Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

marketing programs. The following information has been taken from the United States Department of Agriculture reports :

[blocks in formation]

Attention is called again to the diversion to butter production in these three States during a period of full employment, high wages, when creameries are equipped to market milk and cream in any form the market demands and when milk production on farms is on the decline.

II. Dairy cows are essential to good land-use practices.

Iowa's agriculture is adaptable to diversified farming. Iowa ranks fourth in total milk production on farms. Its milk production is largely from small herds. According to the Iowa crop reporting service, the 1942–46 January 1 average of dairy cows and heifers 2 years old kept for milk per 100 acres of land on farms, was far greater in 72 Iowa counties than the average numbers of feeder cattle on feed per 100 acres.

Iowa has become a great food-producing State because Iowa farmers know there must be crop rotation with non-raw-legume crops and pastures. The dairy cow has been a profitable utilizer of the roughages and pastures. Destroying the market for butter by allowing the unrestricted sale of buttter limitations will force Iowa farmers to farm programs that will be soil depleting.

This appears to the Senate Finance Committee for their most careful consideration to the Rivers bill before recommending it for passage, is not based on a selfish request for the protection of the Midwest agriculture. It is based on a request to protect proven methods of farming that are so necessary for keeping our lands fertile and productive.

Certainly Congress will not be consistent to appropriate vast sums for soil conservation work and at the same time pass legislation that will force the farmers of our most productive areas into methods of farming that will tear down the splendid work of the soil conservation program.

Consumers too must realize in their inspired clamor for cheap food that this in the long run may mean less food. The dairy cow and her products must be given due consideration in our agricultural and national economy.

THE IOWA HOLSTEIN BREEDERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Waterloo, Iowa, May 11, 1948. Senator EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MILLIKIN: The slam-bang, shallow consideration which the Senate proposes to give to the consideration of the oleomargarine question is very disheartening to the dairy industry. Such utter disregard for the welfare of a large, fundamental industry such as the dairy industry makes one wonder who is pulling the strings back of the scene.

I would like to call your attention to the following basic facts:

1. Dairy farming is synonymous with soil conservation farming and when something is done to curtail dairying, soil conservation suffers.

2. Butterfat, regardless of all theoretical analysis, is the basic keystone of the entire dairy industry.

3. Farmers will not object to the removal of taxes on the sale of oleomargarine, but they will protest forever permission for the use of butter's yellow color in any substitute product.

4. Do you know of any foreign country having any dairy industry of note that permits the manufacture of yellow oleomargarine? I believe that Denmark, as

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

one example, has long permitted the manufacture of oleomargarine without taxes, but they have prohibited the coloring of it to resemble butter.

5. To permit the manufacture and sale of colored oleomargarine is merely to encourage fraud, misrepresentation, and trickery. It deprives the American consumer of adequate protection from unscrupulous manufacturers.

6. Don't be fooled by the report that the soybean farmers are in favor of such legislation. The officers and directors of the American Soybean Association are, for the most part, processors or managers of processing plants primarily and many are not soybean growers at all.

7. I suspect that some New Deal officials are supporting this legislation because the dairy industry refused to go along on the little-pig killing program propounded during the New Deal regime of the 1930's.

8. Remember that the dairy business in all its ramifications is more important to every section of the United States than any other business in our economy.

I sincerely hope that you can stop the hysterical scramble to try to enact such legislation, and will do everything in your power until the Congress can "Stop, look, and listen” as to the dire consequences of such fundamental legislation. This is very important to the future of the entire agriculture industry and warrants very thorough investigation and study. Yours very truly,

ERNEST M: WRIGHT, President.

