« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
House and the Senate, and President Truman signed it. It is now the law. You may rest assured-in fact, I never heard any member of the committee wanting to change it or to do away with it.
Mr. NEWTON. We are also pleased with the amendment of the act of 1954 amending the 1949 act to continue that program to the Armed Forces.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Is there anything else that you would like to add to what you have said? Mr. NEWTON. I do not think so.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. Your statement will be made a part of the record at this point.
(The prepared statement of Park Newton is as follows:) My name is Park Newton. I am a dairy farmer living in Georgia, Vt. I am a member of Milton Cooperative Creamery in Milton, president of the Farmers Production Credit Association of Burlington, and director of the Farm Credit Board of the first district.
Milk is important in all the New England States but not as important to the economy of the State as in Vermont. Shown below is the cash receipts from farm marketings of milk in the New England States in dollar amounts and the share of the total in 1954.
Milk is mighty important to the State of Vermont. The importance of Vermont's great dairy industry is clearly shown by the fact that the sale of milk and dairy products alone brought in 70 percent of the total farm income. If we add the sale of cattle and calves to get the total contribution of dairying, we find that the dairy industry, as conducted on Vermont farms brought in 78 percent of the total gross income from farm marketings.
The record shows an increasing dependence on the dairy industry as a source of farm income. In 1954 a larger share of the total Vermont farm income came from the dairy industry than at any time during the period for which records are available. The record also shows that the Vermont farmer gets a larger share of his income from dairying than do farmers in any other area of the Nation. In the Nation, about $1.40 out of every $10 came from the sale of dairy products. Here in Vermont it was $7 out of every $10. The nearest State ap proaching Vermont's record in this respect was Wisconsin. In that State, out of every $10 received from the sale of farm products, $5 came from the sale of milk and dairy products.
Thus, Vermont farmers up here in the north country have plenty of milk to supply consumers with adequate amounts for good nutrition. Yet the fact stands out that the children in their homes aren't getting enough milk for good nutrition. If the minimum level for adequate nutrition is set at a pint a day for adults and a quart of milk per day for children, the nutritional needs were not being met in families with children. This is clearly shown by a recent survey made by the Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station among consumers of the Burlington, Essex Junction, and Vergennes areas. If growing children need twice as much milk as adults, they are not getting it in the homes. From the standpoint of the family, needs must be balanced against the ability to buy. While total family purchases of milk by families with children were greater, they were not enough greater to meet family nutritional needs. Those families without children had .55 quart per person per day-an amount 10 percent above the minimum of a pint a day. But those families with two or more children failed by 20 percent of obtaining enough for even minimum levels of nutrition as shown below.
Levels of milk consumption in the families of Burlington, Essex Junction, and
Vergennes with 2 adults living at home
It is because of these two facts—first, the farmers have enough milk to supply consumers with adequate amounts for good nutrition, and second, the children in the homes aren't getting it in adequate amounts that we strongly endorse and recommend the continuation of the special school-milk program.
The Agricultural Act of 1954 provides that funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, not to exceed $50 million annually for a period of 2 years, shall be used to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children in nonprofit schools of high school grade and under. While this special milk program established under this authority may be considered a subsidy program to a special group of consumers, we do heartily endorse it because it is of great benefit to a group in our society that needs this help and at the same time it is of material benefit to our dairy farmers. It is an excellent example of the joint efforts of local groups, the State government which administers the program locally, and the Federal Government which provides part of the funds.
Much was accomplished last year during the first year of operation. Some 8,674,328 children took part in the program during the 1954–55 school year in 41,460 schools throughout the Nation. As a result of the program more than 451 million additional half pints of milk were consumed in the schools participating. Federal expenditures for the program amounted to $17,224,000. We can expect an even better record during the current school year resulting from improvements that have already been made in the program. Current reports indicate that many more schools will be taking advantage of the program to make more milk available to their students.
The gain in milk consumption in the New England States is shown in the table below.
Report of special school-milk program operations, fiscal year 1955 1
1 No direct comparison of the data can be made as between States since some initiated the program earlier than others.
2 March 1955. The number of schools may have been higher in some States during other months, but March was the peak month in terms of schools participating nationally.
