Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

For the tax

Against the tax 1. H. G. Bergdoll, Kraft Foods Co. (p. 505).

2. David H. Blanton, Jr., The Blanton Co., St. Louis (p. 513).

Use of color

The Federal tax on colored oleomar- Consumers prefer a yellow spread begarine is the consumers' protection cause it is more appetizing than a white against fraudulent sales of oleo as

one.

When butter is not yellow, color butter.

is added. Similarly, coloring of oleo1. Minnesota Creameries' Associa- margarine should be allowed without tion, resolution No. 1 (p. 138).

penalty. 2. Golden Guernsey Dairy Coopera- 1. Mr. A. Lee M. Wiggins, Under Sective, statement submitted by Charles retary of the Treasury (p. 12). W. Holman, secretary, Cooperative Milk Representative W. R. Poage, Texas Producers Federation (p. 283).

(p. 27). 3. “Colored Oleo Sold as Butter,' 2. Mr. J. D. Henderson, American National Cooperative Milk Producers Association of Small Business (p. 123). Federation, submitted by Charles W. 3. Mr. Ersel Walley, president, AmerHolman (p. 285).

ican Soybean Association (p. 127). 4. Charles W. Holman (pp. 294, 295, 4. Mr. John W. Evans, American Soy328).

bean Association (p. 130). 5. H. W. Curtiss, Illinois Agricultural 5. Mr. Howard Roach, American SoyAssociation (p. 421).

bean Association (p. 133). 6. Statement by Representative John 6. Mr. George M. Strayer, American Byrnes, Wisconsin, submitted by Repre- Soybean Association (p. 135). sentative Reid F. Murray, Wisconsin 7. Mr. William Rhea Blake, National (p. 347).

Cotton Council of America (p. 151). 7. Statement by Mrs. Stella E. Bar- 8. Mr. Edgar C. Corry, Jr., American ker, Des Moines, Iowa (pp. 355, 358). Veterans of World War II (p. 153).

8. Kenzie S. Bagshaw, chairman, ex- 9. Miss Jean L. Whitehill, Consumers cutive committee, the National Grange Union (pp. 156–157). (pp. 374-375).

10. Mrs. Dennis E. Jackson, Consum9. Representative Charles R. Robert- ers Conference of Greater Cincinnati, son, North Dakota (p. 485).

Ohio (p. 194). 10. Harley J. Credicott president, 11. Senator Burnet R. Maybank, Freeport Dairy Products Co. (p. 383). South Carolina (p. 201).

11. Leonard E. Kopitzke Marion, 12. Mr. John N. Hatfield, American Wis., president of the Wisconsin Cheese Hospital Association (p. 203). Makers Association (p. 401).

13. Sylvia B. Gottlieb, Communica12. Hugo H. Sommer, professor of tions Workers of America (p. 205). dairy industry, University of Wiscon- 14. Mr. J. Roy Jones, commissioner of sin (p. 407).

agriculture, South Carolina (p. 209). The only way oleomargarine can be made yellow is by coloring it. Natural oleo ends up in some shade other than yellow.

1. Statement by Representative John Byrnes, Wisconsin, submitted by Representative Reid F. Murray, Wisconsin (p. 347).

2. Statement by Wilson F. Douglass, director of laboratories, Cudahy Packing Co. (p. 303).

3. Harley J. Credicott, president, Freeport Dairy Products Co. (p. 383).

“The butter industry adopted the natural color of their product which during the lush grass season is yellow. To make it uniform the year round, coloring is added, at certain other seasons, to maintain this same yellow."

Against the tax

For the tax 1. Hassil E. Schenck, Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc. (p. 504).

2. Hugo H. Sommer, professor of dairy industry, University of Wisconsin (p. 409).

3. Harley J. Credicott, president, Freeport Dairy Products Co. (p. 383).

4. Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 327).

Without internal revenue regulation the sale of colored oleomargarine as real butter would most likely increase almost overnight.

1. Colored Oleo Sold as Butter, Na. tional Cooperative Milk Producers Federations, submitted by Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 292).

PROTECTION OF DEALERS IN OLEOMARGARINE

In 1933 there were 102 retail dealers Dealers in oleomargarine must pay handling colored oleomargarine and in burdensome license fees. There is also 1947 there were 5,102. In 1933, there a mass of highly technical regulations were 103,501 who handled uncolored and requirements which grocers must oleomargarine and in 1947 there were follow. 265,984. I would be forced to conclude 1. Tyre Taylor, National Association from this remarkable growth of han- of Retail Grocers (pp. 162–163). dlers in that period that not only is it 2. Edgar C. Corry, Jr., American Vetprofitable for these dealers to handle erans of World War II (p. 154). the product or otherwise they would not 3. L. T. Newman, United States pay the taxes, but that approximately Wholesale Grocers' Association (p. 166). one retail handler of food out of every License fees on handling of oleomartwo in the United States makes oleo- garine favor larger firms over smaller margarine available in some form or ones. another to the customers, so there can- 1. Edgar C. Corry, Jr., American Vetnot be a scarcity of retail dealers when erans of World War II (p. 154). over one-half of them in the United 2. Donald Montgomery, Congress of States are handling the product. Industrial Organizations (p. 182).

