I 



OLEOMARGARINE. 189 



the farm, and being identical in their nature and composition they 

 should enjoy the same relative privileges for their appearance. 



There must be a reason for manufacturers of butter coloring their 

 product, and as I am a manufacturer of butter also, owning four large 

 creameries in Ohio, I think that I am entitled to give nry opinion for 

 the using of such coloring matter, and which, in my vast experience, 

 has not been disputed, and that is that coloring is added to the butter 

 made in our creameries at all seasons of the year to give it, first, a 

 uniform color; second, to make it more marketable, and third^ to 

 enhance its value as a food product. Does not this same reasoning 

 hold good for the coloring of butterine, and should not the manufac- 

 turers of butterine enjoy the same privileges as those enjoyed by their 

 competitors. I am assuming in my argument that there has been 

 nothing said before the House committee hearing this testimony, nor 

 have I heard that anything has been said before this committee against 

 the healthfulness of either butter or butterine, and desire it to be 

 understood that when making comparisons between butter and butter- 

 ine I am describing the fresh products of both. The subject of col- 

 oring butterine is not a new one, nor have our butter competitors 

 confined themselves to "yellow" color, for they have gone so far as 

 to usurp and coerce political influence to the extent of having several 

 State laws passed actually prescribing a "pink" coloring for butterine. 

 This, however, has been a significant failure, precipitating upon their 

 heads the severest condemnation, not only from the consumers of but- 

 terine, but from the butter-makers' liberal-minded constituency. It 

 is an accepted theory that there must be a reason for everything, but 

 following the old adage that "it takes an exception to prove a rule," 

 there has been no reason given by the advocates of these "pink" laws 

 for the enactment of such a measure. We therefore are privileged 

 to draw our own conclusions. 



First and foremost, it appears that they decided that by prescribing 

 a "pink" color the product would be so disguised that not even the 

 most suspicious would ever entertain the idea it was butterine, and 

 hence its sale would be stopped from lack of identification, or, even if 

 identified, a refusal to eat such a discolored product as prescribed by 

 these "pink" laws would follow. I may state, to the credit of the 

 attempting destructors of this new food product, that they introduced 

 these "discoloring" laws in only a very few States, becoming quickly 

 and painfully aware that the general public would not countenance 

 such a glaring destruction of an industry and a desirable food product 

 in such an insincere and unpardonably outrageous manner. Failing in 

 their attempt to compel manufacturers of butterine to discolor their 

 product with a "pink" coloring matter they are now attempting (and 

 somewhat successfully, too) the " forbidding" the use of a " yellow" 

 coloring matter, and the same coloring matter that they testify is used 

 in their product, called butter. You will therefore readily perceive 

 the reason for their astounding acrobatic performance in the guise of 

 legislation, turning from the outrageous enactment of actually pre- 

 scribing a "pink" discoloration to the enactment of laws prohibiting 

 the use of any coloring matter. They have played their part splen- 

 didly and somersaulting was well suited, because of the very impor- 

 tant fact that by stopping the introduction of yellow coloring matter 

 in butterine it would leave this product in its natural color of nearly 



