848 OLEOMARGARINE. 



And on page 585 of the House report will be found the following, 

 submitted by Hon. W. D. Hoord: 



Is oleomargarine a healthful food? There is no way to determine this question 

 except by actual trial; not for a day, a week, or a month, but for several successive 

 months, and not with strong, robust men with plenty of outdoor exercise. 



Chemistry can not answer. For example, the chemist will tell you that he finds 

 the same elements in swamp peat that are found in the grasses and hays that are fed 

 to our cows, and in approximately the same proportion. And the chemist is at a 

 loss to determine from the standpoint of his science why cattle should not feed on 

 swamp peat. Chemistry can not determine whether any particular substance is 

 poisonous or not. It must take a stomach to do that. 



There is no credible evidence to show that oleomargarine is innocuous; no evi- 

 dence to show that when eaten continuously in place of butter it is not harmful. 

 But there are reports in great abundance to the effect that oleomargarine is harmful. 



Mr. Edmund Hill, a member of the Somerset County council, England, reports 

 that the great bulk of oleomargarine, or "margarin," as it is called there, is eaten 

 in public institutions, convents, schools, etc. At the Wells Asylum, with which he is 

 connected, the inmates receive oleomargarine. In the asylums of Dorset, Wells, and 

 Hants the adjoining counties butter is furnished, and the death rate at Wells is 30 

 per cent higher. At the Taunton Hospital there were 11 deaths in thirteen months. 

 Oleomargarine was substituted, and in nine months the deaths rose to 22. 



This accords with the experience in France, where its use in hospitals is forbidden. 

 In the United States, in institutions for the blind and for girls, it has been noticed 

 that the use of oleomargarine lowered the vitality of the inmates very perceptibly. 



Hon. G. L. Flanders, assistant commissioner of agriculture of New 

 York, throws some light upon this question on page 129: 



I now turn to the report made by Dr. R. D. Clark upon the heaitiiiuiness of oleo- 

 margarine. He is a chemist and medical man of twenty years' standing, and I want 

 to say here and now that our opinion in the State of New York, after having given this 

 subject a great deal of study and thought and after having obtained the very best advice 

 we could get, is that a chemist is not, by virtue of his chemical knowledge, a com- 

 petent man to tell about the healthfulness of food products. A chemist's province 

 is to take a commodity and take it apart, and tell what is in it. It is no part of his 

 work to tell what effect that article produces upon the human system. That is a 

 physiological question. Dr. Clark, a physician, says, relative to the healthfulness oi 

 oleomargarine : 



"We now come to the all-important aspect of the subject, Is artificial butter a 

 wholesome article of food? We answer it in the negative, on the following grounds: 



"First. On account of its indigestibility. 



"Second. On account of its insolubility when made from animal fats. 



" Third. On account of its liability to carry germs of disease into the human system. 



"Fourth. On account of the probability of its containing, when made under certain 

 patents, unhealthy ingredients." 



A full report of Dr. Clark's statement is contained on pages 129, 130, 

 131, and 132 of the Senate testimony. 



But this is a question the discussion of which would occupy volumes, 

 with no possibility, apparently, of an agreement of authorities, except 

 that the chemist appears to be on the side of oleomargarine and the 

 plrysician on the side of pure butter. 



AS TO GOVERNMENT INSPECTION. 



As producers bearing a large share of the burdens of taxation for 

 the support of the Government, we feel it no more than just that the 

 impression which the makers of oleomargarine seek to convey, that 

 their product has the stamp of approval of the Government and that 

 its purity is certified to by the Internal-Revenue Department, should 

 be dispelled. 



We desire to call your attention to the statements of various wit- 

 nesses upon this subject, which statements convey a wrong impression, 



