investigations you might find where some of it, when the job has been done, I am giving it as my suspicion and my own personal, opinion. You can take it for whatever it is worth.

Senator LUCAS. We get a lot of speculations of that kind around here. Let me ask you one question. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Brandt, that the cow population had decreased in this country?

Mr. BRANDT. The cow population, the dairy cow population in the States of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska have decreased by about 17 percent since 1942, and those are big butter-producing States.

Senator LUCAS. Is that true throughout the country?

Mr. BRANDT. Some of the other States, the decrease has not been noticeable. I think nationally you might have a decrease of 5 percent in cow population, 5 or 6 percent, in the last year but in your real butter-producing States, where this general situation has been most effective in the farm planning, you have had there the greatest decrease in the number of dairy cows on the farm.

Senator LUCAS. The testimony before the committee seems to be unchallenged that there is more milk produced today than any time in the history, and I was wondering how that comes about if the cow population was decreasing.

Mr. BRANDT. That statement is not true. The history of the facts of the case are that the total milk production is already on the decline, and has been for the last 2 years. We reached our peak when we produced 121,000,000,000 pounds, I think it was in 1946 or 1945, and then we have stayed rather level, and from that time our milk production is on its way down.

Senator LUCAS. I think Senator Fulbright testified yesterday morning, and I think maybe one or two other witnesses testified definitely that while we were consuming less butter per capita in this country, on the other hand there was more milk being produced than at any time in the history, and that is the reason I asked the question.

Mr. BRANDT. That is an easy question to answer. I am giving you my opinion on it, and from my information and for what it is worth. Senator LUCAS. As I recall, the Senator quoted facts that he had, figures that he had received from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Mr. BRANDT. If those are facts, then my statement is wrong. I still maintain that we are producing less milk today than we did 2 years ago.

Senator LUCAS. All right. Thank you.

Senator BARKLEY. As a matter of fact, the cattle population generally has declined. There are fewer cattle on the farms in this country now than at any time in the last 10 years.

Mr. BRANDT. That is right.

Senator BARKLEY. That is due partly to the price of feed, to keep them through the winter; it is due partly to the price of cattle which are bringing a high price on the market, so that those two things working together have tended to reduce the cattle population, and naturally the milk cattle population would go down about the same proportion, I guess.

Mr. BRANDT. Yes. In the butter-producing States, your dairy cattle numbers are down further than the beef production. In those States where we have the main part of your butter production, those seven States are down 17 percent.

Answering your question, Senator Lucas, as to this question of milk, we reached our peak in 1946 of 121,000,000,000 in round figures, and in 1947 we were 119,000,000,000 pounds of production, so whoever made the statement before, these are actual figures from the United States Department of Agriculture, was not quite right in his figures. I am a little nearer right than he is, at least.

Senator FULBRIGHT. May I make a comment there? The figures I quoted came from the Department of Agriculture, and were over a 10-year period 1936 to 1946, and I quoted there 120,000,000,000 pounds plus.

Mr. BRANDT. One hundred and twenty-one billion was your peak. Senator FULBRIGHT. The increase from 1936 to 1946, I think the percentage was from 102,000,000,000 to 120,000,000,000. I have forgotten the percentage. That same period there was a decrease of approximately 29 percent in the production of butter. The only point was that the greater part of the production of milk had gone into other items, such as cheese, dried milk, and condensed milk than had gone into butter.

Mr. BRANDT. That is right.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I do not think there is any difference in the figures. My figure stopped at 1946, which was taking the 10-year period.

Mr. BRANDT. Your 1946 was 121,000,000,000, and last year it was 119,000,000,000, and a part of your fat was due to foreign exports. They have had quite a lot of that, and then you have had an increase in the consumption of milk and cream and ice cream in that period of time.

Senator THYE. Would I be out of order if I were to make a comment right here?

The CHAIRMAN. Please do..

Senator THYE. We have been talking about the decrease in number of dairy cows, and I would like to draw this comparison: In 1938 we had 34,774,000 cows, that is, for milk, and we had as beef cattle and other cattle 30,475,000, so you will notice that the dairy cows there were above the number of beef cattle and other cattle registered.

Now, we will drop down to the last official figures, which is 1947, in order that we may have there again the comparison which is given years later. Your dairy cows are 38,468,000; your beef cattle, you will note, are up to 42,739,000. So your dairy cows have dropped, whereas your beef cattle have been on the increase, and the highest number of beef cattle were in the year of 1944, when you had 44,077,000, but at that particular time the dairy cow was away up to 41,257,000.

So that the fact is, as Mr. Brandt stated, that the disparity between dairy prices and the actual beef and grain prices had been so great that there was a tendency to actually discourage the dairy, and where it was an attempt to increase or encourage the expansion of beef cattle. I thought that these figures should go into the record there, because you can see that the dairy industry is actually being depressed in the United States, particularly in the heavy dairy States.

The South, because of soil-conservation practices brought about by Federal appropriations, there they have actually held or increased the number of dairy cows in order to utilize the feeds that the soil-conser

7626948- -12

vation program brings about in the planting of legumes and grasses in the soil protection.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to make these

remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, please.

Mr. BRANDT. I should like to enter into the record here a survey on prices of oleomargarine, both colored and uncolored, at five points in the United States, to prove my statement that when you repeal the tax it is not going to save the consumer any money, because it is going to be a merchandising advantage to the oleomargarine manufacturer rather than a saving to the consumer.

Take Birmingham, Ala., and these are actual surveys: Uncolored oleomargarine sold for 41 cents, colored for 54 cents. Arkansas, Fort Smith, 41 cents for uncolored, 55 cents for colored.

Senator CONNALLY. Where was that?

Mr. BRANDT. That is in Fort Smith, Kans.

Senator CONNALLY. Fort Smith is Arkansas, I think.

Mr. BRANDT. And Colorado, Denver, 40 cents for uncolored, 52 for colored. Florida, Miami, 41 for uncolored, 52 for colored. Georgia, Atlanta, 41-these are several places there-41 for uncolored, 52 for colored, and 33 for uncolored and 55 for colored. That is another point. Thirty-five for uncolored and 55 for colored.

Then in Indiana, Evansville, 41 for uncolored, 53 for colored; 43 for uncolored and 55 for colored. And then another point, 47 for uncolored and 59 for colored. South Bend, 41 for uncolored, 57 for colored. In Terre Haute, Ind., 32 for uncolored, 59 for colored.

There is a rather uniformly higher price for colored than there is for uncolored, and more than the 10-cent tax. It ranges from Louisville, Ky., here is a range in Louisville, Ky., 39 for uncolored, 52 for colored, 40 for uncolored, 53 for colored, 43 for uncolored, 59 for colored, 45 for uncolored, and 55 for colored, 45 for uncolored, 57 for colored, and here is the extreme of 47 for uncolored and 60 for colored. I will not read this whole survey. I will enter it in the record to show you that after all there is more than the 10-cent charge placed on the uncolored oleomargarine wherever it is being merchandised as uncolored.

2 Placard above box containing oleo stated: Colored oleo-Looks and tastes like real butter.

3 Colored oleo not available now-sold last November in Memphis for 63 cents. Sold last October in Knoxville for 64 cents. 4 No colored oleo found on sale.

Mr. BRANDT. I have given you about the general consensus of my opinion on this subject. I will be glad to answer any questions you may want to answer.

Generally that is my story on the product. The statement to the effect that the oleomargarine people have to bleach their product before they can manufacture it to make it white is unfounded because all oleomargarine manufacturers have to hydrogenate cottonseed and soybean oil before they can get the foundation stock to manufacture oleomargarine out of it, and in turn they have to add the color. Otherwise they would have a dirty white or a green tinge to it, and it is part of the process of manufacturing to bleach it. We could not bleach, we could not renovate, we could not clarify, we could not clean up a dairy product, and then manufacture it the way the oleomargarine people do and get by the Food and Drug Administration for the definition for butter. We cannot use a preservative and they do use a preservative. That is generally my statement on the subject. (The prepared statement of Mr. Brandt follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN BRANDT, LITCHFIELD, MINN., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION; PRESIDENT, LAND O' LAKES CREAMERIES, INC., BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON H. R. 2245, A BILL TO REPEAL THE TAX ON OLEOMARGARINE

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am appearing in opposition to the legislation now under consideration by the committee, H. R. 2245. This bill, as it came from the House, cuts the heart out of the Federal control of oleomargarine. Federal enforcement of oleomargarine regulations is based on the exercise of the taxation power of the Congress. The bill leaves the regulations and penalties to benefit books but eliminates the taxes. The regulations are the basis for collecting the taxes. If the taxes are removed, the regulations go by the boards.

