This is the point which I believe the Senator from Illinois is interested in.

This procedure will bring the entire question of fraud in the sale of oleomargarine under the provisions of that act, which now contains adequate provision for protection to all consumers, except patrons of public eating places.

Section 301 (k) of the act, as I have said, prohibits acts which result in misbranding while an article of food is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce.

Section 303 (a) provides for penalties for acts of misbranding; imprisonment for not more than 1 year, fine of $1,000, or both.

Section 403 provides that "a food shall be deemed to be misbranded" when, as defined in subsections (a) through (k), various acts of misbranding occur.

The proposed amendment would add a new subsection and thus a new "act of misbranding," as follows:

(L) If it is oleomargarine containing artificial coloring and is served by a restaurant or other public eating place, whether or not a separate and distinct charge therefor is made, unless a conspicuous sign in, or a prominent notice on the daily bill of fare or menu, of such restaurant or public eating place states that oleomargarine is served. The labeling requirements of this Act shall not apply to oleomargarine containing artificial coloring served by a restaurant or other public eating place if such restaurant or other public eating place fully complies with the provisions of this paragraph.

That is the proposed amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Would there be an objection if butter is served in pats in public eating places?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Pats of butter?

The CHAIRMAN. I mean pats of oleo. Would there be any objection to putting some sort of imprint on the pat itself, just as housewives shape a pat into a rosebud or something else put some kind of a mark on it to show that it is oleo?

Senator BARKLEY. You could not get much on a little tab of butter or margarine either, that they serve in the restaurant. The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid you are right.

Senator TAFT. Put rosebuds only on margarine.

The CHAIRMAN. My thought was not to have it look like a rosebud, but of course, that would only be giving the rose another name. My thought was that the pat be imprinted with an initial or something that would show it was oleo.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I think, of course, as a practical matter perhaps in the Carlton or Shoreham they do make fancy little pats, but the average ordinary restaurant, it would be an intolerable burden to have to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. You think it would be impractical?

Senator FULBRIGHT. I think of no way that an ordinary small restaurant could have the mechanical means of doing that in any reasonably efficient manner. That is my only objection. If you think so as a practical matter, I see no objection. It seems to me it is the easiest way, and the way they already conform to it-40 States already make them do this-is to merely say that in some manner, some reasonable manner, notice must be given to the people that they are serving margarine. That is already, as I say, in effect, and causes very little trouble with the average small restaurant, and that seemed

to us the most practical way to follow that in the experience at least in the States. It seems to have dictated that as being the best way. The CHAIRMAN. I am not proposing this. It has been suggested along with change in shapes and all sorts of things, and I wanted your opinion.

Senator FULBRIGHT. This is a relatively small item in a restaurant, and to require any extraordinary effort in the preparation of the butter or the margarine is simply another way of saying you shall not serve it. That is what it amounts to. If you wanted to expressly prohibit it, that is another matter. That could be considered.

Senator TAFT. I suppose your provision here, the labeling requirement shall not apply to oleomargarine, if this is on it.

Senator FULBRIGHT. If this is on?

Senator TAFT. I do not suppose the labeling provisions of the act apply to any food served in the restaurant, and you cannot label the pork chop or beans or anything else.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Of course there is no doubt about pork chops. Senator TAFT. You are not exempting oleomargarine here from any general requirements in that section?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Not that I know of. You see, all of this merely is another further definition of misbranding. They say if you sell it without this, it amounts to a misbranding.

That is the effect of that.

The CHAIRMAN. This is another way of saying you do not have to serve it in a restaurant in an original container.

Senator TAFT. That is true of all food.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you are saying there.
'Senator FULBRIGHT. You have to give notice if you serve it.

The CHAIRMAN. When you waive the labeling requirements, you are waiving something that is on the container.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Obviously you cannot serve butter in a container to the individual customer.

