Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Academy of Medicine). Furthermore, the consumer is protected by our Federal and State pure-food laws, which guarantee proper labeling and standard of purity of food products, including margarine. Ninety-nine percent of modern margarine is fortified with 15,000 units of vitamin A per pound, which is far above the minimum of 9,000 units required by law.

Finally, another reason we support repeal of the taxes is the fact that these taxes prevent many grocers in small communities from having margarine on their shelves, thus depriving the very groups that need it most of this important nutritional food. With the high cost of living, moderate- and low-income families cannot afford butter, but they can afford the less expensive margarine where available.

Please, may we ask that this statement be made a part of the record of the hearings. Sincerely yours,

Mrs. MARGARET F. STONE,

Chairman of Legislation. ELISABETH CHRISTMAN,

Secretary-Treasurer.

THE NORTH FORK CREAMERY ASSOCIATION,

Hotchkiss, Colo., May 15, 1948. Senator EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Following is a statement of our views on the oleo tax repeal bill:

We believe that no country, and no product should masquerade under false colors. Let oleo sell the public on its own merits, wearing its true colors or else pay for the privilege of using butter's color, for yellow is butter's natural color. We don't try to make butter red like jam or brown like peanut butter when used as a spread. Butter's market was developed on its own merits.

Cleo manufacturers have the same plivelege of building up their product on its own merits. Make the housewife like oleo for what it is. And it is not yellow, To let oleo take over butter's natural color without making it pay for the privilege in the form of a tax is thievery at its worst. For using the yellow color is a privilege. When oleo is colored yellow it is then masquerading as butter. Protective laws are necessary and wise to prevent fraud. Everyone recognizes, for instance, the necessity of protecting patent rights. Marketing rights also should be protected in every instance. It is for the benefit of the consumer as well as for the butter manufacturer that we have an oleo tax. We butter people do not try to fool the public by bleaching our product and selling it as lard or coloring it gray or green and selling it as oleo.

The United States must have a healthy economy. Tariffs are enacted and enforced to protect the United States producer from competition from abroad on the same products that we raise within our country. Yet here within the United States we have the situation where the oleo product wishes to trespass out of its own circle and sell itself to the consumer on the reputation butter has built for itself. And they advocate that to remove the protective tax is fair.

If oleo is so wonderful why is it trying to be like butter? Strip the tax from oleo and the consumer will be buying colored oleo at higher prices. It is certain that there will be "butter-legging” on a large scale. It was tried during the war when the tax was on. Give the oleo manufacturer a free hand by taking off the tax and the consumer will be defrauded on a large scale. The attempts during the war to sell oleo as butter proves alone that the oleo people are constantly trying to falsify their product. Their attempt to repeal the tax on their product only adds to that proof. If butter isn't superior to oleo and doesn't have something that oleo doesn't have then why are the oleo people trying to make their product as much like butter as possible? Why don't they choose some other color? Or, if they really think a lot of their product why don't they proudly fly their own color on the market as the butter people always have been proud to fly theirs ?

The dairy industry is a vast industry in the United States. It is necessary for the health of the people. Let oleo take over the butter market and it will be taking away the dairy herds of the country. For the farmer cannot make a profit on milk alone. He must have an outlet for his byproduct-butter. Take away the market for this byproduct and the consequences will be serious. The economy of the United States dairy industry will be damaged. The people will suffer greatly from the lack of nourishing butter and fluid milk for their tables. Respectfully submitted.

By HARRY HULTEEN, Manager.

OHIO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

Columbus 16, Ohio, May 12, 1948. Hon. EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We believe that the long-time interest of both the consumer and the producer is best served if oleomargarine is not permitted to be colored to imitate butter. We believe that the dairy farmer is fully justified in requesting such protection. It appears that in States where oleomargarine is permitted to be colored so as to imitate butter, the price to the consumer is increased several cents per pound.

The following is the resolution of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation on the oleomargarine issue:

“We vigorously reaffirm our demands that oleomargarine be properly labeled and marketed solely on its own merits, and that all attempts to camouflage or represent it as butter be explicitly prohibited."

Farmers have never had any desire to interfere with the sale of oleomargarine. What they do believe is that there should be adequate safeguards to prevent fraud. It seems clear to us that such safeguards would be in the public interest.

We shall greatly appreciate your support of any amendments to the oleomargarine bill which will expressly prohibit oleomargarine from being colored to imitate butter. Yours very truly,

PERRY L. GREEN, President.

THE OH10 MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC.,

Cleveland 15, Ohio, May 15, 1948. Senator EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: There are 242 million milk producers in the United States who in 1946 had a cash income from milk of $3,716,000,000 and a cash income from cattle and calves of $3,715,000,000. Ohio has 170,000 farms where milk is produced. One out of every 15 people in Ohio depend upon the dairy industry for a livelihood. Milk and dairy products supply one-fourth of nutritional requirements of our American people. In view of the importance of the dairy industry in the Nation's economy, it is very difficult for many of our milk producers to understand why only 1 day has been allotted to the dairy industry to present testimony on proposed oleomargarine legislation.