1. Charles W. Holman, National Co- License fees on handling of oleomargaoperative Milk Producers Federation rine are discriminatory because small (p. 326).

grocers cannot afford them and so do “At present oleomargarine is readily not carry the product. available, as witness results of a study 1. Mrs. Florence Geiger, National recently announced that more than 80 Council of Jewish Women (p. 189). percent of the Nation's families are 2. Margaret F. Stone, National Wousing oleomargarine."

men's Trade-Union League of America 1. Mrs. Stella E. Barker, Des Moines, (p. 190). Iowa (p. 356).

3. Mrs. E. G. Chamberlain, National Federation of Settlements (p. 191).

4. Ella H. McNaughton, American Home Economics Association (p. 205).

5. Clifford Patton, National Association of Consumers (p. 212).

6. Lewis G. Hines, American Federation of Labor (p. 171).

7. Representative John L. McMillan, South Carolina (p. 382).

8. Benjamin C. Marsh, People's Lobby (p. 487).

[blocks in formation]

PROTECTION OF PRODUCERS

For the tax

Against the tax Removal of oleomargarine taxes Oleomargarine taxes are discrimiwould weaken butter prices and jeopar- natory and tend to distort the competidize the dairy industry.

tive position of two domestic industries. 1. Representative Reid F. Murray, 1. A. Lee M. Wiggins, Under SecreWisconsin (pp. 13, 34).

tary of the Treasury (p. 8). 2. Charles W Holman, secretary, Na- 2. Representative W. R. Poage, Texas tional Cooperative Milk Producers Fed- (pp. 27, 28, 31, 35). eration (pp. 293-5, 301).

3. Representative Stephen Pace, Geor"We say, 'Let the public eat all the gia (p. 14). oleomargarine it wants.' That is fair 4. Representative L. Mendel Rivers, competition. But we think the removal South Carolina (p. 38). of the color laws would establish unfair 5. Mr. Clark W. Patton, American competition for the dairy farmer.” Association of Small Business (p. 124). 1. Charles W. Holman (p. 343).

6. Representative Omar Burleson, Texas (p. 104).

7. Representative Emanuel Celler, New York (p. 104).

8. Representative Ellsworth B. Foote, Connecticut (p. 105).

9. Mr. William Rhea Blake, National Cotton Council of America (p. 150).

10. Representative Brooks Hays, Arkansas (p. 107).

11. Mr. Tyre Taylor, National Association of Retail Grocers (p. 164).

12. Mrs. Rena Cohen, National League of Women Shoppers (p. 187).

13. Mrs. Florence Geiger, National Council of Jewish Women (p. 188).

14. Margaret F. Stone, National Women's Trade-Union League of America (p. 190).

15. Mrs. Dennis E. Jackson, Consumers Conference of Greater Cincinnati, Ohio (p. 193).

16. Representative Robert Nodar, Jr., New York (p. 200).

17. Sylvia B. Gottlieb, Communications Workers of America (p. 209).

18. Mr. J. Roy Jones, Commissioner of Agriculture, South Carolina (p. 208).

19. Mr. Joseph A. Clorety, Jr., American Veterans Committee (p. 215).

20. American Association of University Women, Washington, D. C. (p. 486).

21. Mrs. J. Fichtmueller, Jr., League of Women Voters, city of New York (p. 487).

22. Woman's Club of Chevy Chase, Md. (p. 488).

23. American Association of Uni. versity Women, Wisconsin division (p.

490). Ninety percent of the milk leaves the The dairy farmer receives more for farms in fluid form but what it goes his product when its ultimate use is into depends upon the markets.

as fluid milk rather than as butter. 1. Representative Reid Murray, Wis- Removal of oleomargarine taxes would consin (p. 32).

result in a greater percentage of milk produced being used ultimately in fluid rather than in butter form.

1. Representative W. R. Poage, Texas (p. 29).

For the tax

Against the tax If a bill is passed to repeal the Fed- The effects of the Federal tax on coleral tax on colored oleomargarine, and ored oleomargarine are similar to the supplemented by additional legislation effects of the State excise taxes. "Marrepealing color prohibitions which exist garine manufacturers, vegetable-oil exin approximately 23 States it is quite tractors and refiners, soybean and cotcertain that the number of dairy cows in ton farmers are injured, but dairy farmthe United States will be greatly re- ers and butter manufacturers are not duced. There will most likely be a re- materially benefited. And more imduction in the price of butter and that portant is the fact that low-income conwill be reflected in a price reduction in sumers are forced to pay an unwarcheese, evaporated milk, and fluid milk ranted premium in order to have marand cream for the table. The first re- garine in its most attractive form (colaction would be a decrease followed by ored), although manufacture of the relative scarcity.

colored product is no more costly than 1. Charles W. Holman, secretary, Na- manufacture of the uncolored product." tional Cooperative Milk Producers As- 1. Publication by the Department of sociation (p. 328).

Commerce of Oleomargarine Studies The repeal of the Federal tax on col- Initiated by Paul T. Truitt, submitted ored oleomargarine would result in the by Charles W. Holman, secretary, Nareduction of the dairy farmers' income tional Cooperative Milk Producers Fedand curtail the total quantity of dairy eration (p. 332). products, thereby bringing additional ills upon the consumer both as to quantity and costs.

1. Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 294).

2. Statement by Representative John Byrnes, Wisconsin, submitted by Representative Reid F. Murray, Wisconsin (p. 347).

Butter has long been the balance wheel of the dairy industry; it is not possible in a well-organized industry to produce fluid milk, evaporated milk, cheese, and other skim-milk products to provide an adequate diet without the stabilizing influence of butter.

1. Charles W. Holman, Secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 294).

There has been no important change in the production and sale of oleo nor in the relationship of oleomargarine and other competitive products, particularly butter, to warrant any change whatsoever in the Federal statutes.

1. Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 293).

Replacing butter with vegetable oils is not to the American farmers' interest because the farmer gets a larger share of the consumer's dollar spent for butter than from the consumer's dollar spent for oleomargarine.

1. Charles W. Holman (pp. 298–299).

2. H. W. Curtis, Illinois Agricultural Association (p. 421).

3. "Oleo and Soybeans," from Hoard's Dairyman, March 10, 1948, submitted by Charles W. Holman (p. 344)..

4. Mrs. Stella Barker, Des Moines, Iowa (p. 357).

5. Harley J. Credicott, president, Freeport Dairy Products Co. (p. 383).

FEDERAL REVENUE

For the tax

Against the tax Federal taxes on oleomargarine are Federal revenue from oleomarganot levied for the primary purpose of rine taxes is negligible. raising revenue, but for the purpose of 1. A. Lee M. Wiggins, Under Secreproviding funds for the administration tary of the Treasury (p. 7). and enforcement of the oleomargarine 2. Representative Ellsworth B. Buck, laws and to prevent deception in the New York (p. 117). manufacture and sale of the product. 3. Miss Anna Lord Strauss, League

1. Kenzie S. Bagshaw, chairman, of Women Voters (p. 155). executive committee, the National 4. Mr. Lewis G. Hines, American Grange (p. 375).

Federation of Labor (p. 170).

SOYBEAN AND COTTONSEED MEAL

“The price received by farmers for Cottonseed and soybean meal are in their butterfat affects the amount of great demand as feed for cattle and money which dairy farmers have to poultry. Producers cannot afford to spend for soybean meal. When butter- produce these meals unless there is a fat prices are good, they are in a better market for cottonseed and soybean oil position to compete for the available too. supply of soybean meal and thus the 1. Representative W. R. Poage, Texas soybean market is strengthened.” (p. 36).

1. H. W. Curtiss, Illinois Agricultural “Continued production of large quanAssociation (pp. 420-421).

tities of efficient low-cost vegetable No one can foresee at this time what protein meal is essential to the adethe ultimate effect upon the soybean quate supply of meat, milk, and eggs producers may be if the market in soy- necessary to the proper feeding of our bean meal is substantially reduced as increased population." a result of the repeal of the oleomar- 1. Ersel Walley, American Soybean garine laws. Certainly, with fewer Association (p. 127). cows to consume the meal, there would “The ybean meal in the bean must have to be some readjustments down- necessarily be sold at a price high ward of soybean acreages. Without an enough to make up the balance of the outlet for the soybean meal, it may cost of the beans including the cost prove difficult for the soybean pro- of processing. We need cheap protein ducers to compete against imported supplements, not only for our dairy oils.

cows, but also for all classes of farm 1. Charles W. Holman, National Co- livestock. It is easy enough to see that operative Milk Producers Federation in order to have cheap dairy feed, it (pp. 293–294).

is necessary to keep the soybean oil at The dairy farmer was a better cus- a reasonably good price.” tomer of the soybean grower in 1947 1. David G. Wing, American Soybean than was the butter-substitute manu- Association (pp. 128–129). facturer.

“In order to supply the protein needed 1. R. C. Beezley, Kansas State Board for our livestock economy we must of Agriculture (p. 483).

grow soybeans." Financial harm could very easily 1. Howard Roach, American Soydevelop to the soybean grower in partial bean Association (p. 133). loss of soybean meal used in dairy “Take away the favorable high-value feeding, by the curtailment of many oil market and you also take away the dairy herds by loss of part of the protein feed." butter market.

1. George M. Strayer, American Soy1. Hassill E. Schenck, Indiana Farm bean Association (p. 135). Bureau, Inc. (p. 504).

PRICE OF VEGETABLE OILS

*

*

*

* *

“We

have never been able “The price of cottonseed depends to ascertain that any farm producer of primarily upon the price of oil; and cottonseed or of soybeans has gotten a

the price of oil depends very penny more for this product because of heavily upon the market for margarthe oleomargarine utilization than he ineso heavily that the margarine marwould have had the oil gone into other ket can make it or break it."

For example, only 5 percent of 1. William Rhea Blake, National Cotthe farm returns from the production ton Council of America (p. 149).

uses.

« AnteriorContinuar »