Wisconsin Margarine

7/27/2019 Wisconsin Margarine

1/14

Milwaukee Sentinelphoto; December 23, 1964. Journal Sentinel Inc.; reproduced with permission


2/14

IF you eat a meal in a Wisconsin restaurant today and

want margarine instead of butter, you may have to ask

for itWisconsin law forbids the substitution of mar-

garine for butter in a public eating place. If you are a student,

patient, or inmate in a state institution, you will be served but-

ter with your meals unless a doctor saysmargarine is necessary for your health.

When you shop for margarine in a Wis-

consin supermarket, you must buy a

whole pound colored a prescribed

shade of yellow and labeled in letters of

a specific size. Finally, that margarine

must be made of domestic, not import-

ed, vegetable oils.

These restrictions are part of Wis-

consin Statute 97.18, Oleomargarine

Regulations, the last fragments of aonce-mighty rampart of law that shield-

ed Wisconsin citizens from the dangers

of butter substitutes. Although Wiscon-

sin was not alone in the fight, the near-century of law making,

the public figures who created those laws, and the private cit-

izens who either circumvented them or stood in their staunch

support tell a distinctly Wisconsin tale.

The story begins in Europe, where food shortages, partic-

ularly of edible fats, stimulated a search for a cheap and nutri-

tious butter substitute. By 1869 Hippolyte Mge-Mouris, a

French scientist and inventor, developed a complex process

that combined heat, pressure, carbonate of potash, and beef

fat to produce an oil that, when churned with a small amount

of milk, water, and yellow coloring, resulted in a palatable

substance that was cheaper and kept better than butter. The

process received a U.S. patent in 1873, and the Oleo-Mar-

garine Manufacturing Company of New York began produc-

tion the same year. American manufacturers quickly

improved the original process, and by 1886 there were thirty-

seven plants in the United States manufacturing oleomar-

garine.From the start margarine triggered

so much suspicion and alarm that it

became subject to more regulation

than any other foodstuff. Most Euro-

pean countries were concerned with

preventing fraudulent substitution o

the new product for butter and with

protecting butter producers, but in

North America the reaction was far

more intense. Emotions and social val-

ues combined with economic self-interest to create a visceral enmity

toward margarine, which evolved into

a long-running attempt to suppress it

The agricultural community saw margarine as an intruder, a

counterfeit food alien to values based on the moral and phys

ical superiority of the agrarian life. The artificiality and indus-

trial origin of margarine inspired fear and suspicion, not

unlike public reaction to the genetically engineered foods o

today. Governor Lucius Hubbard of Minnesota expressed

popular feeling when he exclaimed in 1887, The public has

been victim of various impositions practiced in different

departments of its industry, but I think it will be admitted tha

the ingenuity of depraved human genius has culminated in

the production of oleomargarine and its kindred abomina-

tions.

Conflict between city and farm was a feature of life in the

latter nineteenth century throughout the United States. Iron

ically, in spite of rhetoric about the virtues of the pastoral life

dairy interests, beginning in New York and moving west to

Wisconsin, were themselves developing an industrial

AU T U M N 2 0 0 1 3

The Oleo Wars

Wisconsins Fight overthe Demon Spread

By Gerry Strey

To generations of Americans, it was justoleo, but the name of the butter substi-tute has a surprisingly complex history.Its inventor, Hippolyte Mge-Mouris,created the term oleomargarine by com-bining Latin and Greek words. Oleocame from oleum, the Latin for beef fat,and margarine from margaric acid, afatty acid that was a major component of

the new substance. (Because of theacids pearly appearance, its discovererhad named it after the Greek word forpearl, margarites.)

Wisconsinites of all ages and walks of life felt the lure of cheapmargarine across the border in Illinois. These members of the Wis-

consin Federation of Womens Clubs, (left to right) Mrs. BurnessCollentine of Lake Geneva, Mrs. Claude Hayward of East Troy,

and Mrs. H.E. Lowry of Lake Geneva, were visiting an Illinoissupermarket when caught by a Milwaukee Sentinelphotographer.

Would YOU Buy

Pearls of Fat?


3/14AU T U M N 2 0 0 14

W I S C O N S I N M A G A Z I N E O F H I S T O R Y

approach to butter and cheese

production. When margarine

arrived in the United States in

the early 1870s, Wisconsin

dairying had just begun the

slow shift from primitive, small-

scale, farm-based operations to

factory production of butter

and cheese, and for good rea-

son.

