Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

a budget of some $125,000. City newspapers were used largely in this program.
This year a battery of radio spot announcements are a part of the program.
The Maine dairy farmers are participating in the milk promotion program in
Boston, out of funds made available from the Maine milk tax.

On March 10, 1954, the Boston Federal milk market administrator, having determined by means of a letter and public meetings held in the producing areas that there was no substantial opposition on the part of producers to proposals made to finance milk promotional work, authorized deductions on a voluntary basis from individual farmers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. These deductions amount to three-fourths of a cent a hundredweight for the support of the dairy council.

The work of the dairy council and of ADA is essentially a long-range program, the results of which are not easily measured. Since the time when the dairy council program started in Boston, however, we have succeeded in checking and reversing the downward trend in per capita consumption of fluid milk, and have shown moderate gains.

In recent years, from a low point of 0.805 of a pint per person per day in the Boston market in 1951, there has been a slow, but steady climb each year. As of January 1, 1955, the per person per day fluid milk consumption in the Greater Boston market was 0.834 of a pint.

In 10 of the past 12 months milk sales in the Greater Boston marketing area have run from 2 to 4 percent higher than the corresponding month of last year, and in the other 2 months of July and August, hot weather brought fluid milk sales to alltime high records.

R. D. Aplin, Federal Milk Market Administrator, reports that after taking into account increases in population, the advent of the special school milk program, and other factors, the promotional programs of the dairy council and the American Dairy Association are responsible in an important degree for the currently favorable sales situation.

The transfer of 1 percent of the milk produced, out of surplus use into fluid sales, will add about 2 cents per hundredweight to the blended price paid to producers. All producers benefit from increased sales. Yet as the foregoing indicates, the degree of support which we have been able to develop for the work of milk promotion varies considerably even in a market like Boston. Efforts to develop State legislation which would cover other major markets of southern New England have also been unsuccessful.

With the exception of Maine, and to some extent Vermont, funds for these milk promotion programs are on a voluntary basis. They can be withdrawn at any time, and in fact, in the case of dairy council, certain dealers have withdrawn support entirely, and others have cut down. The start that has been made is highly commendable. The results obtained are encouraging. An effective job of milk promotion requires a firm and stable foundation. We believe that all producers supplying milk to a market should contribute to such funds, and that provision should further be made for joint contributions by handlers. The basis for financing these promotion programs needs to be broadened and made more stable.

Senator HOLLAND. I understand, Mr. Edson, your testimony to be that you want the Federal law and the marketing agreements and orders based thereon to permit the raising of substantial and adequate promotion and advertising and local research funds from the entire milkshed rather than leaving the matter to the State law in one State or one or more States of the milkshed; is that correct?

Mr. EDSON. No, sir, we would like the provision of this Federal order a permissive permission, so that if the market operating under Federal order desired to raise funds in that manner it could then make that change in the same manner in which any change in the Federal order is now made; in other words, with a hearing and with a referendum. It would not be mandatory on all Federal orders.

Senator HOLLAND. But if it were approved by a two-thirds vote of the dairymen in the Boston milkshed area, for instance, then it would

become applicable as against all dairy producers in the milkshed area who are subject to the Boston agreement and order?

Mr. EDSON. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. You do not propose under your suggestion in any way to diminish or replace the regular Federal research program applicable to the entire Nation?

Mr. EDSON. No, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Newton. Give your full name and your occupation for the record.

STATEMENT OF PARK NEWTON, GEORGIA, VT.

Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Park Newton. I am a dairy farmer living in Georgia, Vt. I am a member of the 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.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard the two preceding witnesses. Do you agree with what they stated, both in their statements and in the questions answered by them in response to us?

Mr. NEWTON. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything new that you would like to add to what they have said? Any suggestions not covered?

Mr. NEWTON. This part of the program that I have is a special milk program for school lunch and Armed Forces. We are entirely in agreement for this.

I would like to point out why it is so important to the State of Vermont. We have increased the consumption of milk by the use of the school-lunch program and the Armed Forces program.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that your testimony would be in line with all that we have already heard. It seems that everyone suggests the school-lunch program be increased to the extent possible along with the sale of these commodities to the armed services. No one has testified to the contrary.

Mr. NEWTON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that you will find too much disagreement in the Senate or the House about that.

Mr. NEWTON. I hope not.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to say that you are now looking at the man who authorized the school-lunch program. Certainly, you do not have to worry that Congress is going to change that. If anything, they will try to better it, and try to increase the sale of more milk through other means as well.

Mr. NEWTON. We were only asking that you continue under the present basis at least another 2 years.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to continue it at the present rate, but to increase it, if I can. I am speaking out loud. I am very familiar with the subject. We have had many battles on it, to put the law on the statute books as it now is. My good friend Senator Aiken, he and I fostered, I think, that bill. We got the support of both the

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.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed]

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 approaching 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

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

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 19551

[blocks in formation]

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. Represents the number of children consuming milk in schools participating during the month of March.

4 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?

Mr. GRIGGS. Yes, of substitute products.

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?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »