGERS. So you would need either the notice or the note on the

menu.

Mr. RIEPMA. I might say the response from the Budget Bureau raised a question about the triangle. I leave the degree of flexibility to the wisdom of the committee. But obviously different types of restaurant operations have to be considered; self-service and others.

18

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JARMAN. The Chair might say there are other representatives of various organizations listed for this hearing. I assume that most of these will want to submit statements for the record, but the Chair would like to give this opportunity to anyone to add to the hearing or to submit statements.

Mr. RIEPMA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding they all have or shortly will submit statements to you.

Mr. JARMAN. Well, the committee will certainly accept these statements for the record.

If there is nothing additional this morning, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.

(The following statements and letters were received for the record :) STATEMENT OF LAURENCE W. BUCKMASTER, VICE PRESIDENT, CHICAGO & ILLINOIS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION

The existing federal requirement is an extravagantly overdone way of advising patrons when they can get or are getting margarine. As you know, it requires two things to be done, notice on wall or menu, and also serving identification by labeling or triangular shape. Any one of these is ample. I know of no pure food that has to be presented to customers in eating places under such a double, duplicating system.

The Chicago & Illinois Restaurant Association services 3500 members. I have heard many complaints about this law from operators who wanted to use or serve margarine and were very glad to put up a notice or buy the required labeled or shaped pats, but objected doing both. If the law was intended to put margarine in a bad light, it has done so.

More and more of our eating places are using margarine for cooking or serving. What to serve should be the choice of the restaurant operator. He will, however, be guided by his customers' wants. Many who eat away from home ask for margarine, because their doctor has recommended they use this particular form of table spread.

We do not favor one food over any other, but we do favor reasonable requirements. Costs of doing business have risen and continue to rise, and the double requirement adds extra work and expense with no real useful result.

Our Illinois law is much the same as the federal law; in fact it was patterned on the federal provision that H.R. 12061 would simplify. Therefore our members have had considerable experience with this requirement at both the state and federal levels. We favor the single notification method in both federal and state law as fully protective of consumers, reasonable to ask of the operator, and simpler for regulatory officials to enforce.

Our organization thanks you for your interest in this subject. Please put this statement in the record of the hearings on H.R. 12061.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. BROWN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard W. Brown. I am the Executive Vice President of the National Restaurant Association, a trade association which represents the foodservice industry nationwide. We represent all types of restaurants and all facets of the industry. We have about 15,000 members of our own, and, through affiliation with state and local restaurant associations, we represent approximately 110,000 foodservice establishments of all kinds.

It is a privilege and a pleasure to present you our views on the legislative proposal, the bill, H.R. 15819 (H.R. 12061), relating to service of margarine in public eating establishments.

It is pertinent to note at the start that the bill, H.R. 15819 (H.R. 12061) and the law it would amend pertain only to colored margarine.

19

As you know, the current Federal law on this subject requires several actions by a restaurant operator who wishes to serve margarine whether in response to a specific request from an individual patron or as an economic measure to reduce the overall cost for his clientele. The requirements of the law, as it is presently written, apply to two separate aspects of the serving operation. The first applies to having colored margarine on the premises in a form ready to serve and the second to the actual service. The actual requirements are not complex, but they are needlessly redundant and burdensome.

Let me review them briefly. If a restaurant operator wants to have margarine on the premises in a form suitable for serving, he must either (1) post a prominent and conspicuous notice that margarine is served OR (2) he must print a notice to that effect on the menu in lettering not smaller than that used for other food items listed. Then, if he actually serves margarine, to one or to all of his patrons, he must either (1) label each serving, OR (2) make the margarine serving triangular in shape.

In our view, this is a cumbersome approach that can result, and often will result, in misleading, rather than informing, the restaurant customer.

Many restaurateurs have patrons who for dietary or other reasons prefer margarine to butter, or such a choice may even be dictated for them by a physician. To be able to meet the requirements of such customers, the restaurant operator must, either by prominent sign or a notice on his menu, announce that margarine is served. If it is being served only on request of the individual patron, this is an unduly burdensome requirement and may well be misleading to the majority of the restaurant's patrons. No such requirement is imposed for many other foods or drinks that are maintained by most restaurants in order to meet the occasional request for them from individual patrons.

