Just how important the soybean industry has become as compared, for example, with the butter industry, to the farmers of the Midwest, is illustrated in the following table, compiled from Department of Agriculture statistics:

Repeal of the Antimargarine Laws Would Benefit Our Country

I should prefer, however, to base my argument for freeing an important market for soybean farmers from restrictive laws on another plane than competition. I am not willing, if it can be avoided, to pit one group of American farmers against another. I am for the dairy farmer, the cotton farmer, and the soybean farmer. We should never have discriminated by law against one group of American farms for the benefit of another.

No; there are other, more compelling reasons, it seems to me, for freeing this highly important market-margarine-from restrictive legislation.

These reasons are concerned with the welfare of the country as a whole-with a healthy economy and a healthy people.

In recent years, despite some improvement in production, we have been plagued with scarcity-scarcity of food, particularly of meats, grains, milk, and fats. This scarcity, which is by no means due entirely to overseas commitments resulting from the war, has been reflected in higher prices, which in turn have led to demands for higher wages.

But there is one domestic crop in which no wartime shortage developed-babies. Approximately 10,000,000 wartime babies threw the estimates of population out of line. These new Americans must be clothed and housed and fed.

It is scarcity economics to discriminate against any good food product, a product which is needed to meet the nutritive standards demanded by our expanding population.

There is, as we all know, a desperate need abroad for grain for human consumption. At the same time there is, according to the Department of Agriculture, a serious protein deficiency in livestock feeding today.

There is abundant evidence to show that meal from soybeans and cottonseed, if made available in sufficient quantities through the expansion of the vegetableoil markets, would not only offer an efficient means of overcoming this deficiency in the livestock ration but would, also, help free grain for human consumption.

Mr. Ersel Walley, president of the American Soybean Association, points out that soybean-oil meal, containing over 40 percent digestible protein, today leaves the processing plant at approximately the same price per pound as is paid for wheat or corn by livestock feeders. Yet a pound of soybean-oil meal will replace from 3 to 4 pounds of corn in the livestock ration, discourage the feeding of wheat, and will, therefore, help alleviate both the protein deficiency and the grain shortage.

Cottonseed-oil meal would prove, for all practical purposes, equally efficacious. It compares in price and nutritive qualities with soybean meal.

It is not surprising then, as an Agricultural Department publication, The Deficit in Protein for Livestock (1946), points out, that, "How much farmers will buy (of high-protein concentrates) is therefore literally only a question of how much will be available, as it is probable that whatever is produced will be bought and fed."

One argument which has been heard often from the proponents of these restrictive laws is that soybeans are destructive of the soil and therefore economically wasteful. Little or no support for this argument has even been offered but, like the jingling radio commercial, it seems to depend on repetition alone for its appeal.

Recently the Christian Science Monitor investigated the truth of this contention. I quote from the issue of January 14, 1948:

"Spokesmen for the butter industry have made repeated claims that a substantial increase in the soybean crop, from which soybean oil, a prime ingredient of margarine, is made, would be detrimental to soil conservation and adversely affect the general agricultural economy of the Nation. It is argued that 'soybeans and other fat-producing seed crops are soil-depleting crops.'

"These claims are not substantiated by technicians in the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture. They state: 'On the basis of our experience, if soybeans are grown, even as a clean-tilled crop, with proper conservation methods and practices to protect the land, they are no worse on the land than any other clean-tilled crop such as corn and cotton

* * *

"The soybean plant, which is a legume, benefits the land by adding nitrogen to the soil through its roots.

"Soil conservation,' Department of Agriculture specialists say, 'does not mean only the conservation of topsoil, but putting all soil to the use for which it is best adapted.'

66*

* * Federal technicians charge that dairy farmers are as guilty of improper utilization of their land as crop farmers. Pasture lands can be greatly injured by grazing at wrong seasons or by grazing too much stock per unit of land."

I want to emphasize the statement of Department of Agriculture specialists in regard to soil conservation. They say, what many of us may not have considered, that soil conservation involves more than the saving of topsoil. In this sense, I think we can agree, it involves the most efficient use of a given acre of land and a given amount of farm labor; it involves putting all soil to the use for which it is best adapted.

In 1943, the Iowa State College-from the heart of the largest butter-producing State in the Nation-published the fact that 1 acre of soybeans will produce as many pounds of vegetable fat as 2 acres devoted to dairying will produce of butterfat. Their report stated also that 1 man-hour of labor will prduce 13.3 pounds of soybean oil compared with only 1.5 pounds of butterfat.

