32
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
WHAT SHOULD BE THE ULTIMATE
UNITED
STATES
REGARDING
AIM OF THE
THE
UTILIZATION OF FATS AND OILS?
N. R. W H I T N E Y
Procter & G a m b l ~ Co.
Domestic conditions and international relations are always in such
a state of change that it is impossible at any particular time to outline in definite form a program which might be regarded as a final
solution of any politico-economic problem. This is particularly true
of the fats and oils problem. The best that can be hoped for is that
agreement might be reached on what should be the essentials of a
sound program characterized (1) b y intelligence, (2) by a spirit of
fairness, and (3) by a due sense of proportion. Since we are living
in a democracy it is perhaps too much to expect that any problem
which presents conflicts between the presumed self-interest of various groups will be settled by an appeal limited strictly to intelligence
and reason~
An inventory would show that we produce an excess of edible
fats, chiefly in the form of lard, and a deficit of inedible or industrial
fats. The excess of lard is disposed of in the export markets and the
deficiency in industrial fats is provided for by imports chiefly in the
form of coconut, palm, and the paint oils, such as linseed and tung
oils. While coconut and palm oil are available also for edible purposes
they are imported mainly for industrial uses. In recent years, only
5.5 per cent of the annual domestic edible oil consumption has been
imported, and of this quantity only a~ little more than 3 per cent was
coconut oil. These imported oils are used in connection with forty
different products or processes, the largest usage being in the m a n u facture o3 soap.
Our present policy is based on a desire to exclude all imports of
oils and fats with the hope that this will result in higher prices for
the domestic products. That, in fact, the policy has not resulted in
exclusion should not blind us concerning the real aim and purpose.
Applying the test of intelligence to this program, suppose we ask
ourselves first whether total or partial exclusion of foreign oils will
accomplish the results desired, tand second whether our domestic
program is one designed to promote national prosperity.
The expectation of complete exclusion of foreign oils might as well
be dismissed from consideration. We require annually nearly a
billion pounds of fats and oils in addition to the quantity we produce.
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
33
To burden these supplies with heavy import duties merely adds to
domestic costs of production in various industries and increases the
prices which must be paid by consmners. The import duties raise
the cost of manufacture in many "lines and raise the cost of living for
the nation as a whole.
As an offset to these losses, it is contended that the producers of
fats and oils profit through higher prices for their products. It is
unfortunate that the imposition of, the most recent duties, levied in
the form of excise taxes, should have coincided in time with the
drought and with the Government program of scarcity which drastically reduced the cotton crop and brought about a tremendous
shrinkage in the supply of meat animals. For the increase in the
prices of some of the fats and oils is being credited to the restriction
of imports, and thus our foreign trade errors will tend to be perpetuated.
We are at present using all of the inedible fats produced in this
country. Virtually every pound produced is a by-product or joint
product and under no conceivable price advance would these fats be
produced as primary products. To attempt to expand our production
of edible and inedible fats and oils to replace our approximately one
billion pounds of annual imports, would call for such an increase in
the supplies of live stock, of dairy products, of cotton, of flaxseed, and
other major products, as would bring ruinously low prices for producers and reverse completely the present Government agricultural
program.
But, the proponents of the present tariff policy assert, we will not
increase our domestic production. We will merely make foreign oils
more costly to import and this will intensify the demand for domestic
products, thus raising their prices.
Th~ first effect of import restriction is likely to be a weakening
in the prices of the foreign oils. This is seen, for~ example, in the
fact that since the recent legislation, coconut oiI, palm oil, and other
foreigr~ oils have no~ advanced in price at all comparably with the
advances in domestic fat prices. I f domestic fat producers were
alarmed by the fact that these foreign fats were on a slightly lower
price basis than the domestic fats, how much greater risk have they
incurred now that the gap is much wider. The natural outcome is
being experienced, and the foreign oils and fats in spite of the taxes,
are being bought for importation in rapidly increasing quantities.
In short, domestic fats are in a much weaker competitive position
than they were before the imposition of the excise taxes and their
prices have risen to a dangerously unstable level.