8 Represents the number of children consuming milk in schools participating during the month of March.
- Increase in milk consumption for the fiscal year 1955 above normal consumption of the previous year. > Reports for some States are partly estimated because some reports are incomplete.
Because of the great value of this program to the schoolchildren-our next generation—and farmers generally, we urgently request the Congress of the United States to provide the funds for its continuation at not less than the present level. We also urge all local school authorities to investigate all possible means for including their schools under the program.,
Another group in our society which needs and is entitled to more dairy products is the Armed Forces of the United States. We heartily endorse the amendments made to the Agricultural Act of 1949 by the Agricultural Act of 1954 which directed the Commodity Credit Corporation to make available butter and other dairy products to military agencies and the Veterans' Administration. Under this program butter and other dairy products are made available to the Armed Forces and the Government agencies taking care of the hospitalized veterans without charge except for packaging costs, milk and dairy products acquired under price-support operations for use by them in increasing milk use beyond their normal market purchases.
We also endorse the plans of the Departments of Defense and Agriculture to increase the amounts of fluid milk used by the armed services. Under this arrangement the Commodity Credit Corporation reimburses the military agencies for a substantial part of the cost of additional milk purchased and used by them. The plan is designed at utilizing some of the milk that otherwise would go into manufactured dairy products and be sold to the Commodity Credit Corporation under the price-support program. This is a most worthy aim. Those serving in the Armed Forces need and are entitled to the milk. If it is necessary for the Department of Agriculture to use part of its Commodity Credit Corporation's funds to get adequate quantities of milk and dairy products to the Armed Forces by these two programs, we are all for it and endorse its continuation.
The dairy farmers of the New England States wish to be producing for consumers' stomachs rather than Government storehouses. They have wholeheartedly endorsed and supported with their own money, educational and advertising programs to accomplish these ends by private means. The Federal Government has a part in insuring more adequate levels of milk and dairy products consumption by our children and among our Armed Forces. It is for these reasons that we heartily endorse the special school-milk program and the programs to increase the levels of milk and dairy products consumption among the Armed Forces.
The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. L. E. Griggs. Will you give us your name and occupation, please?
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE E. GRIGGS, MORRISVILLE, VT. Mr. GRIGGS. Lawrence E. Griggs. I am a farmer operating a dairy farm in Morrisville, Vt., consisting of about 60 head of cattle and 40 milkers.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything in your statement, any particular phase that has not been covered by the witnesses preceding you, sir?
Mr. GRIGGs. Yes. My statement deals with honest marketing of surplus products and honest labeling.
The CHAIRMAN. Honest labeling?
The CHAIRMAN. Do you offer any suggestion as to what ought to be done to remedy that situation?
Mr. GRIGGS. Merely that we believe that there should be greater enforcement than we have of the present laws. We believe it is most important.
The CHAIRMAN. Who is to do that on the local level? Mr. GRIGGS. I believe that is a Federal law that we speak of, and it would be a Federal job to provide the money and the personnel to enforce the law.
The CHAIRMAN. How would that enforcement be accomplished ? Mr. GRIGGs. I believe it could be done through the present agency now existing.
The CHAIRMAN. You suggest that the funds that are proposed by one of the witnesses, be used in order to police it, to see that the laws are carried out as intended ?
Mr. GRIGG. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Is there anything else that you would like to add ?
Mr. GRIGGS. There is nothing more in this prepared statement that would be different from the others that have been presented.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further suggestions that you would like to make ? Mr. GRIGGS. I think not. The CHAIRMAN. What size farm have you? Mr. GRIGGS. I have a farm of 110 acres. I have about 60 dairy cattle on the farm, of which 40 are milking.
The CHAIRMAN. Are the dairy people of Vermont more or less agreed on the present method of handling the milk products—is there very much opposition?
Mr. GRIGGS. I think not, so far as we know.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to say anything else, sir? If not, I want to give you assurance that your statement as written will be put in the record in full.