While most Wisconsin farms

produced at least some butter,

counting on it for cash income,

much of this butter was of

abysmal quality. Most butter

was produced in summer from

the scanty milk production of a

few mixed-breed cows. Butter

making was usually the farm

wifes job, and variations in her

equipment, skill, and cleanli-

ness resulted in butter of

uneven quality. Even well-made butter, taken in trade by the

local store, could deteriorate while waiting shipment to the

city wholesaler. So bad was the overall quality of Wisconsin

butter that in the Chicago markets it was known as western

grease and was sold as a lubricant, not for human consump-

tion.The 1872 formation of the Wisconsin Dairymens Associa-

tion inaugurated a planned effort to develop a modern indus-

try. Under the WDAs leadership, which included future

Wisconsin governor William Dempster Hoard, the organiza-

tion aimed to improve product quality, to promote central-

ized production through cheese factories and creameries, to

introduce superior dairy animals, and to organize dairy mar-

kets. Inevitably, the association became concerned with pro-

tecting the infant industry from competition with other

dairy-producing states and from competing products. The

WDA realized early on that until those standards were raisedand butter quality improved, margarine could legitimately

compete against butterand possibly win.

Hiram Smith, a former president of the WDA, noted fore-

bodingly in 1880 that oleomargarine is giving better satisfac-

tion than most dairy butter as now made. Smith predicted

that unless butter improved in quality, margarine would drive

it off the market in the large cities. To protect butter, Wis-

consin dairy leaders went beyond improving its quality to

attacking its dangerous competitor. The battle developed

along three frontspreventing

the fraudulent substitution o

margarine for butter, making

margarine more expensive and

harder to buy through taxation

and licensing fees, and attack

ing the reputation of margarine

itself.

A year after Smiths predic

tions, Wisconsin passed its firs

anti-margarine law, similar to

those in effect in other states

requiring that margarine and

butter be marked as such

Dairy owners first concentrated

their energies on legislation

preventing substitution of mar

garine for butter but quickly

expanded their efforts to

attempts to restrict margarine

in the market place. Dairy

interests from various state

succeeded in passing federal legislation in 1886 that imposed

labeling and packaging restrictions and imposed taxes on

manufacturers, but they soon found the laws ineffective in

controlling margarine sales because of inadequate enforce-

ment provisions. In 1895, Wisconsin passed its own legislation

requiring that hotels and restaurants post signs announcingthat margarine was sold on the premises. More importantly

it also prohibited the manufacture and sale of margarine col

ored in imitation of butter. The color restriction, coupled with

taxation, was to be the dairy industrys most enduring weapon

against the hated competitor.

Despite the restrictions passed in Wisconsin and other

states, margarine production increased nationally from 34

million pounds in 1888 to 126 million pounds in 1902, and

the dairy industry sought additional protection. It arrived in

the Grout Bill, the greatest legislative victory over mar-

garine. The bill was introduced by William Wallace Groutrepresentative from Vermont, who had had a major role in

putting through the original 1886 law. Passed in May 1902

the Grout Bill amended the 1886 legislation in three impor-

tant ways: margarine shipped from one state to another wa

subject to the laws of the state in which it was shipped, giving

states more control over trade in margarine within their bor

ders; margarine colored to resemble butter was subject to a

federal manufacturing tax of ten cents per pound while uncol

ored was taxed only 1/4-cent per pound; and wholesalers and

The April 24, 1880, issue ofScientific Americangave readers a

perspective on oleo production in OleomargarineHow it isMade, illustrating workers packing oleo into wooden firkins at

the Commercial Manufacturing Company in New York City.

Scientific American


4/14AU T U M N 2 0 0 1 5


retailers trading in uncolored margarine had

their license fees reduced.

Passage of the Grout Bill was a long, hard

fight. Dairy and margarine interests lobbied

Congress and testified in hearings that lasted

several years. In the broadest terms, the dairy

industry opposed margarine as a threat to the

livelihood of dairy farmers, as an inferior imi-

tation of butter, and as an invitation to fraud

in the marketplace. Margarine manufactur-

ers defended margarines wholesomeness,

proclaimed themselves the champions of

cheap food for the working man, and protest-

ed against an unfair restraint of trade.

The portly volumes of House and Senate

testimony during the Grout Bill debate bulge

with fascinating information on the making

and marketing of butter and margarine, price

comparisons, social attitudes, and undiluted

sentiment. Pro-butter witnesses drew pathet-

ic pictures of farmers being driven out of

agriculture, cited numerous examples of

margarine being substituted for butter, sug-

gested it was made of tainted materials in

unsanitary conditions, lamented the fate of

dairy cows superannuated by margarine, and

claimed the color yellow as the unique prop-

erty and trademark of butter.On the other side of the aisle, the mar-

garine interests claimed their product was as

wholesome as butter, painted their own unsa-

vory pictures of diseased and dirty cows being

milked in filthy barnyards, reminded Con-

gress of documented scandals involving spoiled butter that

dairies had reprocessed and sold as fresh while also fortifying

cheese with non-dairy fats, noted that creameries routinely

colored their butter to make it more yellow, and pleaded the

cause of cheap food. In particular, margarine witnesses

claimed that margarine, while perfectly good in itself, had tobe colored yellow to make it saleableeven the poor were

ashamed to be seen purchasing the economy spread and

embarrassed to serve it in their homes. In 1902, one witness

testified, People, while they are poor, have some pride, and

they do not like to go into a store among people who have

money and buy the article, because everyone knows that it is

oleo they are getting. The idea that margarine was food only

for the poor was to persist for years and help butter maintain

its status as the preferred product.

Wisconsin played a prominent part in the Grout Bill fight

Stalwart and energetic dairy patriarch W. D. Hoard himsel

spent much time in Washington, lobbying legislators and tes-

tifying for the bill, and Wisconsins Congressional representa

tives made their distinctive contributions. When Wisconsin

Senator Joseph Quarles of Kenosha addressed the U.S. Sen-ate on March 27, 1902, he spoke for butter in an address that

combined dairymens distrust of the artificial product with a

nostalgic paean to the dairy cow:

Things have come to a strange pass when the steer

competes with the cow as a butter maker. When

the hog conspires with the steer to monopolize the

dairy business, it is time for self-respecting men to

take up the cudgels for the cow and defend her

time-honored prerogatives. . . . We ought not now

The Rural New Yorke

The three-headed hydraa combination of cottonseed oil and lard(or shortening), glucose (or cornstarch), and oleomargarinedrawn

by A. Berghaus in 1890 for the pages ofThe Rural New Yorker,typifies the reaction to the factory-produced food and farmers

perception of margarine as a threat to their natural way of life.


5/14AU T U M N 2 0 0 16


to desert her or permit her to be displaced, her

sweet and wholesome product supplanted by an

artificial compound of grease that may be chemi-

cally pure but has never known the fragrance of

clover, the freshness of the dew or the exquisite fla-

vor which nature bestows exclusively on butter fat

to adapt it to the taste of man. . . . I desire butter

that comes from the dairy, not the slaughterhouse.

I want butter that has the natural aroma of life and

health. I decline to accept as a substitute caul fat,

matured under the chill of death, blended with

vegetable oils and flavored by chemical tricks.

However prejudiced, Quarless comments were a reason-

ably fair description of the manufacture of margarine in 1902,

when animal fats were the principal constituent of margarine.

These fats were largely the byproducts of big city slaughter-

houses, and butter promoters eagerly retailed horror stories

about conditions in the meatpacking plants. An 1894 hand-

book for packing plants provided ammunition for their argu-

ments. It described the use of chemicals like permanganate

and bichromate of potash, sal soda, and sulfuric acid to

deodorize and reclaim tainted fats, showed how to make

poorer grades of lard resemble the best leaf lard, and provid-

ed detailed instructions for reclaiming decaying and bloated

hog carcasses to produce saleable lard.

The Grout Bill set back the margarine industry in the

years immediately following its passage. Production dropped

from the 126 million pounds of 1902 to 73 millionpounds in 1903. The ten-cents-per-pound tax on

colored margarine made it cost as much as the

less expensive grades of butter, and the

license fees for wholesalers and retailers of

the colored product reduced its sales out-

lets.

Though serious, the 1902 setback was

only temporary. Because the packaging

provisions of the original 1886 federal law

continued to allow manufacturers to sell

margarine in large containers of ten to sixty pounds

unscrupulous retailers could still easily substitute margarine

for butter. In the view of many, the difference between the

ten-cent-per-pound tax on colored margarine and the nomi-

nal 1/4-cent-per-pound tax on uncolored was unreasonable

and a temptation to fraud. Some felt a lower flat tax on al

margarine would reduce cheating and yield more revenue.

By 1910, developments in margarine manufacturing

began to attack two of the dairy interests favorite weapons

against margarine: the use of animal fats and the ban on arti

ficial coloring in margarine. The invention around 1900 of

hydrogenation, or hardening of vegetable fats, made manu

facturing margarine from these oils feasible. Previously, only

a small proportion of vegetable oil could be used without sac

rificing a solid and spreadable consistency. The use of less ani

mal fat and improvements in meatpacking plant condition

mandated by federal food and drug laws reduced the effec-

tiveness of slaughterhouse rhetoric.

In addition, margarine manufacturers began using oil

that themselves had a yellow color, producing a food they

claimed was naturally colored and thus exempt from the tax

on artificially colored margarine. Also around 1910, some

manufacturers introduced one- and two-pound packages o

margarine, with which they included a packet of coloring

material for purchasers to use in tinting the product accord

ing to taste. It wasnt until 1931 that the federal governmen

was persuaded to extend the ten-cents-per-pound tax to nat

Right: William Dempster Hoard, futuregovernor of Wisconsin and champion of

the dairy industry, 1891.Far right: Joseph V. Quarles, StateSenator from Kenosha, asked the

U.S. Congress to take up cudgels forthe cow in defense of the

dairy industry.

WHS Portrait Collection,

1942.103

WHS Archive

Name Fi


6/14AU T U M N 2 0 0 1 7


urally colored margarine, but the inclusion of packets of col-

oring matter with the uncolored product was never outlawed.The dairy industry continued to oppose colored mar-

garine. Its stand as articulated in the influential Hoards

Dairyman was that yellow was the natural and unique color

of butter. If that color varied, depending on the season, the

cow, or the food she ate, a little cosmetic help in adjusting its

tint was perfectly legitimate, while any shade of yellow in

margarine was an attempt to deceive the consumer.Hoards

Dairyman claimed that the dairy interests did not regard

oleomargarine as a great competitor and were not con-

cerned in the least about the final outcome of butter if given

a fair chance to compete with oleomargarine. Oleomargarine

masquerading as butter does not provide competition, but

substitution. If oleomargarine had from the start entered into

competition with butter, then there would never be any

action taken against it.

This rather lofty stance was contradicted by actual prac-

tice as the Wisconsin dairy industry persuaded the state legis-

lature to pass laws prohibiting the use of the words butter,

creamery, or dairyin connection with the sale of margarine,

increasing taxes, and preventing the manufacture or sale of

any butter substitute combining milk or milk fats with any

other type of fat. Because margarine included milk or butter-fat among its ingredients, this last part of the law was really

designed to outlaw its manufacture entirely, not merely

restrict its market. The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck

down this final segment as unconstitutional, arguing that such

restrictions could be justified only if margarine was a threat to

public health and safety. Even the states dairy lobby failed to

push through legislation that would have required margarine

to be colored pink or brown.

Luckily for the dairy industry, around 1915 pioneering

research into vitamins at the University of Wisconsin provid-

ed a new weapon. Studies showed that rats fed milk fats were

healthier than those fed vegetable oils. Hoards Dairyman

jubilantly published an article picturing portly milk-fed rat

next to the wizened and rachitic specimens raised on the veg-

etable oil diet. The margarine industry retaliated with its own

publicity, attacking butters health claims and protesting

against attempts to exclude margarine from the market. A

publicist for margarine commented bitterly, Some [anti-

margarine propaganda] is put out by persons who actually

think that any industry, domestic or foreign, that is at all in

WHS Archives, CF 604, WHi(X3)29153

Learning to make butter, possibly in a University of Wisconsin

short course.


7/14AU T U M N 2 0 0 18


competition with dairy farming has no rights

in our economic system and ought to be out-

lawed.

It was at this time that changes in the mar-garine industry laid a foundation for a new

level of public acceptance. Before 1920, the

industry was relatively fragmented, with

numerous small and anonymous producers

serving local and regional markets. After that

year the industry began to consolidate into

fewer and larger producers, who were able to

take advantages of the latest manufacturing techniques and

scientific developments such as the addition of synthetic vita-

mins, first added to margarine in the 1930s, and the use of

vegetable oils. This latter development meant that soybean-and cottonseed oilproducing states now had a stake in the

making of margarine.

