Senator, I do remember I chaired the committee when we had Dr. Mayer there and he spoke to the Congressmen's wives and some of the Senators' wives. I watched the reaction of the women, and he did a marvelous job after 45 minutes telling what to eat and how to eat, and I told him that he had done a marvelous job and I am sure that the ladies enjoyed every moment of it. They said they were going to come out with some very good cookbooks and let the Congressmen and Senators know what and how to eat. Senator KENNEDY. Very good. You bring an enormous background of experience and understanding on this particular question. I know you have studied it extensively, followed it closely, and have been in touch with not only those that have been involved with the restaurant business, but also nutritionists and dietitians, so I think you present some very powerful testimony this morning. I want to thank you very much. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Fine, thank you. Happy to be here, Senator. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I request at this time that the prepared statement of Congressman Michel be inserted in the record. (The prepared statement of Congressman Michel follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I do appreciate the opportunity to make this statement in support of this legislation to simplify notification in public eating places where colored margarine is served. The bill which I co-sponsored with Representative Kluczynski, H.R. 2166, was approved by the House in April, and I hope your consideration here will result in early, favorable action on this proposal. The existing law, Section 407 (c) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended, requires a special and unique dual notification to be given restaurant customers that margarine is being served. This is to be accomplished by a sign on the wall or a statement on the menu, and by labeling each individual serving, or by using a triangular-shaped serving. The legislation before you would establish a single notice requirement, giving the restaurant the option to use any one of the first three methods I just named. The double requirement is simply unnecessary. A sign on the wall, a menu statement, or a labeled serving can each provide sufficient notice to patrons. No other food is required to have a double notice, to my knowledge. The idea may have seemed feasible in 1950, but it certainly has proved to be a burdensome requirement, and one not easily complied with or enforced. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration is not enforcing this regulation, pleading lack of funds before our appropriations subcommittee on Agriculture, Environmental and Consumer Protection. Reducing the requirements to wall or menu notification would make enforcement much simplier. And simplification of the federal requirement would encourage uniformity among the various State laws on notification, as well as relieve restaurant managers of an unnecessary burden on small business. Changing the law would not result in any reduction of protection to consumers. The real protection value of the law, it seems to me, would be enhanced by making it simpler to understand and enforce. Many patrons of public eating places are under doctor's orders to use margarine. As it stands now, the federal notification requirement makes it more difficult than is necessary for a restaurant to offer it. No other change in the margarine law is involved, and the Bureau of the Budget advises they have no objection to the legislation, nor do the other federal agencies from which reports were requested. At present, most States also have notification laws concerning the serving of oleo margarine. These laws are frequently revised, and the trend is toward uniformity with federal requirements. The proposed change in the federal law would not, of course, of itself change these or other State laws. I should also emphasize that this is not a bill to promote one product over another. Margarine and butter are both good farm products. We produce both in Illinois. Since the law was enacted in 1950 requiring notification when colored margarine is served in restaurants, we have had an agricultural revolution that has played a part in margarine becoming the leading table spread. But the main thing is that we should have the same freedom of choice with these two products that we have with all other foods. Organizations which have indicated they favor this legislation are the American I Heart Association, the American Nursing Home Association, Inc., the American Soybean Association, the Corn Refiners Association, the Illinois and Chicago Restaurant Association, the Land of Lincoln Soybean Association, the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers, the National Cottonseed Products Association, the National Restaurant Association, and the National Soybean Processors Association. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the proponents of this proposal feel that one method of giving notice is sufficient and that a requirement for the use of more than one method is unnecessarily burdensome upon the restauranteur. Besides this, it is the only food product I know of for which double notification is required. As I mentioned, H.R. 2166 was passed by the House with virtual unanimity, and an identical bill was approved the same way last year. I urge favorable action by your Committee so that this modernization of law can be accomplished before the end of this session. By way of rounding out the record, I ask that it include, along with my remarks, a statement concerning the nutritional role of margarine, which was submitted on request for the House hearing record last year by Mr. S. F. Riepma, president of the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of the Committee for affording me the opportunity to make this statement. (The information previously referred to follows:) THE NUTRITIONAL ROLE OF MARGARINE Much has been written on the nutritional role of margarine, by scientists and physicians as well as by nutritionists and food experts. A book on margarine is anticipated to be published this winter, and the following main points are drawn from the chapter on nutrition that has been prepared for that work. 1. Since before World War II, it has been generally recognized that, basically, margarine is the nutritional equivalent of good dairy butter. Both spreads contain about 3,300 calories or units of food energy per pound. Both have vitamin A; all table margarine is fortified to provide a minimum of 15,000 U.S.P. units of this vitamin per pound, while the quantity in butter is variable but is presumed to average about the same. 2. All margarine is 80 percent fat. The remainder of the product is chiefly skim milk, or, sometimes, water. The milk solids content of the skim milk amount to about 1.5% of the product weight. Most margarines are salted; the salt is from 2 to 3 percent of the product weight. In all these respects margarine and butter are generally alike. 3. Margarine may be composed of one or more vegetable oils brought together to make up the fat content. Most margarines use nothing but vegetable oils, the leading one by far being refined soybean oil. Second comes corn oil and third is cottonseed oil. Such margarines are made under the Food and Drug Administration's Standard for margarine. Some margarines are made in part or wholly with animal fat, usually pure lard. These are made under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Standard for margarine. Butter, of course, has its fat content composed entirely of milkfat, an animal fat. 4. Margarine comes in a variety of types, and it can be "designed" to offer a range of nutritional or other characteristics. Most margarine is the plastic, vegetable oil product familiar to consumers. There are however, margarines that are made to be all-vegetable (vegetarian), kosher, low-salt, and high in polyunsaturated fatty adids (the latter are sometimes called "special margarines" and may feature corn oil and safflower oil as well as soybean oil). This letter is in response to your request during the Section 407 was added to the Federal Food, Drug, and The enforcement of this provision was begun in FY 1951 Beginning in 1965, the Food and Drug Administration through personal contacts with appropriate State officials, transferred FDA's oleomargarine service surveillance activities to the State and local agencies. This transfer was completed in 1966. Therefore, FY 1966 was the last year that FDA maintained an oleomargarine service surveillance program. A State reporting system has not been established; however, The survey also revealed that approximately 7,000 voluntary corrective actions have been instituted by the States and three prosecutions have resulted from the program. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely yours, Enclosure Sam D. Fine Associate Commissioner for Compliance |