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

PRICE OF VEGETABLE OILS

IMPORTED VEGETABLE OILS AND COCONUT OIL

Some of the oleomargarine-tax repeal bills provide for continuing the tax on all oleomargarine containing any imported oils. Such provision is contrary to our foreign-trade program.

We are heartily in accord with the idea of protecting domestic oils. 1. Kraft Foods Co., Chicago, Ill. (p. 505).

2. Friedman Manufacturing Co., Chi

1. Representative Clifford R. Hope, cago, Ill. (p. 506). Kansas (p. 110).

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

3. Charles E. Bohlen, for the Secretary of State (p. 481).

Cheaper foreign oils might replace domestic oils in oleomargarine, and the soybean and cottonseed growers would be without a market for their oil.

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

3. Kent Products, Inc., Kansas City, Mo. (p. 507).

4. The Churngold Corp., Cincinnati, Ohio (p. 508).

5. Shedd-Bartush Foods, Inc., Detroit, Mich. (p. 509).

6. Mrs. Tucker's Foods, Inc., Sherman, Tex. (p. 510).

7. John F. Jelke Co., Chicago, Ill. (p. 510).

8. Vegetable Oil Products Co., Inc., Wilmington, Calif. (p. 511).

9. Standard Brands, Inc., New York (p. 513).

10. Durkee Famous Foods, Cleveland, Ohio (p. 514).

The enactment of pending legislation will definitely cause more domestic oils to be used in the manufacture of margarine notwithstanding trade agreements.

1. The Capital City Products Co., Columbus, Ohio (p. 506).

2. The Miami Margarine Co., Cincinnati, Ohio (p. 506).

3. The Blanton Co., St. Louis, Mo. (p. 513).

[M. Loretta Stankard, Carl A. Hagen, General Research Section, May 14, 1948.]

DIGEST OF THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H. R. 2245, REPEALING FEDERAL TAXES ON OLEOMARGARINE

The debate in the House of Representatives on April 28, 27, and 28, 1948, regarding the repeal of Federal taxes on oleomargarine is digested on the following pages. Page references are to the daily Congressional Record.

Among those Members speaking for the repeal of these taxes were: Abernethy, of Mississippi; Buck, of New York; Corbett, of Pennsylvania; Dorn, of South Carolina; Elsaesser, of New York; Fallon, of Maryland; Fletcher, of California; Foote, of Connecticut; Garmatz, of Maryland; Gathings, of Arkansas; Keating, of New York; McGarvey, of Pennsylvania; Mitchell, of Indiana; Morton, of Kentucky; Poage, of Texas; Potts, of New York; Rivers, of South Carolina; Sabath, of Illinois; Twyman, of Illinois; and Youngblood, of Michigan.

Among the statements which were made in support of the repeal of these taxes were: Fortified oleomargarine is a nutritious food product; pure food laws protect the consumer of margarine and should be used rather than taxes for this purpose; there is a great consumer demand for colored oleomargarine to save the housewife the time and inconvenience incurred when it must be colored in the home; with the present high cost of living, anything which will lower food costs is important and these taxes increase the price of a food which is used by 80 percent of American families; since consumers prefer their table spreads to be colored yellow, they should have them colored-butter manufacturers are permitted to color their product without stating this fact on the package, yet oleomargarine manufacturers must pay a punitive tax if they want to color their product; the fees, licenses, and regulations on manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of margarine are burdensome and prevent some dealers from handling the product; discrimination against one food product in favor of another is contrary to the spirit of free enterprise; and Federal revenue from the oleomargarine taxes is negligible.

Some members spoke in favor of repealing the taxes on oleomargarine with reservations. These included Case, of South Dakota; Combs, of Texas; Cotton, of New Hampshire; and Hill, of Colorado. These Members would support repeal of taxes and permit colored oleomargarine to be sold, provided that it be in such shape (triangular, round, etc.) that it would be easily recognizable as oleomargarine and would not be mistaken for butter.

Among those Members speaking against repeal of these taxes were: Anderson, of Minnesota; Andresen, of Minnesota; Arnold, of Missouri; Bennett, of Missouri; Byrnes, of Wisconsin; Clevenger, of Ohio; Curtis, of Nebraska; Davis, of Wisconsin; Elliott, of California; Gross, of Pennsylvania; Gwynne, of Iowa; Hoeven, of Iowa; Hoffman, of Michigan; Hull, of Wisconsin; Jackson, of Washington; Jensen, of Iowa; Keefe, of Wisconsin; Lemke, of North Dakota; MacKinnon, of Minnesota; Michener, of Michigan; Mundt, of South Dakota; Murray, of Wisconsin; O'Hara, of Minnesota; Phillips, of California; Robertson, of North Dakota; Mrs. St. George, of New York; Schwabe, of Oklahoma; Stephan, of Nebraska; Stevenson, of Wisconsin; Talle, of Iowa; and Vursell, of Illinois.