MAY 12, 1948. To the Members of the Senate Committee on Finance :

We, the members of the Kentucky Margarine Consumers Committee, respectfully request that the following resolution be made a part of the testimony to be considered by the Senate Finance Committee when hearings are held on the margarine bill (H. R. 2245) on May 17 and May 18, 1948:

“RESOLUTION

“Whereas, margarine is a nutritious, low-cost food approved by health authorities and subject to the regulations of the Federal Food and Drug Administration, and

“Whereas, the present Federal excise taxes on colored and uncolored margarine, and retail and wholesale licenses, are discriminatory, unwise, and unfair, and

“Whereas, the effect of these restrictions is to deny or make difficult the purchase of this needed food by housewives, and particularly low-income families, and

“Whereas, these restrictions narrow the market for fats and oils produced by American farmers, and

“Whereas, these restrictions do not promote better national health, a sound farm economy, or encourage interstate commerce, and

“Whereas, these taxes and licenses cannot be justified as a revenue measure, as testimony by the United States Treasury Department has shown, and

"Whereas, these restrictions tend to keep prices high and contribute to inflation :

Resolved: That we, the members of the Kentucky Margarine Consumers Committee, urge the Senate Finance Committee to immediately approve the margarine bill (H. R. 2245) as drawn, so that it may be voted upon by the 80th session of the United States Senate.

GARNETT BALE,

Chairman.

MEMBERS OF THE KENTUCKY MARGARINE CONSUMERS COMMITTEE

Chairman: Mrs. Garnett Bale, Elizabethtown, Ky., president of the Kentucky

League of Women Voters. Co-Chairman: Mrs. F. J. Smythe, St. Matthews, Ky., member of the board,

Kentucky League of Women Voters. Mrs. Rudy Vogt, president of the Louisville League of Women Voters. Harry Petty, president of the Kentucky State Federation of Labor. John E. Slaughter, Jr., vice president of the Girdler Corp. R. H. Raibert, secretary of the Kentucky Retail Food Dealers Association. Ralph Johnson, secretary of the Kentucky Wholesale Grocers Association. Ruth Gilbert, secretary of the Kentucky Merchants Association and the Retail

Grocers Association.

[blocks in formation]

George Korfage, Southern Foods Sales, Inc.
Carl Meyer, Durkee Famous Foods.
Nate Gallagher, chairman of the Kentucky Legislative Committee, Brotherhood

of Railroad Trainmen. Frank B. Bloemer, Bloemer Food Sales Co. W: B. Taylor, regional director of the Congress of Industrial Organizations for

the State of Kentucky. Henry G. Meyer, secretary of the Progressive Grocers Association, Inc. G. W. Allen, Henderson, Ky., secretary-treasurer-manager of the Ohio Valley

Soybean Cooperative.
M. W. McGrath, Early & Daniels Co.
Harold Miller, Louisville Soy Products Corp.
W. T. Owens, president of the Advertising Club of Louisville.

LAGOMARCINO GRUPE Co.,

Burlington, Iowa, May 5, 1948. Senator EUGENE D. MILLIKIN,

Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Your committee will soon have before it the highly controversial margarine question. Being in the wholesale food business and dealing with a great number of rural stores, I feel that I can tell you the feeling in this territory on this subject.

It was very well stated to me today by Mr. Carol Walz, owner of the rural store in Lowell, Iowa—a community of probably 50 people. His business is principally with the farming trade. He says “I sell more margarine than butter and 80 percent of it goes to farmers, and these farmers are in favor of repeal.”

The Iowa farmer is a fair-minded individual and can certainly tell right from wrong. That positively is the way this problem should be decided—not on pressure. Washington has too often done the expedient thing. Why not do the right thing this time, which certainly would be to repeal these antiquated taxes and regulations.

The butter lobby claims to be speaking for the farmers of Iowa. I do not believe they do. If these farmers could speak for themselves I am confident that they would decide this problem from a viewpoint of right or wrong.

G. D. PARKER,

Vice President.

LINWOOD CREAMERY,

Wichita 9, Kans., May 14, 1948. Senator EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: The entire dairy industry is putting its last hope and trust in your committee that we will receive adequate time and consideration so that all evidence can be presented fairly and without trying to stampede this legislation through the United States Senate.

As a Senator from a neighboring State, I feel sure that you realize the extreme importance of this legislation; particularly to the 4,000,000 small dairy farmers in our country.

