5-percent level, the difference between two comparable entries in the margarine and standard columns must be greater than twice the standard error. For instance, on the first line in table 1, under "Boys," in the column headed "Margarine," the average yearly gain in weight was 6.7 pounds (3,039 grams) with a standard error of 0.6 pound (272.2 grams). Twice 0.6 is 1.2, which, added to 6.7, gives 7.9 pounds (3,583.4 grams). The average gain in the standard column is 7.2 pounds (3,265.9 grams), well within the range of the standard error, and the difference is, therefore, not statistically significant.

TABLE 1.—Average yearly gain in weight (in pounds) for children observed at least 6 months

TABLE 2.—Average yearly gain in height (in inches) for children observed at

For a test of significance between a margarine and butter value the formula

is used. In only 3 cases does it seem necessary to perform this test. This is in table 1, under "Boys," ages 6-13 and ages 6-9, and table 3, under "Boys," 6-9 years of age. In none of these cases was the difference found significant.

In both table 1 and table 2 all average gains in the margarine group were at least as great (including the standard error) as the gain in either the butter group or a standard group, with two exceptions. These exceptions were in the 2- to 5-year age groups. This is due to the fact that the average age in this particular group in the margarine study was greater than the midvalue of the group. In fact, there were only one boy and one girl 2 years old included in the study. It is believed that the adjustment of all the values to an annual basis is accurate. However, to eliminate doubt as to the validity of the method, comparisons were made using only those subjects who were observed for the maximum time. There were 51 children in the margarine group who were studied the maximum time of 24 months. In the butter group there were 53 under observation for the maximum 24 months.

Again the values were reduced to an annual average gain, going far to reduce chance errors, since all values were practically halved. Tables 3 and 4 exhibit the data.

In only one case, the 2-5 year age group in the boys, in table 4, is the comparison unfavorable. In all other combinations margarine shows up as at least as efficient a source of fat for growth as butter in the normal diet.

TABLE 3.-Average yearly gain in weight (in pounds) in children observed 24

It is evident from the tables that growth of the group fed margarine, as determined by increases in height and weight, was comparable to that of the children fed butter and to standard height and weight values for the same age group.

TABLE 4.—Average yearly gain in height (in inches) in children observed 24

Furthermore, it was noted that in the margarine group there was no increase in the amount of illness. Illnesses in general had been on the decline in the margarine group for the last 4 or 5 years, and this decrease in the incidence of illness continued during the period of the study. This compares with conditions present in the community for the last 5 years.

It was interesting to observe how the children accepted margarine. When it first made its appearance on the table in its white form-and the study was explained to the children, the younger children promptly accepted it. The children in the older age group did not take to it too kindly. Very shortly thereafter, however, a shipment of colored margarine came in. This was cut up into the usual pats and all the children then ate it readily and liberally. Thereafter it was always served cut in pats and colored.

At no time during the period of the study was it considered that vitamin A played any definite role in the results of the study. The reason, of course, is that all the margarine used contained 15,000 units of vitamin A per pound-which is equal to or greater than the amount present in average butter.

Blood studies showed that there were no significant differences between the margarine or butter groups.

The children in the margarine group experienced a high degree of good health during the study, and in comparing their health to that of the butter group it appears to have been much better.

When infirmary records are compared it is readily seen that the margarine group fared much better than the butter group. We are not making any claims that the margarine group were healthier simply because their diet contained margarine. Other variables are more likely to account for their better health. At no time during the course of the study did either institution experience any type of epidemic, and no doubt this may in part be due to the fact that both institutions practiced accepted preventive measures on all their children.

CONCLUSIONS

Growing children experience normal growth in height and weight when their diets contain only fortified margarine as table fat, as shown by comparison with children fed on similar diets with butter as the source of table fat and by comparison with standard height and weight tables.

TABLE 5.-Group total and average yearly gains in weight (pounds) and height (inches); children observed at least 6 months

Whether the greater part of the fat of the diet is derived from vegetable or animal sources has no effect on growth and health as shown by changes in height and weight and health records of children observed over a 2-year period. During a 2-year period the health of 267 children was uniformly good so far as serious illness is concerned, regardless of whether margarine or butter was the source of the greater part of the fat in the diet.

TABLE 6.-Group total and average yearly gains, by sex, in weight (pounds) and height (inches); children observed at least 6 months

If there is a growth factor present in butter which is not present in margarine, there is no evidence in the present study that such a factor plays any important part in the growth of children as determined by increases in height and weight. Margarine is a good source of table fat in growing children, as determined by a 2-year study. Children readily accept margarine as a table spread when it is colored and served in pats.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Carlson is on the list of witnesses.

Mr. RIVERS. They adequately show where growing children using margarine alone in their diet for all and every conceivable purpose in which fat is necessary, have no difference from butter, and certainly the growing features are equal to that of butter.

Now, if the converse of the present condition were true today, and no tax existed on margarine, Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to imagine a condition giving an excuse to tax margarine today, because of the many great strides that have been made as the result of the manufacturers' desire to make this a good product. If any were taxed, it would be butter, because butter today is a luxury. People cannot afford it. The 40,000,000 households today which use margarine could not afford to get butter.

Margarine is eaten today because of desire and of necessity, because of the high price of butter, which has made it a luxury. Över 700,000,000 pounds of margarine were used last year, and of the 40,000,000 households, approximately over 13,000 man and woman years of labor were used in the mixing of it and I contribute to that, because I have mixed a sizable amount myself.

That 13,000 years could well have been used to the other necessities that exist in this high and inflated society.

Now, the American housewife today pleads, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, as well as demands, that the tax on margarine, the un-American tax be removed. From the planting of the seed of the corn, the peanut, the soy and the cotton to the ultimate finished product, there is a tax of from one-quarter of 1 percent or whatever the tax is to 15 cents a pound for no rhyme or reason, and in addition to that there are hidden costs by virtue of the virtual sword of Damocles that hangs over the heads of every manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of margarine, because of the punitive Federal statutes, which cause untold cost to keep books to deliver this finished product to the housewife, every conceivable concoction is conceived to render it almost impossible to deliver a product to the housewife.

Before the House committee I referred to this tax as a tribute and as a ransom. I will not refer to it here, because the Senate, by a vote, has seen fit to refer to this as a tax, giving you jurisdiction, and at that point I am glad to note that this distinguished committee has jurisdiction on this subject matter.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to say this: Our body has spoken unmistakably on this subject, answering the plea and the demand of the housewife. I know that you will do likewise, and your body will follow your decision.

I am honored to be here, and I am very grateful for this opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you here. Thank you.
Mr. RIVERS. I will submit to any questions.

Senator BARKLEY. At the beginning of your statement, referring to the tariff taxes, you said the present tax, I understood, was 7 cents under the Geneva agreement.

Mr. RIVERS. I think that is right.

Senator BARKLEY. But the tax on the section 22 was 15 cents, the tariff. It sounded like a discrepancy between the two figures, sir. It may not be vital. What are the facts about it?

Mr. RIVERS. I think that the 15 cents is on imported margarine, and then there is the Geneva agreement which imposes a tax, I think it is, of 7 cents, in addition to that. In the treaty which the Senate approved with the Philippines I think it exempted coconut oils, which in some cases are used; virtually now margarine is made from just about 100 percent American oils, but I believe in the Philippine

agreement I have that in my files, I did not bring it this morning, but I procured that from the State Department, they are free. Î think it is some kind of a reciprocal agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Fulbright, will you see that we get the statistics on imports of oleomargarine and constituent materials? Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes, sir.

(The following was later submitted for the record :)

1 Source: Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.

2 In 1947, contributed 53.1 percent of margarine oil ingredients. Source of data: Bureau of Internal Rev

enue.

3 In 1947, contributed 37.5 percent of margarine oil ingredients. Source: Same. 4 Less than 500 pounds.

5 Imported mostly into Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

NOTE. Other ingredients, 1947: Peanut oil, 2.9 percent; coconut oil, 3.5 percent; corn oil, 1.1 percen; oleo oil, 0.6 percent; neutral lard, 0.5 percent; monostearine, 0.1 percent.

Senator BARKLEY. Do you have any figures as to the comparative consumption of margarine and butter?

Mr. RIVERS. I think butter is about three times as much, either twice or three times as much butter sold.

Senator BARKLEY. Twice or three times as much butter as margarine?

Mr. RIVERS. I do not know, sir. You cannot sell a pound of margarine to the armed services.

Senator BARKLEY. I wondered if you knew the comparative pounds of consumption between the two.

Mr. RIVERS. Margarine is, I think, over 700,000,000 pounds last year, and I think it was between 1 and 2 billion pounds of butter?

Senator BARKLEY. The price of margarine being less than half of the price of butter, and according to your view equally nutrient and desirable as a food, why has not the consumption of oleomargarine caught up with that of butter?

Mr. RIVERS. There are many factors, Senator. The majority of the spread which was used by the housewives of this Nation last year was margarine, but the majority of the spread used by the consuming public throughout was butter. A great portion of that was in the armed forces, a great portion I imagine in the restaurants and other places.