34
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
A l r e a d y some of the shrewder persons in the cottonseed oil i n dustry are beginning to question the wisdom of their action in
advocating the recent tariff increases. Because of the peculiar n a t u r e
of the organization of the cottonseed crushing industry, t h e r e is a
tendency constantly to pay prices for seed which are
hope that the prices of the products of the seed will be
future. This results almost always in the p a y m e n t of
than are justified by the current m a r k e t for products.
based on the
higher in the
prices higher
The effect of
the tariff is to put this speculative buying on a higher and more
dangerous level.
Not only do the foreign oils necessarily compete now with domestic
fats on a lower basis but their lower comparative price makes them
more dangerous as competitors with our edible product exports. In
other words, insofar as our restrictive policy contributes to a rise in
the price level of domestically produced fats and, at the same time,
prevents an advance in prices of foreign fats, it tends in the long
run to reduce our exports and to intensify the domestic competition,
such as, for example, between l a r d and cottonseed oil.
It is too easily assumed by many that anything which causes a
rise in the prices o~ one fat will cause an equivalent rise in the price
of all other fats. This result could be obtained only if the unsatisfied demand for industrial oils could be shifted to a demand for
edible fats. Some of the advocates of restriction have indeed a s serted that surplus lard and cottonseed oil could be used in the
manufacture of soap. Obviously, soap making material is not likely
to sell for any considerable time on as h i g h a level of price a~ such
material used for edible purposes. Instead, it is more likely that the
lower price of the industrial usage would establish the m a r k e t for
the edible usage.
There is a fundamental economic principle which is being violated
ir~ all this type of restriction. This is the principle of comparative
costs. According to this principle, it is to the advantage of a nation
to devote its energies to the production of those commodities in which
its productive efforts result most favorably and to exchange a n y
surplus of such commodities for products which it would be comparatively unprofitable to produce for themselves.
Applying this principle to the 'fats and oils, we~ are forced to the
conclusion that for some years we have had a very profitable t r a d e
in which we produced a surplus of edible fats, chiefly lard, which
were sold at a comparatively h i g h price and we relied on the low
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
35
cost tropical regions to supply us with the industrial oils. The
Tariff Commission has calculated that over a period of ten years
(1923-1932) our total imports of fats and oils averaged about 8c p e r
pound while our total exports for the same period averaged n e a r l y
12c per pound. It appears to be just as foolish for us to insist upon
using our capital, labor, and managerial skill to produce fats and
oils which we can buy on a cheap basis when we could use it to
produce fats and oils, or some other commodities, which we could
sell on a basis yielding a larger r e t u r n for our efforts as it would be
to use our surgeon or skilled mechanic for the lower grades of
unskilled work.
The United States Tariff Commission in report No. 41, second
series, dated, March 23, 1932, has called attention to a n u m b e r of
-other adverse effects of the present tariff policy. They point out
that a great reduction, or the entire elimination of foreign oils, would
necessitate material changes in the character of many domestic
products, particularly domestic soaps. The Commission expresses
doubt whether the quantity of foreign oil involved in the production
of various types of products is to be considered as replacing domestic
oils even if we assume that domestic production could be increased
sufficiently to meet the needs. The replacement of these foreign oils
by domestic oils and f a t s could only be made by changing greatly
the character of m a n y of our products. The Commission reports that
hard toilet and most white l a u n d r y soap, including flakes, chips, and
granules use a considerable proportion of coconut or palm kernel
oil to increase the lathering qualities. Such characteristics as h a r d ness, color, odor, lathering quality, solubility, and cleansing quality
would be greatly modified by the partial or total exclusion of these
oils.
The Commission goes on to point out that a m a r k e d reduction in
the importation of foreign oils might result in a considerable r e d u c tion in the total consumption of oils and fats in the United States. In
the first place, the higher prices necessitated by the tariff would tend
to reduce consumption and would bring about the use of non-oil
substitutes, and, in the second place, the technical changes in a p pearance and action of the soap from which these products were
excluded might reduce aggregate consumption.
It has long been customary to m a r k our progress in improving the
standard of living by noting the increase in the per capita consumption of soap. Too often it is overlooked, however, that among the
most important influences are the improvements made in the quality
and attractiveness of soap and the advertising and sales efforts of
36
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
the soap producers. The trend has been toward soaps, whether for
toilet or laundry, that are not harsh and irritating to the skin, that
yield a quick firm lather even in unheated water, and are attractive
in color. White soaps have increased for toilet and laundry uses.