I wish to present very briefly some of the important factors which should be considered : We must protect consumers against fraud

The biggest reason for denying yellow color to oleomargarine is to protect consumers against fraud.

Butter is a natural product and has always been identified by its natural yellow color. It varies in the shade of yellow depending upon breed of cattle, feed, and seasons of the year. Color is added to butter only for the sake of giving it uniformity, but never to sell butter for anything else than what it is—butter. The only reason in wanting to add yellow color to oleomargarine is to disguise it, and have it used as a butter substitute. In spite of the fact that 700,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine was produced last year, in public eating places and private homes it is repeatedly served and spoken of as butter. Opportunity and incentive for fraud

There are many people today who, unfortunately, are seeking opportunities to defraud. Substitution of colored oleomargarine for butter offers a tremendous opportunity for fraudulent opportunities. The incentive of 100-percent profit or more is so great that many people will not be able to resist it.

Butter is the balance wheel of the dairy industry

Milk production being a natural process which must be carried out 365 days of the year cannot be regulated as can production in a manufacturing plant. Milk production is invariably highest in the spring and summer months, and if we are to have adequate supply of fluid milk in the fall and winter months there must be some means of handling the excess production during the flush season. This is the period in which the bulk of the butter is produced. Because it is the balance wheel in milk production butter is one of the basic factors in pricing milk in large fluid-milk markets like Cleveland.

During the war butter prices were frozen at a level that made it impossible for butter to be produced in competition with prices for other dairy products. In addition, butter manufacturers were required by the Government to set aside 50 percent of their butter production. As a result, butter suffered a tremendous set-back from which it has not yet recovered. It is still, however, one of the biggest factors in the whole economy of the dairy industry. One of the Nation's greatest industries is surely entitled to proper safeguards against fraudulent competition. Soil conservation and water supply

From a long-range point of view, the matter of soil conservation and preservation of our water supply is a most important consideration. We cannot continue to deplete the soil fertility and water supply of this Nation and maintain our present standard, so far as our food supply is concerned. We must choose the type of diet which this Nation will have in the years ahead. The dairy cow world's greatest food factory

Not only does the dairy cow supply 25 percent of the nutritional requirements of our Nation, but she also supplies our most perfect food. We have no other factory that can convert grass, hay, and grain into our best food product. This, however, is only one of the facts involved. Soil conservationists today insist that at least 50 percent of our farms should be in so-called cover crops—that is, pasture and meadows. This can only be done where dairying is an important part of the agricultural enterprise. Each year $250,000 are spent to dredge from the Cuyahoga River (here in Cleveland) silt that has come from the topsoil of counties surrounding Cleveland. The cost of dredging is only a small factor when measured against the productive value of the lost soil.

Attached is an article from Collier's entitled "Are We Short of Water?". This is a problem which should cause us grave concern. This problem as this article points out is a general one. In Huron County, 50 miles west of Cleveland, farmers have for the last several years found it necessary to haul water for their cattle at certain seasons of the year. Soil conservationists tell us that our average rainfall in Ohio is 40 inches. In a recent study 41 inches of rainfall on grassland showed that 40 inches were returned to the soil. In a cornfield only 26 inches went to the soil and 15 inches ran away carrying with it part of the topsoil. Conservation of our water supply depends on cover crops, pastures, and meadows, which in turn depend on the dairy industry.

In this brief outline, I have tried to give you some of the factors which must be studied and analyzed in great detail in determining the far-reaching effects upon our Nation's food supply. If proper safeguards are not maintained, irreparable damage will be done to an industry which is most important to this Nation's welfare. Respectfully yours,

THE OHIO MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC.,
J. W. HARTSOCK, Secretary.

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., May 15, 1948. EUGENE D. MILLIKIN,

Chairman, Senate Finance Committee. Our membership which manufactures 90 percent of the butter made in Oklahoma is requesting that the American Butter Institute represent us in opposition to proposed oleo legislation at the hearing to be held by the Senate Finance Committee.

C. O. JACOBSON, Secretary-Treasurer, Oklahoma Butter Institute.

ORD COOPERATIVE CREAMERY Co.,

Ord, Nebr., May 14, 1948. Senator EUGENE MILLIKIN,

Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Thank you for your telegram of May 12, giving us an opportunity to explain a few of our views on this subject.

This creamery services over 1,000 of the butterfat producers of this locality. It was born over 20 years ago due to the ad erse condition of the dairy industry in this locality. We have done considerable toward improving the quality of cream and the conditions for the production and manufacture of butter. By getting and retaining as much of the selling price of butter as we possibly could, we have enabled the farmers to stay in this business. There is no question but what the production of butter is for the well-being of the young people and in fact of all the people of this country. We have continually met with the competition of oleo. During the worst days of the drought and depression we have had an opportunity to see how important this industry was to the farmers of Nebraska. They would come in with their little pails of cream. Practically all of these cream checks were cashed at grocery stores or places where clothing, drugs, etc., could be purchased. This was their only regular source of money to buy these items, most of which were produced in other sections of the United States. We feel certain that at times many of the farmers would have had to leave this country had it not been for this small regular income and if it had not been for the tax difference between butter and oleo. If they had remained they would not have been able to even buy as much of the things produced in the city and other parts of the United States as they did. This would have hurt the economy of other sections far more than the repeal of this tax would now help them. It seems a shame now, in this time of uncertainty, to readjust the entire economy as between butter and oleo.