Mr. GRIGGS. I am a little concerned about the proposal that has been presented of junking our present promotion program in favor of a Federal program as it applies to the Federal orders, believing that the tax approach that Vermont has, plus a voluntary approach, if followed through in the other States, in that way would raise as much money for promotion work as if it was incorporated in the Federal orders.
The CHAIRMAN. When you say "other States," you mean States in the area? Mr. Griggs. States in the New England area.
The CHAIRMAN. In regard to the enforcement orders, do you have in mind the orders or the enforcement of the provisions in the ordersis that what you are driving at—or are you driving at the use of milk for other purposes, either the milk itself or the products, and so forth?
Mr. Griggs. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I quite understood your question.
The CHAIRMAN. You spoke of enforcing orders or enforcing, I guess, the quality of the milk. Is that what you had in mind ?
Mr. GRIGGS. The present orders as they are operated are satisfactory to me.
The CHAIRMAN. Then it is in the use of the product that you are complaining of? Mr. GRIGGS. Substitute products that you are asking about? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. In other words, the use of other products.
Mr. GRIGGS. The use of the way that advertising is done for oleomargarine. We think that there are some unfair practices used in merchandising by companies that distribute oleomargarine.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you be specific in any instance as to what you have, that you think ought to be corrected ?
Mr. GRIGGS. We believe one thing that exists that should not. In the dairy cases in most grocery stores oleomargarine, for instance, is carried in those, and the label on the outside is "Dairy products." We think that should not be.
The CHAIRMAN. If it is so labeled, of course, that, in my opinion, is not correct. As I remember now, I am just giving maybe a cornfield
one thing as Oleoman Dairy
ny way nsress never intend the Departhat the
opinion, as we lawyers say, but I think that would be a violation of the law. All you want is that that be enforced ?
Mr. GRIGGS. We would like to see oleomargarine taken out of the dairy cases and be sold on its merits and not to ride along on the real product.
The CHAIRMAN. As I remember, when the oleomargarine law was passed there was some provision to make that distinction that you are now talking about. If that is violated, I do not believe there would be any difficulty in making the handlers of it conform to the law. Are you suggesting new laws or the enforcement of the present laws?
Mr. GRIGGS. I am suggesting that maybe we need more personnel to enforce it.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, to enforce the laws on the statute books as to oleomargarine ?
Mr. GRIGGS. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I remember, Senator Holland I am sure will remember also, and Senator Aiken, we have in the law certain provisions to make certain that oleomargarine is sold as such and not to be confued or advertised as being a dairy product. That is my recollection.
Senator AIKEN. I think the intent of Congress was that it would be a violation of the law, but I do not know what the interpretation of the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice would be on that. Congress never intended that oleomargarine should be sold in any way as a dairy product; in other words, putting oleomargarine in the same case with butter or in the same cold-storage compartment, labeling it “Dairy products” would, I think, under the intent of Congress, be a violation of the law.
Sometimes the departments do not interpret the law the way the Congress thinks of it when it is passing it.
Did you have also some reference to the growing use of coconut oil in ice cream which is now permissible in 11 States?
Mr. GRIGGS. Yes, I did. I doublt if that is a problem at the moment in New England, but it could be.
The CHAIRMAN. How would you prevent that? If the people who handle it can use it, it is not against existing law.
Mr. Griggs. I believe that the only thing that we ask is that when the sale is permitted in New England, if it is, that it be labeled and sold as the product that it is. I do not think that we ask for prohibition.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of any provisions with respect to coconut oil. That is well worth looking into because I think it is wrong, it is immoral to use it and to label it as a dairy product when it is not.
Senator AIKEN. May I add that the necessity for strictly controlling this is due to the fact that there is no known test which will tell whether the fat in the ice cream comes from a cow or from a coconut. There is no known test.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a sad situation.
Senator HOLLAND. So far as I am concerned, I think that the taste test would enable me to tell which was which. If I understand this witness, he wants the spirit of the labeling law now existing which requires the package of oleo to be labeled clearly, to be so labeled, is that it, so that it clearly defines it? You want the law expanded, if it does not