the modern day insecticide field. We have made a number of suggestions for minor changes in the bill. We urge that this bill be adopted.

Dr. Reed, who is Chief of the Insecticide Division, and Dr. Griffin, who is Assistant Chief of the Insecticide Division, are with me to answer any questions in a technical way.

I have nothing to add to the report, Mr. Chairman, but we will be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I note that the Department has made six suggestions with reference to changes in the bill. I think it might be well for you to explain each suggestion. I will call your attention to the first one.

On page 2, line 6, omit the words "or weeds".

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. We feel that the words "or weeds" should be omitted because it would complicate matters by bringing hoes, scythes, and such devices that are used for chopping out weeds, under the act, which is unnecessary. We think it would be simplified by

omitting the words "or weeds".

Mr. ANDRESEN. That was the only purpose of that suggestion; is

that correct?

Mr. REED. That is right.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Now, the second suggestion appears on page 5, section 2 (a)—

Mr. REED. The addition of the words

Mr. ANDRESEN. That is 2 (s), isn't it?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. The addition of the words "or which contains directions for use" would bring under the act advertising matter in which directions as to how to use the product were given. We think that would be an added protection. It is my understanding that there is some opposition to the addition of those words.

Mr. ANDRESEN. That is in the advertisements appearing for the sale of the product?

Mr. REED. That is correct.

Mr. ANDRESEN. And you feel that it would be an additional protection to the public if information was contained in the advertisement showing how it could be used?

Mr. REED. Our only feeling is that that information should be correct. As it is, advertising matter containing directions for use would not be subject to the act.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Is it your feeling that the need for this information in the advertisement is so that the directions will be followed or so that the people will know what they have to do before they buy the commodity?

Mr. REED. May I ask Dr. Griffin to reply to that question?

Mr. GRIFFIN. This is not a requirement that the directions for use shall be put in the advertisement. It is a requirement that if advertisements are put out containing directions for use then such advertisements will be subject to the act.

Mr. ANDRESEN. This has nothing to do with the formula?

Mr. REED. No, sir.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Does the Department suggest that the formula be contained in the advertisement?

Mr. REED. No, sir.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Or on the label?

Mr. GRIFFIN. There is a requirement for an ingredient statement on the label to which I understand industry does not object.

Mr. ANDRESEN. That formula, then, does not have to be specific? Mr. GRIFFIN. That is right.

Mr. ANDRESEN. All they have to put in is the ingredients without stating the amount of each type of material?

Mr. GRIFFIN. That is one alternative that is permissible.

Mr. REED. That is on the label. That has nothing to do with this point.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Yes. Now, point No. 3, on page 8, section 3 (a). Mr. REED. The suggestion we have made there is that the words. "in the original unbroken package" be added. We think that is necessary in order to make that part of the act workable.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The act as it stands at present would deny a person who received an insecticide in interstate commerce the privilege of breaking it up and selling it in smaller packages. He couldn't repack it or distribute it. He could only sell it in the registrant's package as it came. The Solicitor's office informs us that they believe it would be going beyond the constitutional authority if we denied them that right. They believe that after a man has received the insecticide .in interstate commerce he has a right to go ahead and repack it.

Mr. ANDRESEN. That would come under, primarily, at least, under the jurisdiction of the State authorities, too, after it has been received in interstate commerce?

Mr. GRIFFIN. It should, yes.

Mr. ANDRESEN. So that the Federal Government would not necessarily have any jurisdiction over it after it reached its destination. Mr. GRIFFIN. Not after it has been repacked.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Page 9, line 16, the word "a" preceding the word "standard" should be deleted.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. We feel that that was a typographical error. Mr. ANDRESEN. I don't think there is any question about that. I wish you would explain the fifth objection, on page 12, section 4. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, our position relative to the fee is that it is a matter of legislative policy. We feel that the imposition of a fee, from the standpoint of administration of the act, would be of assistance in preventing a lot of unnecessary registrations. Now, as to whether a fee is imposed from the standpoint of providing funds for the administration of the act, our position is that is a matter of legislative policy.

Mr. ANDRESEN. All you do then is to raise the point about the fee? Mr. REED. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I see.

Mr. REED. In raising the point, we did so recognizing that on several occasions in connection with appropriations for other regulatory action, the Appropriations Committees have asked about the possibility of financing them from the collection of fees. On one occasion we were asked to draw up some language which would provide feeson another act. We are merely raising the question as to whether it is the wish of Congress to handle this through fee, or partially through fee, I should say, because the fees large enough to cover the administration of this act would be very high.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Under the bill that was considered by the committee last year, where it provided a fee, did the Department make any estimate as to the amount that would be collected?

Mr. REED. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the estimates were that thirty-odd-thousand dollars would have been collected under the fee that was suggested last year.

Mr. ANDRESEN. In connection with the fee, I would like to have you discuss the estimated additional cost for administering this act.

Mr. REED. Out estimate, Mr. Chairman, is that this act would require an amount of $285,000 in addition to the amount now appropriated for administration of the Insecticide Act of 1910.

Mr. ANDRESEN. How much is the amount for the whole act? Mr. REED. $294,000 is now being appropriated for the Insecticide act of 1910.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Is it the idea of the Department that this act will double the work of the Department?