Senator FULBRIGHT. As I understand the present pure-food laws, there is a provision giving discretion to the Administrator where it is not practical, he makes that decision, to waive the requirement of a label. I think that would be true under existing law, that it has not been deemed to be practical to make an imprint, we will say, on the butter. I think he probably has the power to do that. So that their proposed amendment would relieve him of that discretion. Senator TAFT. You have the alternative, if you do not put the sign on, you could still serve the pat of oleo if it had the proper labeling requirements on it. If it were wrapped separately that would relieve you of the necessity of putting it on the menu, is that right?

Senator FULBRIGHT. I would think certainly as a practical matter that would be compliance.

Senator TAFT. It has been one of the suggestions that it be served in a triangular form, which I suppose would require wrapping.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That was the trouble. That was suggested in the House. I believe that someone submitted an amendment in the House requiring that, and it was voted down on the ground that it is not practical as a way to reach it.

Senator TAFT. An alternative could be that if you did not want to say that, you could do that.

Senator FULBRIGHT. There again you run into the enormous difficulty of taking each pat of butter and wrapping it individually and doing that.

Senator TAFT. The word "oleo" on the pat would hardly comply with the labeling requirements, because they have to set out yellow coloring matter and a number of other things.

Senator FULBRIGHT. This seems to us, and we have thought about it from all angles, probably the most practical way that would not definitely prohibit it. Of course, if they think that the danger is so great that it ought to be prohibited that is another matter. I think there is no serious contention that in the other field, that is, distribution through retail outlets, that there is any fraud or any likelihood of any. The CHAIRMAN. Without any expression of opinion on the merits of what you propose here, it is good to see a constructive suggestion made in this hearing.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I thank the chairman. We have really thought as seriously as we could as to what practical way we could follow, and we also felt the precedent of the States which have been so close to this matter, is probably very persuasive; 40 of them do use this, and I may say one reason I do not set out the exact way that they state this notice is in order not to require two notices, one under the State and one under the Federal law. I mean that was the reason. We considered that very seriously; should we say exactly how they do it. But that would run contra to those laws, and then you would have every restaurant having to have both the way we said they must be given the notice, and the way the State gives it.

Senator TAFT. How many States prohibit the sale of yellow margarine?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Twenty-three I believe. I had that a moment ago. Was it not 23 in the testimony?

Senator TAFT. They prohibit it?

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is 22 or 23. I have forgotten the exact number.

Senator TAFT. They prohibit the sale by restaurants of colored margarine?

Senator FULBRIGHT. They prohibit the sale altogether to anybody. Senator TAFT. And then in addition to that, you have 40 States here that you say have this provision about the bill of fare.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is, have requirements that their law requires that if you sell it.

Senator GEORGE. The Under Secretary of the Treasury said today the sale of colored oleomargarine is prohibited in 22 States. Three additional States impose a tax of 10 cents a pound on the colored product. In 23 States the sale of colored margarine is unfettered by the excise of State prohibition.

Senator TAFT. I wondered how you fixed it at 40 States. You say 40 States have this provision about notice on the bill of fare. How do you fit that in with the 22 that prohibit it altogether?

Senator FULBRIGHT. I have here information, if the committee would like it. This is a compilation of the State requirements. For example, they have different ways. Take my home State, just a short paragraph. This is section 602 of Polk's Digest:

Any hotel, inn or restaurant or boarding-house keeper serving margarine must clearly and indelibly mark the plate holding it on some prominent part thereof

with the word oleomargarine or such other word as may properly describe the compound, puff pastry shortening not made with milk and cream excepted.” They have different ways. Some say it has to be on the plate. Others I notice on the menu and others so on and so forth.

In order not to require double work on that part, we left that just saying in the language of the suggested amendment so that it is reasonably flexible, and yet gives notice.

The CHAIRMAN. Just as an expression of personal opinion, I believe that we should go the route of something of this kind. Whatever we do must be complete from the Federal standpoint, for obviously you cannot possibly adjust your Federal statute to all of the different requirements of the different States. The Federal statute must contain complete protection from the Federal standpoint if we adopt this kind of a device.

Senator FULGRIGHT. And I agree. I think this does it, and is in accord with the existing laws in the States.

For the information of the Senator, I would like to read his own State's requirement as a good illustration of a law quite similar to this.