Among the statements which were made in support of retaining these taxes were: Consumers must be protected from the deception that colored imitation oleomargarine is butter; the fact that oleomargarine is sold uncolored is the housewife's best protection against fraud and the new packaging process simplifies the home coloring process; elimination of these taxes would greatly increase the sales of oleo at the cost of decreasing the sales of butter, and this would seriously endanger the dairy industry since butter is the stabilizer of the industry; repeal of these taxes would cause reduction in the size of dairy herds which would bring about lower milk production, higher cost of all dairy products, soaring price of meat, shortage and high prices of hides and leather, and loss of stability in dairy farming which is an important element of agricultural life and which practices soil conservation and gives year-round employment to many people; the dairy industry is a greater outlet for soybean and cotton products (meal) than is the oleomargarine industry; if these taxes are repealed, uncolored oleo will disappear from the market and colored oleo will increase in price since there will be no lower-priced product competing.

FOR REPEAL

Representative Thomas G. Abernethy (Mississippi)

Mr. Abernethy maintains that the farmers of the South are not seeking an advantage by favoring repeal of the tax on oleomargarine but instead are pleading for fair market. He pointed out also that consumers, generally, throughout America favor removal of the taxes. (April 26, 1948, p. 4989.)

Representative Ellsworth B. Buck (New York)

1. The tax on oleomargarine does not benefit public revenue.

2. The tax on oleomargarine does not benefit the dairy farmer. "Despite the tax, margarine sales have increased more than eightfold in the 61 years of the

tax's existence. Meanwhile butter prices have recently reached the highest points in history and butter is still selling in my community in excess of $1 per pound."

3. The tax does not benefit the cotton or soybean planter. The tax actually benefits no one, therefore it should be eliminated.

4. The tax does not harm the rich or the well-to-do who can afford servants but it does harm the large number of housewives who do their own work-"who must take time they can ill afford from their 14- to 16-hour day to add color which they and their families want but which has been denied them by the dairy lobby." (April 26, 1948, pp. 4977-4978.)

Representative Robert J. Corbett (Pennsylvania)

Mr. Corbett opposes the Hill amendment and all tax shackles on margarine. The proposal that the Congress legislate on the form of manufactured products is ill considered. Anyone inclined to commit fraud could melt the triangular margarine and form it into squares. If there is going to be anything done in the way of distinguishing one product from another, we should utilize the copyright laws just as we should utilize the pure-food laws to bring about the necessary controls. (April 28, 1948, p. 5107.)

Representative W. J. Bryan Dorn (South Carolina)

The tax on oleomargarine is unfair; it is undemocratic; it is un-American, and discriminatory on the farmers of the South and throughout the country. (April 26, 1948, p. 4981.)

Representative Edward J. Elsaesser (New York)

The punitive taxes and regulations on the manufacture, distribution, and sale of colored oleomargarine are imposed to benefit a certain group at the expense of our lower-income families.

There should not be any special privileges for margarine, either. Strict penalties should be imposed for any fraud or deception.

Butter is colored 8 months a year and this fact does not have to be printed on the packages yet at the present time, margarine can be colored only if a tax of 10 cents a pound is paid. (April 28, 1948, p. 5102.)

Representative George H. Fallon (Maryland)

"Nowhere in American economic life is there a more unfair violation of the economic spirit of the Nation than is presented by the cynical set of taxes which besets oleomargarine, and I feel strongly that this represents a national principle not in keeping with our democratic way of life." Butter itself is artificially colored 8 months a year, yet to color margarine requires a $600 Federal license plus a tax of 10 cents a pound. This is too costly for millions of low-income families. (April 26, 1948, p. 4977.)

Representative Charles K. Fletcher (California)

Present taxes and coloring restrictions on oleomargarine are unfair and unAmerican and amount to a tremendous inconvenience and added cost to the housewife.

This bill has nonpartisan support which is an indication of the power of the voice of the long-suffering consumer and homemaker.

Recent scientific tests given by the University of Illinois College of Medicine proved that oleomargarine is just as healthful and nutritious as butter.

The coloring restrictions which make the housewife spend many needless hours in the kitchen to satisfy the greed of special butter interests should not longer be tolerated. I am convinced that removal of these taxes and coloring restrictions will do no harm to the butter industry. (April 28, 1948, pp. 5117-5118.) Representative Ellsworth B. Foote (Connecticut)

At this time when the high cost of living is one of the vital issues of the hour it is especially unreasonable that margarine must be taxed by the Federal Government 10 cents per pound in the event that coloring is added to it and that the wholesaler and the retailer must get a permit in order to sell it. It is the only food product that I know of in the United States that is directly taxed in such a

manner.

This tax is not levied for revenue purposes primarily, but for the prevention of an alleged fraud and deception. The packages are plainly marked so the consumer can tell whether he is getting butter of margarine.

According to the American Medical Association, margarine can be substituted for butter in the ordinary diet without any nutritional disadvantage.