So far most of the reasons that have been advanced by the supporters of the Rivers bill has been discriminatory taxes. Surely any tax or law that is devised to protect the American public from fraud isn't discriminating against anybody, and certainly this tax hasn't had any discriminating effect on the sales of oleo. As of today they are at an all-time high, but it is discriminating against the consumer when any imitation product, colored like butter and tasting like butter, can be palmed off as butter when there is a large difference in price.

There are 65,000,000 meals served daily in public eating places in our country. What assurance will these people that eat their meals in restaurants have that they are eating genuine butter when there is no protection that will prohibit the serving of a substitute for the real thing? But regardless of all of the arguments on either side, there are a few facts that will affect the American farmer and housewife if existing taxes and regulations on oleo are removed. These facts should certainly be considered by your committee.

First, the dairy industry as a whole is a savior of American soil, and it must be remembered that the wealth of this world lies in the top 6 inches of the world's surface. It is one of the few, farming practices that puts back into the soil a great deal of the wealth that is taken out by cropping. Depletion of soil fertility is already one of the world's greatest problems. Many illustrations could be sighted where land depleted by single crop farming has been brought back to its original fertility by dairy farming. Nurtitionists are now learning that the actual value of our everyday food is largely determined by the fertility of the soil on which it is grown. Food grown on worn-out soils, being lacking in some of the elements necessary for good health. To depress the American dairy industry at this time is to further encourage soil mining.

Second, out of the 4,000,000 American farmers, who own dairy cows, 1,250,000 of these farmers milk from 3 to 6 cows, and largely depend upon their cream checks for their ready cash. These farmers will receive a stunning fianancial blow, while 22 big corporations will profit.

Third, the housewife who is today buying white margarine will still pay the same price, if the tax is removed, or the housewife who is buying colored margarine will save the 10-cent tax; that is if the present price of oleo isn't advancedi After the tax is removed; however, only 4 percent of the 700,000,000 pounds of margarine sold last year was colored. Therefore the actual money saving to the housewife is practically nil, but the repeal can certainly raise her grocery bill. Because any further reduction in our dairy herds will increase the price of fluid milk-cream-cheese and ice cream, which will cost the housewife far more than what she could hope to gain.

Fourth, it is not commonly known that 40 percent of our beef and veal supply is traceable to our dairy herds. So further reduction in these herds will effect the price of meat to a higher level. Also it takes cowhides to make leather, so we can expect higher prices in shoes and other leather goods.

Apparently, we have a big job in feeding most of this world, yet this legislation, if passed, can only help retard every form of agriculture with other forms of farming so highly profitable. Many farmers, particularly in the great Wheat Belt have already quit milking. Passage of this bill will further discourage dairying and let's not forget that during the depression, it was the dairy cow that kept the farmer going, and kept him off of relief. So it is a grave responsibility that you and your committee and every Senator as a lawmaking body have.

The future welfare of every citizen should be considered, not just the powerful propaganda and the powerful lobby that has made this issue front-page

The little man is represented by you and your fellow colleagues. They don't have millions of dollars to spend to present their side of this issue. They look to you and trust in you to look out for them. Therefore, Mr. Senator, as chairman of the Finance Committee, we again request that the dairy industry receive a fair and impartial hearing. Very truly yours.

J. G. VESS, JR., Procurement Manager.

news.

STATEMENT OF B. B. DERRICK, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE MARYLAND AND

VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, MAY 18, 1948

Our organization consists of 1,537 member-producers throughout Maryland and Virginia, who supplied 391,547,270 pounds of fluid milk during 1947 to the Washington milkshed.

We are filing in opposition to the removal of all restrictions on the manufacture and sale of colored oleomargarine.

For more than 60 years dairy farmers and consumers have been protected against the fraud and deception incident to the unhampered manufacture and sale of this synthetic substitute for butter which competes with it so unfairly in the market place.

As early as 1870 imitations of butter, compounded of low-priced oils and fats, were known in France. Shortly thereafter our American cities were deluged by these spurious products. The sizable butter market and the great disparity between the price of butter and that of the substitute product soon led to wholesale fraud and deception.

By 1880 four States and the District of Columbia had found it necessary to enact legislation to protect their citizens.

« AnteriorContinuar »