I could give you examples and many other reasons why this tax should not be removed, but I am trying to make this letter reasonably short. Very truly yours,

EMIL A. BABKA, Manager.

SPOKANE 8, WASH., May 12, 1948. To the Honorable EUGENE D. MILIJKIN,

Chairman, Finance Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MİLLIKIN: I am qualifying as representing the dairy interests of the Inland Empire of the State of Washington and northern Idaho.

It is the opinion of the dairy interests mentioned that the commonly known Rivers bill for the repeal of the tax on oleomargarine is not in a true sense a tax-repeal bill, but an "escape anil privilege” bill instead. It is believed here that should the tax be removed it would have no effect on the price of this socalled butter substitute but instead the main object is the privileges to be reaped thereafter.

It is felt any repeal of the measure now existing would be a blow at the very foundation of dairy products. Butter has always been a basic factor in the establishment of market values of practically all dairy products as well as a symbol of national import since it is estimated that fully 35 percent of all farm income is derived from the dairy industry. As for the Inland Empire it is believed that one out of every 20 families are supported directly or indirectly by the industry.

There is not a member of the industry in the Inland Empire who objects to the sale of oleomargarine on its merits for just what it is. But here is the picture as we view it: Butter, a genuine article of food from the God given dairy cow, or: oleomargarine, a derivative from soy beans, cottonseed oil, coconut, or what have you, milk flavored, vitamin fortified, artificially colored, preservative allowed, so called butter substitute for the genuine article.

Since when has America become an "ersatz” nation? Fifty thousand Frenchmen can't be wrong. Try it in France the cradle of oleo. Why don't the pros for oleo come in with clean hands and tell the American people through their vast advertising propaganda that their product must be artificially colored, vitamined and flavored to taste and look like butter. The whole matter smacks of deceitful imitation and fraud placed before our Congress for legalization. And

[blocks in formation]

by the way, how about the long record of fraud and deception connected with this so called “butter substitute”?

It is the earnest hope of the dairy industry that protective measures may still be maintained and that when the family asks for butter they can get butter and when they want beef they don't get horse meat. Respectfully submitted.

R. E. OWEN, Representing Dairy Interests of the Inland Empire.

THE PEOPLE'S LOBBY, INC.,

Washington 4, D. C., May 14, 1948. Hon. EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,

Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We earnestly request the Senate approve the House bill repealing the tax on oleomargarine.

Butter production way down-margarine must be freed.

The bipartisan action of Congress to pay unemployment benefits to many million workers; the certainty the coverage will be extended, and the equal certainty that Congress will soon establish some form of health insurance, makes it imperative that Congress facilitate provision of adequate diets, and remove every barrier to such provision.

The approximately $6,000,000 of taxes on oleomargarine collected by the Federal Government and the retailers' license fees, very definitely restrict the consumption of oleo. They should be ended.

Government figures show-
There is less than one-third enough butter for an adequate diet.

In 1946, the butter supply was 711,000,000 pounds-nearly one-third less than before the war.

In 1896, butter production was 22.2 pounds per capita ; in 1946, it was only 10.6 pounds, or less than half as much.

Although consumption of fluid milk had by 1946 increased 36.7 percent over prewar years, it was 100 quarts per person short of the “adequate diet” suggested by the House Economics Association.

The Iowa State College of Agriculture at Ames, reported that one man-hour will produce 13.3 pounds of soybean oil compared with only 1.5 pounds of butterfat.

The shift of milk away from butter gives dairymen a larger income, and consumers greater nutritional values.

It leaves however, a dietetic vacuum, in spreads for bread, and for use with other foods.

It is vital ot make available larger quantities of oleomargarine, at a fair price.

Not only do taxes and retailers' fees restrict the supply of margarine, but the severe penalties for violation of rules deter many small grocers, who don't readily grasp detailed legal phraseology, from carrying it in stock. There should be freedom for margarine-to substitute for nonexistent butter. Yours sincerely,

BENJAMIN C. MARSH,

Executive Secretary.

PROGRESSIVE FARMERS OF WISCONSIN,

Seymour, Wis., May 15, 1948. Senator EUGENE MILLIKEN, Chairman, Finance Committee,

United States Capitol, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR : Various bills proposing revised oleo legislation are so unfair to the general public, to the dairy farmer, and to all types of agriculture that it is impossible to state all of the facts in less than volumes of written material.

Agriculture is the basic industry of our Nation today. Dairying is the largest source of income in our diversified agricultural industry. The effects of proposed oleo legislation, if passed, would be so far reaching the effects would upset the whole basic economy of the Nation.

I wish to make a few brief, concise statements against removal of the tax on colored oleo on behalf of the numerous farm people that I represent.

« AnteriorContinuar »