The increasing use of silk hosiery and underwear which are usually
laundered by hand in lukewarm water has increased the demand for
laundry soaps that are quickly soluble. The widespread sale of certain brands of soap flakes, granules, beads, and powders is a response
to this demand. This increased use of soap has led to a large growth
in the demand for domestic materials. In the fifteen years between
1914 and the last pre-depression year the soap industry increased
its use of domestic fats about 240 million pounds or 41 per cent. There
was also a sharp increase in the use of foreign oils but it is at least
deserving of serious consideration whether the e n t i r e or partial
elimination of these foreign oils would not at the same time so
change the qualities and characteristics of the products of the soap
industry that the ultimate result would be a reduction also in the
quantity of domestic fats used.
The restrictions on the importation of foreign oils for industrial
purposes make it possible for foreign manufacturers of a large range
of commodities to bring their products into the United States to the
injury of a great variety of domestic industries. This could be offset
by high compensatory duties but since these would have to cover
the products of forty different industries, it is extremely doubtful if
any such relief can be obtained without a general upward tariff
revision, which would be extremely undesirable.
In addition to the threat of increased imports of fats and oils duty
free in the form of the various products mentioned, there is the
probability that our domestic manufacturers of products requiring
these fats and oils will lose their export markets to foreign competitors who do not have the tariff burden to reckon with. It is not
generally realized that we export annually about 100 million pounds
of our domestic fats and oils in the form of paints, soaps, lard compounds, and other products.
The paint industry would be seriously crippled if the policy of
exclusion of foreign industrial oils were carried to its logical conclusion. We obtain about half of our linseed oil requirements from
abroad. We import China-wood oil or tung oil which is the only oil
that will produce a water-proof varnish. A n y injury to the paint
industry in this manner will be reflected immediately in disaster to
the naval stores section of the South since the greater portion of the
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
37
domestic turpentine and rosin produced is consumed in the industries which would be thus affected.
Another element in the complicated problem that is frequently
overlooked is that the production of the vegetable oils results in a
considerable supply of feedstuffs i n the form of cake and meal. We
are already producing a surplus of these products in normal years
and effort is constantly being expended to export some of this surplus. Cottonseed meal, linseed meal, soya bean, copra, and peanut
cake and meal are already being sold in large quantities domestically
and for export. Since all of these compete with each other and
compete also to some extent with the grains and other feedstuffs,
any attempt to enlarge the domestic production of vegetable oils and
fats which would lead to an increase in the quantities of cake and
meal in the domestic market would react unfavorably on various
groups of farmers.
I should like to quote Secretary H u l l - - " I wish to put before the
Committee my judgment that these proposed taxes would not carry
substantial benefit to any important branches of American industry
or agriculture. On the other hand they would be very likely to lead
to such new complications in various branches of domestic industry
and in our trade relations with other countries as to accentuate the
difficulties now faced by American agriculture. They would be likely
to interfere gravely with plans for developing new trade interchanges
between ourselves and the rest of the world."
When one turns from consideration of our foreign policy to an
examination of domestic policy, he may be surprised to find that the
interests which have united so firmly against foreign oils are extremely hostile to one another.
Dr. George M. Weber of the University of Southern California has
recently published an article on "Legislative Weapons in InterIndustry Competition" in which he says "It has long been accepted
as a truism that one of the fortunate aspects of American industrial
development has been the absence of tariffs and other serious trade
barriers throughout a great continental area . . . .
There is danger,
however, of under-estimating the extent under which the benefits
that flow from this conditior~ may be nullified by organized lobbying
in Congress, and state legislation for restrictive laws of one kind and
another, aimed at embarrassing the operations of competitors."
The contest, if one can use such a word to describe a conflict of
interest so onesided, which first occurs to one is that between the
butter interests and the margarine manufacturers. In recent years
38
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
there has been considerable effort on the part of lard producers to
restrict the sale of vegetable oil shortenings.
It is interesting to note that the dairy interests have gradually
enlisted the aid of the cattle producers and the cotton producers in
opposition to the inflow of foreign oils even though an inspection of
the record shows that the dairy interests are, wherever possible, just
as ready to attack these other two domestic groups. It is interesting
also to observe that while these three groups are now united in their
opposition to foreign oil, the dairy interests represent the only group
that is militantly self-centered domestically. The live stock growers
are somewhat less hostile to competing products and the cottonseed
oil producers show practically no opposition to competing domestic
products.
The history of this domestic warfare really dates from the eighties
wher~ anti-margarine laws were first adopted by the Federal Government and several states. Originally the claim for singling out
this product for legislative restraint was based on the statement that
the p r o d u c t was being sold by misrepresentation and fraud. That
this was not the real reason can be concluded from the fact that
adulteration and misrepresentation prevailed in a very large list of
other food commodities and nothing was done about it until the pure
food legislation of 1906. There is even now a great deal of butter sold
in different sections of the country which is not of standard quality.
Yet it was the powerful and well organized dairy and butter producers' group which secured the passage of the original Federal
Margarine Act and the various amendments that have since been
adopted. That the purpose back of the legislation was to throttle
this new industry rather than to protect consumers against fraud
can be concluded by reference to legislation prohibiting the coloring
of margarine. Fraud could have been prevented by requiring that
margarine should be sold only in the original packages and plainly
marked but recently legislation has been enacted preventing the use
of certair~ oils and fats in their natural state in the making of margarine because these materials gave a natural yellow color to the
product. The real purpose back of this legislation is as disclosed in a
bill which was introduced in the House of Representatives in J a n u a r y
of this year, to absolutely prohibit the manufacture and sale of margarine. At present nearly every state in the Union has some legislation on its books retarding the free movement of margarine into
consumption.
The attitude toward margarine is further indicated by Dr. Weber
when he states that an official of the National Cooperative Milk
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
39
Producers Association said that he and the dairy interests do not
intend to cease fighting margarine until they have equalized the cost
of producing butter and margarine.
He also quoted an official of the National Dairy Union as saying in
a speech before the World Dairy Congress in Copenhagen that the
butter industry should strive to increase butter consumption by
"taking every step that is legally and morally defensible to reduce
the consumption of margarine and other vegetable oil products."
It is interesting to observe also that in the fight against foreign
oils, the opposition of the dairy group was not confined to coconut oil
as a competitor of butter. They were unwilling to permit the importation of coconut oil even if denatured in such a manner as to render
it useless for food purposes. Besides they were opposed to other
foreign oils some of which cannot in practice be used for food purposes in competition with butter.
Some state laws vary the rate of taxation
basis of the amount of animal fat ingredients.
crimination against margarine made from the
South. The same sort of opposition against
and lard compounds is noticeable.
on margarine on the
This is clearly a discottonseed oil of the
vegetable shortenings
This type of legislation is very frankly justified by its proponents
on the ground that they must protect their own products against the
products of other states. To recognize how ill-founded this argument
is, one needs only to ask himself what would happen to Iowa and
Illinois if all the other states would discriminate against their corn
and hogs, or to Wisconsin if there was discrimination against their
dairy products, or to Wyoming if the discrimination was against their
beef. There is a contagion about this sort of program which it is
dangerous to ignore.
In all of the discussions concerning, the fats and oils industry, r u n ning over many years, it is rare indeed to find any one who has taken
any account of the interests of consumers. Consideration seems to
be given only to the interests of the various producer groups. The
attitude, for example, of the dairy interests seems to be if the con,
sumer can't afford to eat butter, he cannot have any other form of
table spread.
Clear thinking on many subjects is prevented because we permit
our emotions to get the upper hand. It is for this reason that I urge
that we maintain a due sense of proportion in considering and planning a national policy for the fats and oils.
When one considers the unremitting efforts of various interested
groups to restrict or exclude imports of foreign oils and all the time
40
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY O F ANIMAL PRODUCTION
that this has involved both for themselves and for Congress, and
when one further reflects upon the tremendous expenditure of time
and money not only in the national legislature but, it is safe to say,
in the legislatures of every single state in the Union, to devise ways
and means to h a m p e r the progress of one or more of these oils and
fats domestically, he might be forced to conclude that the production
of fats and oils in the United States is one of our outstanding economic activities and one of the main sources of our wealth. It
requires only a brief examination of the situation to deflate this
notion.
The total value of all fats and oils produced in the United States
in 1933 was somewhat less than $720,000,000 or a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1.8
p e r cent of the national income. In any period when the national
income is more nearly normal than it was in 1933 this ratio would
be much smaller. Of the twenty odd fats and oils p r o d u c e d in this
country, butter and lard together accounted for nearly 82 per cent
of the total value. Thus while a very small percentage of our n a tional income is derived from the whole oils and fats production, the
great bulk of that industry is accounted for by only those two fats.
To be specific, the renderers who n u m b e r probably not more than
one thousand concerns or individuals, are supported and aided most
vigorously by the dairy interests in their demand for protection
(which they speak of as protection for the farmers). Yet the total
value of both edible and inedible tallow production in this country
in 1933 was approximately $22,000,000 or only 5 ~ hundredths of 1
per cent of our national income. The value of the edible tallow p r o duced was only about $2,250,000, which is almost an infinitesimal
fraction of our national income.
The situation becomes even less easy to comprehend when it is
realized t h a t the restriction program has largely been p u t over by
the b u t t e r interests, which accounted in 1933 for only 1 per cent
of our national income, and by the r e n d e r e r s who accounted for
5~/2 hundredths of 1 p e r cent of the national income. The value of
the whole product of the fish oil industry in 1933 was less than
$3,000,000.
How many people realize that the total value of all coconut oil
brought into the United States in 1933 both in the form of oil and
in the form of copra, was less than $19,000,000? In our endeavor
to get a proper perspective, can't we smile a little at the fears of
these three groups concerning this product whose total value was
only 3.5 p e r cent of the combined value of butter, lard, and cottonseed oil? Actually these commodities compete only to the extent
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
41
that coconut oil enters into edible products. On this basis the value
was $6,400,000, or 1 per cent of the combined value of butter, lard
and cottonseed oil. The total value of the crude cottonseed oil produced in this country in 1933 was slightly more than one-tenth
of 1 per cent of our national income. The cottonseed oil industry,
as measured by the value of its product, was only one-twelfth as
large as the value of the combined output of butter, lard, and
edible tallow.
It has always been asserted that higher fat prices for domestic
products will be of great value to American farmers. With the possible exception of butter, this claim doe~ not have a leg to stand on.
Seventy to seventy-five per cent of all inedible tallow produced in
the United States comes from renderers who pick up butcher shop
scraps and waste from hotels and restaurants. Cattle growers have
previously been paid for these materials as part of the live stock and
meat price and cannot benefit from any subsequent rise in the price
of the offal.
The oil derived from menhaden represents only 9 per cent of the
total weight of the fish, of sardines 13 per cent, of herring 16 per
cent, and of whales 16 per cent. The value of cottonseed oil ordinarily represents only about 8 per cent of the total value of the
cotton crop, and the value of corn oil about half of 1 per cent of
the total value of the corn crop.
What has been said thus far might be regarded as entirely critical
and negativ e . It seems obvious from the brief examination here
given to our present'policy that it does not meet any of these r e quirements. On the positive side, then, we may say that our program
should be the complete antithesis of t h e present one.
Specifically, we should permit the importation, without penalty, of
inedible fats and of such edible fats as are going to be used only for
industrial purposes, making sure, by a denaturing process, that no
transfer to edible use can be made. We should recognize that the
supply, the demand, and the price of domestic fats and oils, cannot
be much altered, except temporarily, by trade restrictions, for the
reason that their production depends on the demand and the production of the respective primary products. The production of
cotton will vary up or down without any regard to the price of
cottonseed oil. Similarly the supply of beef cattle will change without regard to the price of tallow or grease.
42
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
W h i l e opening o u r m a r k e t s f r e e l y to i n d u s t r i a l fats, w e s h o u l d
e x e r t all possible effort to e x t e n d the foreign m a r k e t s for o u r e d i b l e
fats. W e should r e p e a l or m o d i f y all legislation w h i c h has t h e
p u r p o s e a n d t h e effect of giving a n u n f a i r a d v a n t a g e to one domestie
product over others.
O n the basis of abstract principle, I think w e should all say that
there should be a free field and no favors. The individual should
be permitted to engage in any legitimate business activity he desires.