Over the course of thirty years, margarine manufacturers

moved away from direct comparisons with butter, abandon-

ing phrases like churned especially for lovers of good butter,

made in the milky way, and creamy richness. Instead

they began to concentrate on improving product quality and

developing national brand recognition for their products,

eventually making names like Parkay, Mazola, and Blue Bon-

net as familiar for margarine as

Land-o-Lakes was for butter.

The years of the Great

Depression favored margarine

use. Even burdened by the

federal tax, it was still

cheaper than butter.

When hard times led con-

sumers to choose with

their pocketbooks, the

public perception of mar-

garine had already begun to change, and margarine began to

appear on the tables of those who had resisted it or ignored i

before. The long Depression years increased margarine con

sumption. Although per capita consumption of butter was stilfour times that of margarine, dairy interests reacted fearfully

In December of 1931, Wisconsin farmers demonstrated vocif

erously outside the Capitol in Madison, prompting the Wis

consin legislature to act quickly to provide more protection fo

dairy farmers, enacting license fees on manufacturers, whole

salers, and retailers of oleomargarine in 1931 and a six-cent

per-pound retail sales tax on uncolored margarine in a specia

session of 193132. Colored margarine was banned outright

In 1935 the legislature raised the per-pound sales tax to 15

cents. But an irreversible change in the attitude toward mar-

garine had begun.

The advent of World War II brought food rationing, forc

ing many to use margarine for the first time. Though fats in

general were rationed, butter required more points than mar

garine. Years later the editor of the Daily Jefferson County

Union (published by W. D. Hoard and Sons) lamented, I

wasnt until World War II that oleo was successful in making

inroads on butters market. It had to be done with politica

help. President Roosevelts [head of the Federal Security

Agency] Paul V. McNutt, former governor of soybean-growing

WHS microfilm P43823

TheWisconsin State Journal

gave protesting dairy farmersthe front page of its

December 16, 1931, issue.

WHS Museum Collection,

61.11.25


8/14AU T U M N 2 0 0 1 9


Indiana, put the squeeze on butter

and gave oleo the green light to

take over.

The growing acceptance of

margarine among consumers dur-

ing the war years shows up in thecookbooks of the era, like the 1943

guide Coupon Cookery, which

supplied recipes for butterless but-

ter spread (gelatin, water, evapo-

rated milk, mayonnaise, salt, and

margarine); a butter-saver spread

made of butter or margarine, milk,

salt, and gelatin; and a 4-to-1 but-

ter spread calling for two pounds

of vitaminized margarine, one

pound of butter, and a can of evap-orated milk. By the end of the war,

margarine was a familiar presence

on family tables across Wisconsin.

It had lost the stigma of the poor

mans food. In those families that

used margarine, acceptance varied

from using it only for cooking or

baking while reserving butter for

table use, to using the uncolored

spread exclusively and calling it

white butter.PostWorld War II conditions

favored the repeal of federal anti-

margarine legislation. Farmers who

produced the vegetable oils used in

its manufacture had no interest in

protecting the dairy industry at the

expense of their own products. Con-

sumer and labor groups resented

taxation and color restrictions on an

economical food. Food scientists tes-

tified that margarines nutritional

qualities equaled butters, while the

National Association of Margarine

Manufacturers coordinated a pro-

gram of consumer education and

political action. Congress took up

the margarine question in 1948, and the arguments for and

against the repeal of federal taxation were virtually identical to

those of 1900. The two sides agreed on one thing only: contin-

ued taxation on imported oils.

The repeal of the federal tax seemed inevitable. Arthur

Glover, editor ofHoards Dairyman, wrote pessimistically to his

friend brewery heir and hobby farmer Fred Pabst in November

1948:

Butter seems to enhance all foods in this dairy poster, which alsohighlights the benefit of the vitamins found in butter. After adding

synthetic vitamins to oleo became standard practice in the 1930s,margarine also claimed the benefits of vitamins.

WHS Archives, Oversize 5-6449


9/14

We think it is quite clear that all federal taxes on

oleomargarine will be repealed. This does not con-

cern us if we could enact a law which would pro-

hibit the sale of margarine colored in semblance ofbutter. We doubt whether any such law could now

be enacted. It is nothing short of a fraud and

deception to ask for butter in restaurants in many

states of this Union and be served oleomargarine. .