Mr. REED. Practically, yes, sir. This act brings under the administration several additional items, you recall. Rodenticides, herbicides, and devices.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you have a break-down of the estimate to show how the money will be spent?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I would be glad to file with you a break-down showing how this amount was arrived at, for Washington, for our laboratories, and for the field. force. In this we show a report on the money with an explanatory comment on each one.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you have additional copies?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDRESEN. If you will file one with the reporter, he will put it in the record at this point, and also furnish the committee with copies of it, as we might want to interrogate you on it.

Mr. REED. All right.

(The document above referred to is as follows:)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, LIVESTOCK BRANCH, WASHINGTON, D. C.

PROPOSED ENFORCMENT PLAN FOR H. R. 1237

The enforcement of the proposed Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (H. R. 1237) would place a number of added responsibilities upon the Department, as follows:

1. Control of herbicides, rodenticides, and devices intended for the control of economic pests.

2. The determination of substances in economic poisons which are highly toxic to man and should bear special poison labeling.

3. The registration of economic poisons, which will require examination of each label and all literature accompanying the article, to see whether it complies with legal requirements.

4. Determining whether the directions for use accompanying each economic poison are adequate.

5. Determining whether the warning statements on the label are sufficient to prevent injury to man, other vertebrate ainmals, vegetation, and useful invertebrate animals.

6. Determining which white economic poisons should be colored so as to avoid danger of accidental poisoning of humans, and determining coloration which may be used for this purpose without decreasing the effectiveness of the product or injury to plants.

7. Cooperation with State officials so as to bring about uniformity of action under Federal and State laws covering this field.

In the enforcement activities, no basic research is contemplated. It will, however, be necessary to make sufficient investigations to determine the effectiveness of herbicides, rodenticides, and devices intended for the control of economic

pests; to determine the toxicity of substances used in economic poisons and what dangers may be inherent in their use; to determine the necessity of and standard for coloring economic poisons; and to determine adequate directions for use of economic poisons.

It is proposed to set up a registration unit in Washington and to maintain here chiefs of sections and sufficient scientific personnel to pass on labeling offered for registration and to aid manufacturers by advising them as to the legality of their products. At Beltsville there would be a new laboratory to work on the toxicity of economic poisons and on the effectiveness of rodenticides, as well as added scientific personnel and their assistants to take care of testing weed killers and other responsibilities in the enforcement of the act. In the field, the inspection work would be strengthened to take care of the added products to be controlled and there would be an additional entomologist to do testing where we are not in position to do it at present, as well as additional chemists in our present field stations. A break-down showing the additional cost of enforcing the act is shown on the following page.

(Includes pharmacology laboratory, bacteriological section, chemical section, entomological laboratory and plant pathological laboratory)

(Including investigation force, chemical laboratorics, and entomological

year

year

$72,000

$86,000

1,500

1,700

500

500

900

900

2,200

1,100

5,000

800

82, 100

91,000

It is estimated that approximately $80,000 will be necessary for equipping the laboratories and offices. However, some of the technical personnel will not be employed until after the laboratories are established and it will be impossible to obtain all qualified personnel immediately. Therefore, the $80,000 necessary for equipping the laboratories could be obtained through lapsed salaries during the first year and no additional appropriation for this purpsoe would be necessary.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Will you refer to the statement, Mr. Reed, and tell the committee as to the additional personnel that will be needed to enforce this act?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Dr. Griffin.

Mr. GRIFFIN. In the enforcement of the act it will be necessary to maintain a registration service in Washington to register each label, each article as it is put in for registration. The label and the advertising material will have to be looked over by experts in the particular fields to make sure that the product will do what it is claimed to do. And to do that work it will require $91,000 in personnel and services in Washington. The new act requires that-the new bill requires that there shall be considerable care given to the possibility of damage to individuals, to people using it, or to animals. That was not in the Insecticide Act of 1910. And it requires a certain amount of laboratory work to determine the dangers inherent in the use of these products. We will have to set up a laboratory to test rodenticides. There will also have to be set up laboratories to test weed killers, to determine their effectiveness and to determine the dangers in their use-and there are dangers in their use. Then in addition to that there will be additional work on the coloring of insecticides. That work will largely be done in laboratories at Beltsville, which will cost approximately $137,000 a year.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You have laboratories there now?

Mr. REED. They are not equipped for this work, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRIFFIN. We have no laboratories which do toxicity work. We have no laboratories that work on weed killers.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Does any other agency of the Government?

Mr. GRIFFIN. There is none that we know of that would be in position to do that sort of work.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Who have been making all these tests with DDT? Mr. GRIFFIN. We have laboratories to do that sort of work; yes. Mr. ANDRESEN. Were those especially provided for by law, to examine the qualities of DDT?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.

Mr. REED. They come under the old act, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I thought that was such a recent discovery-and the old act was created a good many years ago.

Mr. REED. It was broad enough to take that.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You don't feel that the present law is broad enough to extend your laboratory facilities without an additional $137,000 being required?

Mr. REED. Not for the purposes in this new bill.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Now, what other expense?

Mr. GRIFFIN. In addition to that there is the field investigational work which is going to require additional investigational work, and it will require some additional field laboratories. Weed killers, particularly, can only be tested where the particular weeds they are intended for exist. We have no laboratories now in certain parts of the country that should be covered. We have none at all in the middle part of the country. We have a plant pathology laboratory at Corvallis, Oreg., and one at Haddon Heights, N. J. We have an insecticide laboratory in Florida, and one in Texas. But we have none

62597-47- -3