The bill is represented by its proponents as a piece of legislation to benefit consumers. Actually it is a bill to confer a trade benefit to a butter substitute. It legalizes the manufacture and sale of a product that is as complete an imitation of butter as is humanly possible, and it denies to butter any effective protection against this almost identical imitation. To give such legal sanction to an imitation with no protection to the genuine product is an unprecedented reversal of legislative policy and of the ordinary rules of fair play.

NO OTHER PARALLEL TO BUTTER-OLEO RELATIONSHIP

In the food industry there are a number of examples of substitutes and imitations. In no other instance, however, does one food product seek to completely imitate another product in all of its physical attributes and in its packaging and its advertising. In no other instance does one food product seek to trade on the good will and consumer preference of another product by such deliberate and misleading propaganda.

There is likewise no parallel opportunity in the food industry for the fraud and deception which is possible in the substitution of colored oleo for butter. The incentive for such fraud is tremendous-both because of the large volume of the products involved, and because of the wide spread in the prices between oleomargarine and butter. If H. R. 2245 becomes a law and butter is robbed of its last protection and its last distinguishing characteristic, the opportunities and incentives to fraud will be multiplied by the thousands.

Surely it is fundamental in American business law and in our sense of fair business practices that one industry should not be permitted to unfairly imitate the product of another. A corporation cannot take a name so similar to that of an established corporation as to permit it to capture the other's good will. Our trade-mark laws are carefully enforced to prevent one industry from unfairly imitating another established product.

It is fundamental in our business code that an industry which has developed a product and built up a good will and demand for its product should be protected against unfair imitation by another.

Where, then, is the wrong in the present laws? They are not discriminatory. The only trade benefit they extend to the butter industry is the right to some protection against the unfair imitation of butter. Congress is not being asked to correct a law which is unfair-it is being asked to create an unfairness. It is being asked to legalize the unfair imitation by the oleomargarine industry of another's product. It is being asked to legalize a raid by one industry upon the established good will and on the markets of a competing industry.

CAMPAIGN IS BACKED BY ADVERTISING

The plot and the scheme to rob butter of its birthright and to give oleomargarine free license to masquerade as the genuine product is supported by an advertising and propaganda campaign running into millions of dollars. This campaign has been successful in stampeding the public and the press with catch phrases and arguments that have no relation to the real issue involved. It is now being used in an attempt to stampede and rush the Congress into passing this legislation without critically examining it to determine its real purpose. At this point I ask permission to include in the record the story of this campaign as reported in the March 5, 1948, issue of Tide magazine, a trade publication of the advertising and public relations profession.

The success of this oleo campaign is a matter that invites serious thought. There should not be permitted to exist in this country a situation under which far-reaching trade legislation can be secured simply by building up public pressure through the expenditure of huge sums for advertising and propaganda. Any condition under which legislation favorable to a particular industry can be secured by the expenditure of large sums of money is antagonistic to the general welfare of the Nation.

We urge most earnestly that you examine this legislation carefully and look at the real purpose behind it. We ask that you determine your position with respect to its passage strictly upon the merits of the issue, uninfluenced by the propaganda campaign that is being used to create pressure in its favor.

NO BENEFITS TO THE CONSUMERS

Despite the claims of the oleo propaganda, the enactment of the proposed legislation will confer no benefit to the consumers. Today the housewife can buy uncolored oleomargarine-a comparatively inexpensive table spread. If she wishes to color it yellow, modern packaging permits her to do so easily, quickly and without waste. The procedure takes only 2 minutes of her time according to the oleomargarine manufacturers' advertisements-2 minutes once or twice a week for the average, family.

But if the present legislation is enacted she will lose her present low-price table spread because uncolored oleo will disappear from the markets. No one can doubt this because the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers has