« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
equally wholesome and nutritious as milk with the same content of calories and vitamins, they are artificial or manufactured foods which are cheaper to produce than similar whole-milk products. When compounded and canned, whether enriched or not, they are indistinguishable by the ordinary consumer from processed natural milk. The purchaser of these compounds does not get evaporated milk. This situation has not changed since the enactment of the act. The possibility and actuality of confusion, deception, and substitution was appraised by Congress. The prevention of such practices or dangers through control of shipments in interstate commerce is within the power of Congress (United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. at p. 148, 58 S. Ct. at p. 781, 82 L. Ed. 1234; cf. McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 63, 24, S. Ct. 769, 779, 49 L. Ed. 78, 1 Am. Cas. 561). The manner by which Congress carries out this power, subject to constitutional objections which are considered hereinafter in part “Third” of this opinion, is within legislative discretion, even though the method chosen is prohibition of manufacture, sale, or shipment. Congress evidently determined that exclusion from commerce of filled milk compounds in the semblance of milk, was an appropriate method to strike at evils which it desired to suppress.”
The Filled Milk Act (21 U. S. C., sec. 61–63), which prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of filled milk was held not to transcend the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce nor to infringe the fifth amendment of the Constitution (United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 58 S. Ct. 778). In that case the Court said :
"The power to regulate commerce is the power 'to prescribe the rule by which merce is to be governed' (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196, 6 L. Ed. 23), and extends to the prohibition of shipments in such commerce (cases cited). The power 'is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution' (Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, 9 Wheat, 1, 196, 6 L. Ed. 23).”
In discussing the power to regulate interstate commerce as applied in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act (7 U. S. C., sec. 601 et seq.) the Court, in United States v. Rock Royal Co-op (307 U. S. 533, 59 S. Ct. 993), said :
“This power over commerce when it exists is complete and perfect.—The authority of the Federal Government over interstate commerce does not differ in extent or character from that retained by the States over intrastate commerce.”
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act authorizes the regulation of an agricultural commodity or product which “is in the current of interstate of foreign cultural commodity or product which "is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce in such commodity or product thereof” (7 U. S. C., sec. 608 c (1)).
Under this provision it was held that the sale of milk within a State could be regulated as could also the purchase of milk from a producer within the State.
In the Wrightwood Dairy case (United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U. S. 110, 62 S. Ct. 523) the Court applied the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act to wholly intrastate transactions which, however, because of their competition with sales in interstate commerce operated to burden and affect interstate commerce.
The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U. S. C., sec. 301 et seq.) prohibits misbranding with respect to a drug held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce.
In United States v. Sullivan (68 S. Ct. 331) the Court held the act applicable to a retail sale of drugs which had moved in interstate commerce some 9 months previously and which had passed through one intrastate sale prior to retail sale. The Court said that the wording of the statute was apparently designed to control the drug all the way from the moment of its introduction into interstate commerce to its delivery to the ultimate consumer. The Court held that Congress has the constitutional power to regulate the branding of articles that have completed an interstate shipment and are being held for future sales in purely local or intrastate commerce.
Other examples of statutory language which have been broadly construed to permit Federal regulation of intrastate transactions which affect interstate commerce or the free flow of goods in interstate commerce can be found in the labor laws and in other statutes relating to agriculture. However, the limited time available does not permit of the further development of the matter in this memorandum. Respectfully submitted.
MARION R. GARSTANG, Counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Congressman Robert J. Corbett. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. CORBETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to depart from my prepared statement and address myself to some of the questions that have come up here this morning.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
Mr. CORBETT. I believe, sir, that some of the point of view which has been expressed during the hearings up to date is a little contrary to what I believe is the whole spirit behind the repeal of these particularly iniquitous taxes on margarine. Many of us over in the House who supported the repeal of these bills believe that there is simply no merit in the tax, no justification, that they are un-American, that margarine has no reason to come in here and plead for a right to compete in a free-enterprise system.
We feel very definitely that all of this conversation and all of this discussion regarding how this particular food product shall be permitted to be utilized in a free economy and by the American people is simply beside the point.
Taking the amendment which was just under discussion, there is being considered the possibility of permitting margarine to be utilized by the American people in a free, competitive market, when according to all of the American traditions, as I understand'it, the quality of the product is the thing which labels it.
I notice all of the other quality products that are sold—they brand their product. They label it so that it is easily recognized, and then if someone tries to substitute or imitate, they are guilty of violating the copyright laws, and other regulations.
So we would like to point out that if there is to be any labeling done here or any marking, it ought to be in the traditional way, and we simply can see no reason why a product which has been proved to be nutritional and wholesome has got to be continually kept under shackles by some other product.
If that were established as the precedent in the American economic life, just imagine what might follow. We might have steel and aluminmum right now seeking repressive taxes against plastics and other possible substitutes. We might have the cotton industry operating in the same fashion against rayon or silk against nylon.
In other words, we see absolutely no merit in these taxes. We feel that the butter interests have enjoyed a special benefit for all of these years that ought to be removed, and the consuming public, sir, of this country is demanding that they be removed. We have, as was pointed out earlier, 40 million families, most of them in the lower-income brackets, that are being taxed in order to provide a specially reserved market for another American commodity, and that to us just seems entirely unfair and repugnant to the whole philosophy of our economic system.
Here we have the picture, if you please, of an American product consumed by the American people, having to come before the Congress of the United States and ask for the right to be used in a free situation. Therefore, rather than us in the consideration of this bill thinking about what new shackles shall be retained, how many of the old shackles shall be retained, we believe they ought all to be removed.
The Hill amendment, which was referred to earlier, whether it would be put in a triangular package, was in the estimation of the majority of the House simply a subterfuge to keep an increased cost burden on the industry which would be in turn paid by the consumer. The cost of retooling the whole industry to conform to the triangular shape just simply adds a new handicap, and if the thing that is desired is to prevent fraud, what is to prevent a product that is easily melted to be reshaped and sold.
And again we do not take much stock in this fraud argument, because with the 40 to 45 cent differential now we do not feel that taking the 10 cent tax off yellow margarine is going to turn the hotel and restaurant managers of the United States into crooks. There is certainly plenty of incentive to fraud now if that is the thing to be guarded against.
I would like to point out to your committee here that if we completely remove these taxes, as we think they should be, set the product into the American economic picture as it should be, that it would then be the duty or the privilege rather of the butter people if they feel they have a superior product to so label it, and just as any other food product of high merit is labeled.
Furthermore, and I think this fact that I recognize the shortage of time here, there is another fact that ought to be strongly emphasized in this whole situation, long ago, and used during the war as a standard, the home economics department of the Department of Agriculture recommended that the consumption of oil and fats per capita should be approximately 36 pounds per person per year.
At no time in the recent history of the United States has the per capita consumption of fats and oils ever reached that level. I am sorry that the Senator left. He raised the question about the total amount of butter and margarine produced last year. It happened to be about 2 to 1. There were 1,450,000,000 pounds of butter produced and approximately 750,000,000 pounds of margarine, of which 50,000,000 pounds was exported, so it was about 2 to 1. However, that whole total production was only in the neighborhood of about 18 pounds per capita ; so that we were only about 50 percent of the recommended consumption, total consumption, that is, and we all know, we hear on the radio, we see it newspapers every day, we are urged to save fats and oils. We continue here as the Congress by law restrictions on the development of edible fats and oils. It seems to me that when we have not ever been able to reach a satisfactory minimum in this country, let alone in the world, that we just cannot justify a continued restriction.
Consequently, and the thing I would like to emphasize throughout that margarine, is not coming in here as some sort of a fraudulent criminal, pleading for some kind of a pardon, and to be allowed to operate in the economy under a parole; it has got altogether the same rights to the free market in America as butter or any other product, and there is no analogous situation in the whole law of the Federal Government where one American product has been taxed for the benefit of another.
I am sure that the gentlemen of this committee are probably as conscious of the public demand for a change in the law as I am, but as I have looked at the opinion polls, as I have gathered one of my own, as I frequently do, I find, for example, that the people in my area are 82 percent in favor of the repeal of these laws; that the polls show overwhelming majorities that the vote of the membership of the House shows it, the attitude of the commentators and the commentators on the radio show that I would say the people of the United States are going to be rid of these laws. We talked about the State situation, which is a further example of public attitude. There were at the time this fight started some 23 States which had prohibitions on the manufacture and sale of margarine. Since these discussions have started, there are very few State legislatures in session. New Jersey has repealed the laws. Massachusetts' repealer is in conference now, and there is no indication that it will not be passed and signed. Maryland has eliminated it by judicial interpretation, and so we are down to the point when the Massachusetts law is signed, there will be 20 or 19 States still maintaining those prohibitions.
We are very confident that when most of the State legislatures meet next year that these prohibitions are going, because the public is insisting that it has a right to buy food as cheap as possible, and it has a right to buy healthful food and raise its children in the most healthful way possible without paying any tax to any section or any special industry.
I think this thing ought to be emphasized further, that in the House we had a very unprecedented circumstance, of course, when the Agriculture Committee over there closed the door on any margarine legislation for the year, refusing to consider any bills for the duration of the session, as of that day there were only 70 names on the discharge petition, and all of them from the one party. But in almost record time that discharge petition was filled up with the 218 signatures and some 10 or 12 other Members were standing in line waiting to sign. Despite the attitude of anyone in the House, the Members of the House in sufficient number went up and signed that discharge petition, and when the roll was called they voted to eliminate these taxes, lock, stock, and barrel.
And so, gentlemen, to conclude my remarks, I would simply like to state that on the part of the majority of the Members of the House, we think these taxes are un-American. We think they are unjust. We think that no one can defend them in any way, shape, or form. We think they are repugnant to our enterprise system, and that they ought to be repealed, both on the Federal and State levels, in the least possible time.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman.
The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Dr. Carlson, of the University of Chicago.
STATEMENT OF ANTON J. CARLSON, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOLOGY,
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, ILL. Dr. CARLSON. My name is Anton J. Carlson. I am professor emeritus of the University of Chicago, department of physiology and medicine.
Without attempting to set forth all of my qualifications, let me cover them briefly and mention particularly some of them which may be of interest to you in connection with the bill under consideration.
I received my graduate training at Stanford University in California, where I received my Ph. D. in physiology. After teaching at certain universities, I joined the faculty of the University of Chicago in 1904, spending the greater part of my time there in charge of the department of physiology and where for 10 years or so I had one of the 10 distinguished research professorships.
I am a member of medical and biological research organizations in this country too numerous to relate. They include societies devoted to nutrition and similar fields, as well as a much broader field. I am a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Institution of Nutrition, the American Medical Association, and so forth. In
many of these I have held responsible positions. I have been the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Education, the oldest and largest organization embracing all of the sciences in the United States, and of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. I am a member of the medical and biological organizations, as a foreign member, in Argentina and France, China and Sweden.
In World War I, I served under the Surgeon General, coming out as a lieutenant colonel, and worked primarily on the problem of food and nutrition for the armed forces, and spent time in France in such activities. After the armistice I was drafted by the American Relief Administration under Mr. Hoover. I served with headquarters in Paris, serving and feeding, or attempting to feed, particularly the children in the war-devastated areas of Europe.
I have been a consultant to the United States Food and Drug Administration for 30-odd years, and am still a consultant for them. I have also been a consultant in connection with food and drugs for the Federal Trade Commission. I have been chairman of two committees of the National Academy of Sciences; I have been chairman of one of the committees of the United States Public Health Service; I was a member of the Public Advisory Committee of the United States Public Health Service. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
I am a member of two scientific and analytical committees, of the National Foundation of Infantile Paralysis.
I have published some 200 research reports in my field, as well as several books, one of them, The Machinery of the Body, having been purchased by the Government for our soldiers, that is, 30,000 copies. I have been a member of one of the committees of the Office of Scientific Research and Development dealing with the rehabilitation of our wounded soldiers.
Perhaps this recital of just some of my work in the past will indicate to you that I have and should have a real interest in the subject matter of the bill now being considered by this committee.
For many years I have been giving my personal attention to the value of oleomargarine as a food and to the laws dealing with the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine.
I want to state that, based upon scientific knowledge, together with considerations of human nutrition, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for imposing these various taxes and license fees on oleomargarine as now found in the Federal oleomargarine laws.
While many years ago there was a lack of knowledge as to the nutritive aspects of margarine, and some doubts, today we have facts. We have facts based upon good and sound scientific experiments.