The Iowa State survey concluded by recommending that "restrictions on the sale of margarine-State excise taxes, license fees, etc.-should be removed so that its consumption may be encouraged."

C. F. Christian, farm marketing specialist at Ohio State University, also studied this problem recently.

"The dairyman," Professor Christian revealed, "raises an acre of grain, usually corn, and has another 2 acres in hay or pasture, to produce 225 pounds of butter. The acre of corn will take at least 30 hours' work and hay and pasture require more work, and care of the cows will involve another 150 hours in producing 225 pounds of butter.

"An acre of soybeans can be grown with 14 hours of man-labor and will make about 225 pounds of margarine.

"A pound of butter represents 10 times the amount of farm labor and three times the amount of farm land that is represented by a pound of margarine."

In conclusion, I should like to emphasize this point: I do not believe there is a single Member of this Congress who wants to destroy the butter industry. I do not believe any of the Members who have introduced bills for the repeal of the antimargarine laws want to hurt the dairy industry. It is my sincere belief that the repeal of these laws would be to the advantage of all farmers, including dairy farmers, and of the American people generally.

Much of the argument voiced in defense of the antimargarine laws has been based on an unproved assumption—that without this discriminatory legislation the dairy industry would be disrupted. There has been no proof submitted in this Congress or elsewhere, so far as I am aware, to support this assumption. All the evidence I have seen-and I have studied this question carefully-abundantly proves the contrary.

On the other hand, it is clear that restrictions which hamper and curtail the production and distribution of margarine are restrictions upon those who produce the ingredients of margarin-more than 2,300.000 American farmers. And, as I have indicated, they are also restrictions upon the welfare of the greatest livestock industries, of needy people at home and abroad, and upon the best interests of the whole American people.

I hope that all Members, regardless of party affiliation, will study the facts in this issue carefully and without prejudice. I am confident, if this is done, that there can be but one outcome: the antimargarine laws will be, at long last, removed from the statute books.

Senator FULBRIGHT. There was this one point: In the 10-year period from 1936 to 1946, total butter production, including both creamery and farm manufacture, declined from 2,131,000,000 pounds to 1,501,000,000 pounds, or approximately 29 percent. That is the way that butter production has declined even with these taxes. Total milk production for all purposes, including butter, increased from 102,410,000,000 pounds in 1936 to 120,276,000,000 pounds in 1946. There was more milk available for butter manufacture, but the percentage of this milk being made into butter decreased from approximately one-third in 1936 to one-fifth in 1946. That is a very important point as to what the significance of these taxes has been to the protection of the dairy industry.

I developed that point at some length in the statement which I give for the record of the committee. There are many other statistics on various States and the use of milk for butter in a great many States has been declining over the past years.

Mr. Chairman, there is in addition to these facts one argument which has persisted down through the years, and which even today is constantly brought to the defense of the margarine taxes. This argument, I believe, is the only one remaining which is seriously relied upon. I refer to the contention that these taxes are needed to protect consumers from the possible fraudulent sale of yellow margarine as butter. I shall devote a few minutes to an attempt to demonstrate that this argument, even if true 62 years ago, when the original margarine taxes were enacted, is certainly not true today.

There were no pure-food laws when Congress passed the antimargarine laws in 1886, and both butter and margarine were sold in bulk, or tub form. Now margarine is sold only in cartons, specifically and properly labeled.

Nowadays, the Federal pure-food laws and similar pure-food laws in 47 of the 48 States guarantee the proper labeling and standard of purity of food products, including margarine thus adequately protecting consumers. There are also, of course, criminal statutes in every State against fraud and misrepresentation.

Of course, no law was ever passed which would prevent lawless men from breaking it. But few risks were ever so well guarded against as the possibility that margarine would be sold fraudulently to any widespread extent if these discriminatory taxes were repealed. If we have any doubts on that score, however, there is no reason why we cannot further strengthen the already extensive labeling and marking requirements to achieve even greater safeguards.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any law against breaking a properly labeled tub of margarine and selling it piecemeal without labels? Senator FULBRIGHT. I think that that would be a misbranding or misrepresentation under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. I am assuming it is interstate commerce, which practically all of it is.

As a practical matter no margarine is shipped by manufacturers in tub form. It is all shipped in the same kind of carton that you buy it in. It is all branded and the present pure food laws require that branding or labeling, and even after it comes into the hands of a retailer in the State, if he changes or removes the carton, it would be a violation of the existing pure food laws, in my opinion.

I go into the pure food laws. That is the principal theme of this whole statement.

I am sure all Senators would agree to the general principle that direct legislation of this sort is preferable to the use of the taxing power of the Government to accomplish a similar purpose indirectly.

A dairy organization cites six cases of the fraudulent sale of margarine as butter. This record actually shows there is little danger of fraud. The cases represent the isolated actions of a very few individuals over a period of 20 or 30 years. The amount of margarine involved was infinitesimal by comparison with the amount of the product which was manufactured. The records of judgments under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, published by the Food and Drug Administration, show that from 1930 through 1947, butter was seized for various violations 2,292 times; margarine only 21 times during this period.

This was a little different period from the period cited by the Under Secretary of the Treasury, but these figures were taken from the records.

In only two cases was margarine seized for contamination, filth, addition of foreign matter, decomposition, or similar reasons. Butter was seized in 652 cases. Margarine's few seizures under the Food and Drug Administration have been mainly because of slightly less than 80 percent fat content.

During the period mentioned, butter volume was four to five times that of margarine. But the seizures were at a ratio for butter of 100 to 1 for margarine.

In this connection, only butter is exempt from certain labeling requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The artificial color may be and is added without stating this fact on the label. Special dairy interests that put through the legislation on margarine. were able to prevent butter from having to be thus accurately labeled.. Likewise, the label states no grade or other value by which the contents-a pound of butter-may be judged by the consumer. Furthermore, much butter is artificially flavored without so stating on the label.

I believe it is the only food product that has that special treatment. The CHAIRMAN. By express exemption.

Senator FULBRIGHT. In the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The CHAIRMAN. In the Pure Food and Cosmetic Act?

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is correct.

I think it should be made clear here, so that there may be no concern on the point, that no responsible margarine manufacturer or distributor of margarine-no proponent of repeal of these discriminatory tax laws-is opposed to the labeling and marking provisions of the pure-food laws. Margarine wants to be known as margarine, labeled as margarine, sold as margarine. I am afraid some spokesmen for the butter interest have conjured up a specter of "fear" on this particular issue that is almost as fraudulent as the thing they say they want to prevent.

I am sure that most Senators, as well as the public generally, have a genuine respect for what are called the pure food and drug laws. They are not only so regarded by the Congress and the public, but they are likewise appreciated by the people whom they most directly affect in the commercial world; the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.

I would like to discuss, briefly, the provisions of these laws with respect to the protection they give the consumer against the fraudulent sale of margarine, white or colored, as butter.

Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act includes these prohibitions, which have application to margarine:

The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of an adulterated or misbranded food.

The adulteration or misbranding of any food while in interstate

commerce.

The receipt in interstate commerce of a misbranded or adulterated food.

The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to a food, if such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being misbranded.

In addition this section prohibits the refusal of access to or copying of records, and entry or inspection of premises, provided in sections 703 and 704. These sections are as follows:

SEC. 703. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act, carriers engaged in interstate commerce, and persons receiving food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics in interstate commerce or holding such articles so received, shall, upon the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Administrator, permit such officer or employee, at reasonable times, to have access to and to copy all records showing the movement in interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic, or the holding thereof during or after such movement, and the quantity, shipper, and consignee thereof; and it shall be unlawful for any such carrier or person to fail to permit such access to and copying of any such record so requested when such request is accompanied by a statement in writing specifying the nature or kind of food, drug, device, or cosmetic to which such request relates.

SEC. 704. For the purposes of this Act, officers or employees duly designated by the Administrator, after first making request and obtaining permission of the owner, operator, or custodian thereof, are authorized (1) to enter, at reasonable times, any factory, warehouse, or establishment in which food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics are manufactured, processed, packed, or held, for introduction into interstate commerce are held after such introduction, or to enter any vehicle being used to transport or hold such food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics in interstate commerce; and (2) to inspect, at reasonable times, such factory, warehouse, establishment, or vehicle and all pertinent equipment, finished and unfinished materials, containers, and labeling therein.

All these provisions, prohibiting adulteration or misbranding of food from the time of its manufacture until its sale to the consumer, and permitting full powers of inspection and accounting, certainly guarantee, as fully as is possible under the Constitution, that margarine in interstate commerce shall be sold for exactly what it is.

Penalties imposed for the violation of these provisions, including refusal to permit inspection and access to records, are imprisonment for up to 1 years or fine of $1,000, or both. For a second conviction or upon violation with intent to defraud or mislead the penalties are 3 years imprisonment and fine of $10,000 or both.

Furthermore, the Federal Government has the power of seizure of any food adulterated or misbranded, while it is in interstate commerce, or at any time thereafter.

Senator TAFT. That is not set by that last line, "or at any time thereafter"?

Senator FULBRIGHT. No.