On this date in 1933, Oregon voters repealed a tax on the sale of oleomargarine, the fourth veto referendum to repeal margarine laws in 13 years

Ninety-two years ago, on July 21, 1933, Oregon voters decided a veto referendum against legislation proposing a tax on the sale of oleomargarine. Voters repealed the tax.

The contested legislation would have created a sales tax of four cents per pound on the sale of all oleomargarine, commonly known as margarine, sold in the state of Oregon. The proceeds of the tax would have been distributed to the county governments for use in providing relief to the poor. The law would also have required individuals and businesses that sold margarine to pay a $5 annual licensing fee to be able to sell the substance in the state.

Since its introduction to the market in the 1860s, margarine had been a topic of policy debate. Particularly, opponents of the sale of margarine said that “margarine was not butter, so it should not pretend to be.” They viewed the use of yellow dye to mimic the color of butter as a form of deception.

The 1933 veto referendum was the fourth measure in 13 years that Oregon voters had decided on regarding margarine sales. Voters repealed all four laws through veto referendums.

In 1920, voters repealed a law that would have regulated the manufacture and sale of butter substitutes, including margarine, in the state of Oregon. The law would have established licensing fees and created penalties for fraud and deception in margarine sales.
In 1924, voters repealed a law that would have outlawed the manufacture and sale of butter substitutes when they are composed of vegetable fat, non-pure milk, and adulterated milk.
In 1932, voters repealed a law almost identical to the law considered in the 1933 veto referendum. The difference was that the 1932 law would have enacted a 10-cent-per-pound tax on margarine, rather than the four-cent-per-pound tax proposed in the 1933 veto referendum.

Six other states also had measures on the ballot related to margarine or butter substitutes (California, Ohio, Oklahoma, Washington, Michigan, and Colorado). The most recent measure was in Washington in 1952 when electors voted to legalize the production, transportation, possession, sale, and use of yellow margarine.

The debate surrounding the 1933 Oregon veto referendum centered on two primary arguments. First, there was the question of whether margarine was an adequate substitute for butter and an acceptable, nutritious food for the public to eat.

Supporters were concerned that margarine had been sold and advertised as a butter substitute; some stated that margarine was being sold under false advertising. In a public hearing on the legislation, one Portland citizen stated, “Oleomargarine cannot even be called a substitute for butter. You might as well call honey a butter substitute. Oleo is not a nutrient; it is merely a lubricant.”

In contrast, the Oregon voters’ information pamphlet contained official arguments from the Anti-Food Tax League. It said, “[Margarine] is GUARANTEED pure and wholesome. No other food product is so well safeguarded by government regulations.”

The second main argument between supporters and opponents of the legislation was whether or not a margarine tax was a positive economic decision. In newspapers at the time, the Anti-Food Tax League ran advertisements with arguments urging voters to repeal the tax on margarine. One such ad said, “There are thousands of people who would suffer were this tax to pass. The cost of living would be raised for all of them. And these people are already under the necessity of saving every penny they can.” The same newspaper ad referred to the four-cent tax on margarine as a 35% upcharge on an otherwise economical food.

In addition, K.C. Eldridge, who represented the margarine manufacturing industry in front of the state legislature, stated, “The question of whether our product shall be subjected to a special tax is not concerned whether oleomargarine has a high food value or not. The question is an economic one. No one group should have the right to impose such levies as would put another group out of business.”

Supporters of the legislation denied that the tax would cause the end of margarine sales in Oregon. One supporter described the legislation as “a compromise and not a prohibitive tax.”

To explore more measures, visit Ballotpedia’s Oregon Historical Ballot Measures Factbook. The 1933 margarine measure is one of 882 statewide ballot measures decided in Oregon between 1900 and 2024.