. . It is unfortunate that the Wisconsin legislature

enacted a law taxing oleomargarine 15 cents a

pound. . . . This, we believe, has done more to get

the sentiment of the customer aroused to repeal all

taxes on oleomargarine than any other one act.

Glovers apprehensions were justified. The House rescind

ed the tax on colored margarine in 1949, by a close vote of

152 to 140. The Senate followed in 1950, and the federal law

was officially repealed July 1, 1950. The states were now ontheir own in the fight against the demon spread. Deprived o

federal support, state taxes and bans on colored margarine

began to fall. Changes in the dairy industry, particularly the

increasing importance of fluid milk relative to butter, made

state legislatures less interested in protecting butter. In gener

al, states were more willing to drop the ban on colored mar-

garine than they were to forego the revenue from taxing it

For example, Idaho dropped its ban on colored margarine in

1951 but continued to tax colored and uncolored margarine


AU T U M N 2 0 0 110

As the State Legislature continued to protect dairy interests, the averageWisconsin citizen began to lead a double life.

Milwaukee Journalillustration; April 16, 1966. Journal Sentinel Inc.; reproduced with permission.


10/14


11/14AU T U M N 2 0 0 112


Courtesyo

fTimTherin

g

supply the Wisconsin demand for the col-

ored, tax-free spread. In the 1960s the

Wisconsin Commissioner of Taxation

estimated that some service stations near

the state line were selling as much as a ton

of margarine per week to Wisconsin cus-

tomers. The city of South Beloit, which

straddles the border, was the great entre-

pt of the trade. Margarine could be bought for less than $7

per 30-pound case. Distributors reported that they sold more

of it in South Beloit with a population of 4,000 than in the city

of Rockford with a population of 130,000, and the difference

was made up by Wisconsin buyers. South Beloit retailers

enjoyed recounting how the forces of morality, represented by

clergy, and the defenders of butter, represented by farmers,

were among their Wisconsin customers.

Public preference for margarine, the impossibility of

enforcing the law, and the loss of revenue led to a movement

in the state legislature to amend Wisconsins anti-margarine

legislation. Challenges to the law had occurred as early as

1939, and at intervals between 1945 and 1961 there were at

least six attempts to repeal taxation and restrictions on mar-

garine, all of which were defeated. When Minnesota repealed

its ban on the sale of colored margarine in 1963, the anti-pro-

hibition forces in the Wisconsin legislature were re-energized.

Legislators favoring relaxation or repeal of anti-margarine

laws were often, though not always, Democrats and usually

were from districts with large urban pop-

ulations. Pro-butter legislators tended to

be Republicans and representatives

of small towns and agricultural dis-

tricts. The arguments divided along

familiar l ines. The pro-butter side

declared that margarine was a fraud that

sought to imitate the flavor and appear-

ance of butter, that butter was basic to the economic health of

Wisconsin agriculture, that the anti-margarine laws protected

the identity and reputation of butter, and that stricter enforce-

ment of the laws would increase revenue.

The pro-margarine side responded that the laws were unen-

forceable, cost the state revenue and retailers income, and less-

ened the respect of Wisconsin citizens for law and order. They

argued that the laws did not support butter prices or encourage

its consumption and that they deprived Wisconsin citizens of

freedom of choice. Finally, they pointed out that many foods,

including butter, were color-enhanced to meet purchasers

preferences and said that to deny margarine the same oppor-

tunity was unreasonable. The margarine forces were given

additional ammunition by research indicating that it was high-

er in polyunsaturated fats and a better food for individuals with

heart disease. (In the ever-changing world of medical research

the theory is now that the hydrogenated facts in margarine

may actually promote cardiovascular disease.)

Each side had its notable champions. Foremost among the

Visiting relatives would

bring a case of oleo in the

car trunk along with the

suitcases and fishing rods.

Appealing to thrifty housewives, thismailing promotion from Fleischmanns

Blue Bonnet margarine promised flavor,nutrition, and economy.