I

The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt with just one observation. would like to suggest to the butter people that entirely without prejudice to their own contentions they give this amendment very close scrutiny, and if they wish, of course, feel at liberty to be critical of it.

Senator TAFT. Do I understand that under this amendment, white oleomargarine could be served without this requirement? Is that correct?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes. If it is oleomargarine containing artificial coloring

Senator TAFT. You say 40 States have a similar provision. If you have that many States, then some of them must simply prohibit the sale of white margarine without notice, because they prohibit the sale of yellow altogether.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I think that is true. Some do prohibit, I believe, the sale of white oleomargarine. Does not Wisconsin prohibit the sale of white oleomargarine?

Senator TAFT. You claim that 40 States have a provision similar to this. If 22 prohibit it altogether, that makes 62 States, and it would not be possible to have 40 States having provisions similar to this, unless some of them are trying to require the labeling of white oleo. That is what I do not understand.

Senator FULBRIGHT. The 22 prohibitions do not relate solely to restaurants. That is a prohibition, general prohibition to anybody under any circumstances, that the Under Secretary was talking about, relating to sales of yellow margarine. Whereas the State laws requiring notice relate to serving white or yellow, so the 40 include the 22. Senator TAFT. Have you a compilation of all of the States?

Senator FULBRIGHT. This is a compilation I was going to read, Colorado, which is a little nearer the one proposed. This is volume 2, chapter 49, section 23, Statutes Annotated. Whenever margarine is offered to the public for consumption as a butter substitute, the person, firm, or institution offering margarine shall prominently display a sign bearing the words "We serve oleomargarine" in plain Gothic letters at least 2 inches high.

So they are very specific in that. The law excludes other things. The CHAIRMAN. The defect of that law on the face of it is that oleo is not offered as a substitute.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Of course, that was their thought when they wrote it. I agree it is no longer. At the time that was written, in any case I was thinking only of the type of notice that your law requires. Senator BARKLEY. How high are those letters?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Two inches. They have to be plain Gothic letters at least 2 inches high.

Senator BARKLEY. On what, the bill of fare?

Senator FULBRIGHT. This particular thing does not say. I would judge that that meant a placard and that they must hang up 2 inches high.

Senator BARKLEY. They have to put a placard up saying, "We serve oleomargarine." Does that assume they do not serve butter?

Senator FULBRIGHT. I think that is probably the assumption, but at least they have given them notice.

Senator BARKLEY. They might serve both.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is correct. But you are on notice that you may be getting margarine, of course. If you do not like it, you do not have to eat it or do not have to take it. At least, you are not being deceived.

The CHAIRMAN. It gives you the right to question the proprietor. Senator BUTLER. Would you file a copy of that?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Would the committee like to have this digest? I do not want to burden the record, but it has the various requirements, if the committee would like to have that.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be put in the record at this point. (The information is as follows:)

RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF MARGARINE IN PUBLIC EATING PLACES

United States

SEPTEMBER 30, 1947

Hotels, boarding houses, restaurants, or other eating places when coloring and serving margarine to paying guests or employees are liable to Federal margarine manufacturer's annual license and fee of $600 a year; except: Cooperative clubs or fraternities; and when the margarine is cooked or mixed with food and thus loses its identity as a distinct article of food.

Where proprietors of public eating places serve margarine with meals, with or without special charge for it, they do not incur liability to the Federal retail margarine licenses and fees.

Notice that margarine is served need not be displayed or given in public eating places unless the law of the State requires it.

Information.-United States Bureau of Internal Revenue, district or deputy collectors. Regulations No. 9, issued by the Bureau.

Alabama

No restrictions.

Information.-State board of agriculture and industries.

Arkansas

Any hotel, inn, restaurant, or boarding-house keeper serving margarine, must clearly and indelibly mark the plate holding it on some prominent part thereof with the word "oleomargarine" or such other word as may properly describe the compound. Puff-pastry shortening not made with milk or cream excepted (sec. 6020, Pope's Digest).

Information.-Commission of revenues.

California

Coloring. It is unlawful to use, or to serve to patrons, guests, boarders, or inmates in any hotel, eating house, restaurant, public conveyance or boarding