OLEOMARGARINE IDENTIFICATION IN PUBLIC MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Jarman (chairman) presiding. Mr. JARMAN. The subcommittee will please be in order. The purpose of the hearing today is to consider bills pending before the committee which would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning the requirements imposed by that act upon establishments serving colored oleomargarine. Section 407 of the Food and Drug Act presently requires a dual notice to restaurant customers that margarine is served. A restaurant may use either a conspicuous sign or a menu statement, in conjunction with either serving portions with labeling identifying the article as margarine or serving portions which are triangular in shape. The bills will permit restaurants to choose any one of four ways stated above to give notice that margarine is served, rather than the two options now required. All reports from executive agencies are favorable to the legislation. At this point in the record, there will be included the text of the bills and the agencies reports thereon. (The text of H.R. 12061 and H.R. 15819 and agency reports thereon follow :) [H.R. 12061, 91st Cong., 1st sess., introduced by Mr. Michel (for himself and Mr. Kluczynski) on June 11, 1969, and H.R. 15819, 91st Cong., 2d sess., introduced by Mr. Friedel on February 10, 1970, are identical as follows:] A BILL To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 407 (c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 347 (c)), is amended by deleting the language thereof and substituting the following: "(c) No person shall serve colored oleomargarine or colored margarine at a public eating place, whether or not any charge is made therefor, unless (1) a notice that oleomargarine or margarine is served is displayed prominently and conspicuously in such place and in such manner as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual being served in such eating place, or (2) a notice that oleomargarine or margarine is served is printed or is otherwise set forth on the menu in type or lettering not smaller that that normally used to designate the serving of other food items, or (3) each separate serving bears or is accompanied by labeling identifying it as oleomargarine or margarine, or (4) each separate serving thereof is triangular in shape." 2 Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1970. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of June 13, 1969, for a report on H.R. 12061, a bill "To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes." This Department recommends that the bill be passed. The bill provides for the identification of colored oleomargarine, when served at a public eating place, by: 1. A prominently displayed notice; 2. A notice on each menu; 3. A notice on each individual serving; or 4. Cutting individual servings into triangular shapes. The present act requires identifying colored oleomargarine served in restaurants by: 1. A prominently displayed notice or a notice on each menu; and 2. A notice on each individual serving or by cutting individual servings into triangular shapes. The bill would allow restaurants to use any one of the four identification options. We feel this is adequate to protect the public from being misled or deceived. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 12061, a bill "To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes." The bill would permit restaurants to give notice that oleomargarine is being served by one of four alternatives: (1) displaying a conspicuous notice, (2) printing a notice on the menu, (3) identifying each separate serving with a label, or (4) serving each portion in triangular shape. Section 407 (c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act presently requires that notice be given by one of the first two alternatives and additionally by one of the second two alternatives. Reports on H.R. 12061 are being forwarded to your Committee by the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Health, Education, and Welfare. In its report HEW indicates that any of the first three alternatives should adequately protect the consumer. It recommends, however, against the inclusion of the fourth alternative since it doubts that this option alone sufficiently informs the customer that he is being served oleomargarine. We concur generally in the views of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the bill. Sincerely yours, WILFRED H. ROMMEL, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. 3 Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 12061, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes. H.R. 12061 would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 347 (c), as amended); that Act presently requires the server to identify colored oleomargarine or margarine served at a public eating place by following two of the four identification methods specified in the Act. Either a notice that oleomargarine or margarine is served must be prominently and conspicuously displayed or this information must be printed on the menu. In addition, the margarine or oleomargarine must either be labeled as such or be served in a triangular pat shape. These provisions were enacted as part of the so-called 1950 oleomargarine amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to protect the consumer from having margarine substituted for butter with no identification of the substitution provided (U.S. v. 856 cases, labeled "Demi", D.C.N.Y., 1966, 254 F. Supp. 57). H.R. 12061 would require a server to comply with only one of these four provisions, rather than a combination of two of the four. The Department of Commerce has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 12061. We understand that there is less concern today than previously as to the need for identifying oleomargarine and margarine in a public eating place. The use of margarine has reached an increasingly high degree of acceptance by the consuming public because of such considerations as price, improvement in the product, and the belief that margarine has a lower cholesterol count than butter. The extent to which public eating places would choose to use the triangular shape for margarine pats as the sole means of identification is difficult to determine. (This is the only one of the four alternatives that does not identify margarine in writing.) Consumers, as yet, may not be generally aware that the triangular shape of pats signifies margarine. On balance, however, we believe that requiring notification by any of the four alternatives should afford reasonable protection to those persons who wish to know if margarine rather than butter is being served. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, JAMES T. LYNN, General Counsel. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of June 13, 1969, for a report on H.R. 12061, a bill "To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act" concerning the serving of oleomargarine in public eating places. This bill would provide that no person shall serve colored oleomargarine or colored margarine at a public eating place, regardless of whether there is a charge, unless (1) a notice that oleomargarine or margarine is served is displayed conspicuously, or (2) a notice that oleomargarine or margarine is served is set forth in the menu in type not smaller than that used to list other food items, or (3) each separate serving bears or is accompanied by labeling identifying it as oleomargarine or margarine, or (4) each separate serving is triangular in shape. 4 Section 407 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act presently requires a dual notice to restaurant customers that margarine is served. A restaurant may use either a conspicuous sign or a menu statement, in conjunction with either serving portions with labeling identifying the article as margarine or serving portions which are triangular in shape. H.R. 12061 would amend the Act to permit restaurants to choose any one of the four ways stated above to give notice that margarine is served, rather than the two options now required. 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 customer 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 customer that he is being served margarine. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration program. Sincerely, ROBERT H. FINCH, Secretary. Mr. JARMAN. First, this morning, we shall hear from our distinguished colleague from our full committee, Hon. Samuel N. Friedel. I understand Mr. Friedel has a statement he would like to present for our consideration. Welcome, Mr. Friedel; proceed as you see fit. STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. FRIEDEL. I thank the subcommittee for their consideration of my proposal to bring more simplicity and enforcibility into the present law regulating colored margarine in public eating places. I am sure the members of the subcommittee are familiar with the present notification law and how my bill proposes to substitute a single method of notification for the cumbersome double method. Not being an expert in the restaurant business, I defer to my good friend and colleague, John Kluczynski, and take this opportunity to thank him for his work to make our House restaurant a better place for thousands of people to dine. However, we in Maryland think we are pretty expert at good eating, and that goes for our restaurant industry. There are some 5,000 restaurants in Maryland. Most are individually owned and in effect are small businesses. You all know what problems small businesses have today with costs of this and that. The proposal before you will take just one unnecessary burden from the back of the eating place proprietor who may wish to use margarine, but that is some progress. Our restaurants are famous the country over for Maryland and Chesapeake Bay seafood. Come over and try it sometime. Chincoteague oysters, hard and soft shell crabs, clams, and our famous Maryland crab cakes, to name just some of our favorite dishes, have been features since early colonial times. Whatever we can do to help this important part of American business cut costs and simplify its operations is in the right direction. My bill is not a margarine or a butter bill. It is a bill for making one Federal regulation more workable. If a restaurant owner chooses to use margarine or butter in his cooking or serving, that is his right. He 5 should not be required to notify the patron in a number of ways but in one simple way if he is serving margarine. Margarine, too, is a Maryland product-we have one of the most progressive and successful margarine making firms in the world in Baltimore, J. H. Filbert, Inc., in family ownership for more than 50 years. Our Maryland State law on margarine in restaurants is a model of simplicity-it requires notice on the bill of fare or on the wall. My bill, therefore, establishes uniformity, for the eating place proprietor who would be enabled to meet both State and Federal laws by simply doing one of those two things. Thank you for consideration of this bill. Mr. JARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Friedel, for taking time out of your busy schedule to share your views with us. Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for affording me the time. Mr. JARMAN. Our next witness this morning, and it is a pleasure to welcome him to the subcommittee, is our good friend and colleague, Congressman Robert Michel, of Illinois. Bob, it is good to have you. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. MICHEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I do appreciate your affording us the opportunity of being heard this morning, particularly in view of the tremendous schedule those of you serving on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee have been under in recent months, with all your hearings in a variety of fields. We are particularly moved to say thank you for giving us this opportunity to testify in support of the bill, H.R. 12061 which, as the chairman indicated, will simplify notification in the public eating places where yellow margarine is served. As the chairman cited, section 407 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act presently requires a dual notice to restaurant customers that margarine is being served. Now, this is accomplished by (1) posting a sign on the wall or making a suitable statement on the menu and, (2) labeling each dish on which the margarine is served, or serve it in a triangular form. Now, the bill which I have introduced would remove the second requirement from the law, and the reasons for it are as follows: It seems to me that the double requirement is not necessary. The wall or menu requirement alone provides sufficient notice to patrons. It is the more appropriate and usual means of making such a notification. In contrast to simple wall or menu notification, the second requirement requires special preparations that are not necessary and are unusual to print or stamp "margarine" on dishes or carriers, or to cut the margarine into triangles or pay for having it so made. Together, the two requirements make enforcement unnecessarily complicated. The enforcement agency is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 70-212 O 71-3 |