12/14AU T U M N 2 0 0 1 13


Above: The famous taste test of June 23, 1965,

affected the careers of both these men, exposingthe blindfolded Gordon Roseleip to criticism

and helping to launch the career of MartinSchreiber, who would later serve as governorfrom 1977 to 1979. Left: After his failure to

correctly identify butter during the famous tastetest, staunch butter supporter Roseleip found

himself ribbed by the press as a fallen hero.Milwaukee Journalillustration; May 7, 1967. Journal Sentinel Inc.; reproduced with permission.

WHS Archives, WHi(X3)41467

butter supporters was State Senator James Earl Leverich. Sen-

ator Leverich was born in 1891 on the Monroe County farm

his family had settled in 1871, and his vocational and publicinterests were wholly agricultural. During his career he served

as president of the State Horticultural Society, was a leader in

several agricultural cooperatives, and helped organize the 1931

Madison anti-margarine demonstration. He was elected to the

Senate in 1934 and became chairman of the Senate Agricul-

tural Committee in 1937, which he made the graveyard of

margarine law repeal.

One of his most controversial and colorful butter supporters

was Gordon Roseleip, a Republican state senator representing

four southwestern Wisconsin agricultural counties. A veteran

and former State Commander of the American Legion, Sena-

tor Roseleip was a fierce anti-Communist. On his election in

1962, he took up the margarine issue with equal fervor. Neat-

ly combining his hatred of Communism and his distaste for

margarine (if you want to shake when youre 60, just go ahead

and eat that greasy stuff) whenever a pro-margarine bill was

introduced in the Senate he amended it to permit margarine to

be sold as long as it was colored red.

The repeal forces found many of their supporters among

the legislators from Milwaukee County, including the youthful

Democratic Senator Martin J. Schreiber, representing three

wards of the city of Milwaukee. Senator Schreiber conceived

one of the most famous publicity stunts in the history of theWisconsin Legislaturethe taste test of June 23, 1965.

Schreiber invited his Senate colleagues to taste, while blind

folded, three samplesone of butter, one of margarine, and

one of a low-fat dairy spread developed at the University o

Wisconsinto see if they could identify them correctly. Sena

tor Leverich cannily declined to participate, saying I don

want to give [the margarine supporters] any ammunition, bu

Senator Roseleip agreed to join the test.

Most of the tasters did quite wellthirty-two correctly iden

tified butter, four thought it was margarine, and one thought i

was the new dairy spread. Twenty-eight of the tasters identified

margarine correctly, six thought it was butter, and two though

it was the dairy spread. Asked which they liked best, twenty

one favored butter, seven the new spread, and five the mar-

garine.

To the joy of the media and the repeal supporters, Senator

Roseleip was among the errant, mistaking margarine for but-

ter. The chagrined senator claimed the samples came too fast

and he didnt have time to rinse his mouth between tastes. The

equally chagrined editor of the pro-butter Capital Times


13/14


AU T U M N 2 0 0 114

snapped, The farmers dont need enemies when they have

friends like Roseleip blustering and blundering through the

legislature and the front pages discrediting their cause. (After

Roseleips death in 1989, one of his daughters revealed that the

Senator truly had been handicapped. Worried about his

health, his wife had, without his knowledge, substituted mar-

garine for butter on the family table.)

Senator Roseleips error, though it provided amusement for

the public, probably had little effect on the repeal of margarine

legislation. Far more significant was the 1966 redistricting that

cost Senator Leverich the nomination to his seat and his chair-

manship of the Agricultural Committee. While most dairy

groups continued to support a ban on colored margarine, Gov-

ernor Warren Knowles made it known that he would support a

realistic and practical repeal bill and that he considered the

issue far less significant than others facing the legislature.

Opinion among legislators evolved to favor a repeal of the

ban on colored margarine and retaining but reducing the per

pound tax. The pro-butter forces began to accept that compro

mise would be better than losing every advantage. Throughou

the early months of 1967 the legislature evolved a bill that would

eliminate the ban on the sale of colored margarine in the state

but retain a tax of 51/4 cents per pound; the tax would lapse in

1972. The tax was extended until Dec. 31, 1973. To placate the

farm interests, the tax revenue was to be applied to the construc

tion of an animal science building at the University of Wisconsin

Assembly Bill 359 passed the Assembly on April 6, 1967, on a

vote of 67 for, 30 against, 2 paired. It passed in the Senate on

May 4, 1967; the vote was 19 in favor, 10 against, 4 paired. Sen-

ator Roseleip voted with the nos.