F e w would have been willing to say thirty years ago that no person
should be permitted to engage in making automobiles because it
would interfere with the sales of carriages and bicycles. The silk
manufacturers have not sought to legislate rayon out of existence.
If it were proposed to this group here assembled that w e should
go on record as opposing any further extension of the automobile
industry because it interferes with the carriage and wagon industry,
or that w e should oppose any extension of bus transportation because
it impinges upon the field of the railroads, I doubt whether a single
one of us would agree to it. But w e are personally interested in
the fats and oils industry, and w e apparently therefore see nothing
illogical in striving by legislative means to prevent the producer of
one kind of fat and oil from exercising his freedom to sell his product
because it happens to interfere somewhat with the sale of our product.
Should w e not go farther back and say no one can go into the business
of producing and selling the particular commodity w e object to?
This indeed has almost been done in the case of margarine. N o
industry which is established on such an unsound foundation that
it requires restrictive legislation to keep it alive can be in a very
secure position. Neither butter, lard, tallow, cottonseed oil, or any
of our fats and oils would suffer through the elimination of the
present restrictive laws.
Fats are an essential element in the diet and everything possible
should be done to increase their usage. H o w can this be done?
(1) B y keeping prices as low as possible. Efforts to get m a x i m u m
prices defeat their o w n end for they discourage consumption. (2) B y
free competition. (3) B y educational advertising.
The live stock and cottonseed oil producers assert, and I think
with a good deal of justification,that if some of the um'easonable restrictions on the manufacture and sale of margarine were removed,
there would be a big increase in the consumption of domestic fats
and oils with no reduction in the d e m a n d for butter. It is estimated
that there are at least 40 million people w h o cannot afford to eat
butter and at least 25 million w h o at present have no table spread
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
43
w h a t e v e r . This l a t t e r group w o u l d offer good p r o s p e c t s for a w h o l e some, cheap m a r g a r i n e . It w o u l d s e e m to b e t h e p a r t of w i s d o m to
s e e k t a i m p r o v e the m a r k e t for the fats a n d oils b y b r i n g i n g in this
large n u m b e r of p r o s p e c t i v e n e w c u s t o m e r s i n s t e a d of t r y i n g b y r e strictive devices to benefit o n l y one or two p r o d u c t s at t h e e x p e n s e
of t h e w h o l e country.
W o u l d it be too optimistic to suggest t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of a " d i s a r m a m e n t conference" a m o n g the p r o d u c e r s of fats a n d oils? S u p p o s e
we all got t o g e t h e r a n d a g r e e d to s p e n d no m o r e m o n e y , time, o r
e n e r g y in t r y i n g to obtain legislation to h a m p e r some o t h e r c o m modity; a n d suppose w e used t h a t m o n e y a n d e n e r g y in a c o m b i n e d
effort to i n c r e a s e the domestic fat c o n s u m p t i o n a n d to b r o a d e n t h e
foreign m a r k e t s for o u r products. W e could m a k e s u r e t h a t all t h e
p r o d u c t s m e a s u r e d up to p r o p e r s t a n d a r d s of w h o l e s o m e n e s s a n d
value, a n d t h e n as a c o m b i n e d fat p r o d u c i n g i n d u s t r y w e could t a k e
a leaf from the a u t o m o b i l e m a n u f a c t u r e r s ' b o o k a n d offer different
fats for different purses. W e could a d v e r t i s e b u t t e r as t h e finest
s p r e a d for those who can afford it. F o r those w h o can't, m a r g a r i n e
could b e r e c o m m e n d e d as a w h o l e s o m e substitute. W i t h r e s p e c t to
the shortenings it could be said t h a t b o t h t h e a n i m a l a n d t h e v e g e table p r o d u c t s a r e satisfactory a n d c o n s u m e r s could choose on the
basis of price, quality, and i n d i v i d u a l p r e f e r e n c e .
T h e i n t e r - i n d u s t r y w a r f a r e t h a t has gone on for so m a n y y e a r s
m u s t s u r e l y h a v e p r o v e d its futility b y this time. C a n ' t w e t r y a
c o o p e r a t i v e a t t a c k on the m a r k e t for a c h a n g e ?