The bill you have under consideration, H.R. 15819 (H.R. 12061), will provide for clear notification when colored margarine is served and thus preclude any misrepresentation to the consumer. Under the provisions of the bill, H.R. 15819 (H.R. 12061), the restaurateur could select the method of notification best suited to his clientele and his place of business. He can be responsive to the needs and wishes of individual patrons, as we want him to be, with no risk of misleading his general patronage.

We believe it to be worth noting that the bill, H.R. 15819 (H.R. 12061) does not remove the requirement to inform the customer of the fact that he is being served margarine, nor does it change the forms of notice considered acceptable under existing law. If enacted, this proposal would simply allow the restaurateur to make the notification in the most direct and least ambiguous and misleading way, considering the nature of his patronage.

In summary, we view the bill, H.R. 15819 (H.R. 12061), as a reasonable, logical, and desirable change to existing law. It reflects an appreciation of the changes that have occurred in dietary habits of many Americans and allows the restaurateur to cater to the wishes of individual patrons, with no risk that any guest in his establishment will be misled as to the nature of the product being served. The fact that this can be accomplished by making present standards less awkward and more readily understandable by both the restaurateur and his patrons is all to the good.

The National Restaurant Association supports the bill, H.R. 15819 (H.R. 12061) or other measures which have the same end in view, and recommends its enactment into law.

Hon. JOHN JARMAN,

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION,
New York, N.Y., August 14, 1970.

Chairman, Committee on Health and Public Welfare,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. JARMAN: I should like to inform you of the American Heart Association's interest in H.R. 12061, the proposal to facilitate the use of margarine in eating places without interfering with patrons' ability to eat food of their choice. In substance, your bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (Sec. 407 (c)) to create a single method type of notification instead of the rather unwieldy and restrictive double method now required by the federal law.

20

I am sure all those who prefer margarine, including those whose doctors recommend they use it, will benefit from this change. The present requirement is much too restrictive for effective use.

Many heart specialists today believe, as does the American Heart Association, that dietary management is one reasonable preventive measure against heart attacks. Such dietary management includes an emphasis on controlling fat intake and emphasizing those fats which are higher in polyunsaturated fatty acids. Most margarines are higher in the content of polyunsaturated fatty acids than butter and certain "special margarines" are quite high in those components. Many patients take their meals away from home. Therefore, anything that will help them obtain the foods we recommend is beneficial. By causing the federal margarine serving requirements in restaurants to be easier to comply with, H.R. 12061 is a step in the right direction.

This is to ask you to incorporate this letter in the record of the hearings. Very truly yours,

CAMPBELL MOSES, M.D.,

Medical Director.

Hon. JOHN JARMAN,

AMERICAN HOTEL & MOTEL ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., August 12, 1970.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Attention: Ted Focht, special counsel.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The American Hotel & Motel Association is a federation of hotel and motel associations located in the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, having a membership in excess of 7,500 hotels and motels containing in excess of 800,000 rentable rooms. The American Hotel & Motel Association maintains offices at 221 West 57th Street, New York, New York, and at 777 14th Street NW., Washington, D.C.

We would like to comment briefly on H.R. 12061 pending before your Subcommittee. We strongly favor this legislation which would amend Section 407(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended [21 U.S.C. 347 (c)]. The enactment of H.R. 12061 would be a decided improvement in present law. At the same time it would continue to serve the interests of the consumers by informing them when "colored oleomargarine" is used at a public eating place.

The present restrictions on the sale or serving of oleomargarine in public eating places are impractical and cumbersome and serve neither the public, the business community, nor the enforcement agency. H.R. 12061 would simplify present restrictions without doing damage to any group.

We would like to suggest one other modification. Many of our members serve colored oleomargarine by request only. We ask that any legislation which you may favorably report contain an exemption from the restrictive provisions on the serving of colored oleomargarine where such a product is served only at the request of a patron.

We request that this letter be included in the printed record of the hearings. Sincerely,

Hon. JOHN JARMAN,

ALBERT L. MCDERMOTT, Washington Representative.

AMERICAN NURSING HOME ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., August 7, 1970.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In behalf of the members of the American Nursing Home Association, a federation of forty-eight state nursing home associations, we would like to endorse H.R. 12061, introduced by Rep. Michel (R-Ill.) and Rep. Kluczynski (D-Ill.), and H.R. 15819, by Rep. Friedel (D-Md.), which has been scheduled for consideration by your Subcommittee.