Oleo sales plummeted in Illinois after Wisconsin passed a lawpermitting colored oleo to be sold within its borders starting July 1,

1967. Here Mrs. Victeleen Layton of Russell, Illinois, makes a sale inGorskis restaurant near the state line on July 5 of that year.

Milwaukee Journalphoto; July 5, 1967. Journal Sentinel Inc.; reproduced with permission.


14/14


Oshkosh native Gerry Streyreceived her bachelors and masters

degrees from UWMadison. She has

worked at the Wisconsin Historical

Society since 1983, dividing her time

between the Societys map collection

and the library reference department.

Her interest in Wisconsin margarine

legislation was aroused by a patrons

asking for proof that it was once illegal to buy colored mar-

garine in Wisconsin. She uses butter.

The Author

Resources and Further Reading

There are numerous resources documenting and interpreting the oleo wars of Wisconsin and the

nation at large. The following were most helpful in the writing of this article. Many books andbook-length publications provide general background as well as specific information on the

respective industries and pertinent legislation, such as: Theodore ChristiansonsMinnesota, th

Land of Sky-Tinted Waters: A History of the State and Its People. Vol. II: Minnesota Comes o

Age (Chicago: The American Historical Society, 1935); Martha C. Howards The Margarin

Industry in the United States: Its Development under Legislative Control (Ann Arbor: Univer

sity Microfilms, 1979); Eric E. Lampards The Rise of the Dairy Industry in Wisconsin: A Study

in Agricultural Change, 18201920 (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1963)

Robert C. Nesbits The History of Wisconsin, Vol. III: Urbanization & Industrialization

18731893 (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1985); Coupon Cookery, by Pru

dence Penny. A Guide to Good Meals Under Wartime Conditions of Rationing and Food Short-

ages (Hollywood: Murray & Gee, 1943); J. H. van Stuyvenbergs Margarine: An Economic

Social and Scientific History, 18691969 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1969).

Government documents were enormously helpful; they includeIssues of Oleomargarin

Tax Repeal (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1948); Speech of Hon. Joseph V. Quarles of Wis

consin in the Senate of the United States, Thursday, March 27, 1902 (Washington, D.C.: 1902)

Oleomargarine and Other Imitation Dairy Products, Etc. Senate Report no. 2043, 56th Con

gress, 2nd. Session (Washington, D.C.: 1901) Developments in Wisconsins Oleomargarin

Legislation. Informational Bulletin 65-3 (Madison: Legislative Reference Bureau, 1966 (rev

ed.); Wisconsin Statutes 1973, Relating to Fermented Malt Beverages, Intoxicating Liquors

Cigarettes, Oleomargarine and Enforcement Thereof(Madison: Department of Revenue, 1973)

and the journals of both the Assembly and Senate of the Wisconsin Legislature.

AlthoughHoards Dairyman is probably the most visible periodical on this topic, there ar

many other journals and trade magazines, including Social Problems, and the monograph Fat

and Oils Studies, both of which were helpful in the writing of this piece. The newspapers men

tioned are The Janesville Gazette, which ran a series by Craig Callaway in 1967 on the contro

versy over margarine use; Wisconsin State Journal,Milwaukee Sentinel, Sparta Herald,Dail

Jefferson County Union,Milwaukee Journal,Darlington Republican-Journal, and The Capita

Times.

The Arthur James Glover correspondence at the Wisconsin State Archives of the Wiscon

sin Historical Society (SC 313) provided excellent documentary material, and several telephon

or e-mail interviews conducted by the author with Grace Bracker, Richard McEachern, and

Charlotte Ocain helped locate the personal stories among all the legislation and official reports

A Wisconsinite wrote anonymously to Senator Earl Leverich,

choosing as stationery a label from a well-known border storeand typing on the back his opinions about the senators

anti-margarine stance.

WHS Archives, Leverich manuscripts

The law went into effect on July 1, 1967, and for the first time

since 1895 colored margarine was legal in Wisconsin. The heav-

ens didnt fall, and while Wisconsin dairy farming has undergonetremendous stresses and changes, the presence of untaxed col-

ored margarine in the dairy case is not a significant cause. The

remaining margarine laws have had little effect on the consump-

tion of butter or margarine and are like fragments found at an

archeological site representing an almost mythical past, when

butter stood for the good, the pure, and the true, and oleo was the

demon spread.

Documents

Wisconsin Margarine