death. But I believe also that you are correct, that breathing alsoSenator ALLEN. Well, now, how would any type of regulation, though, prevent mishaps of that sort, bad judgment or carelessness? Mr. TRAIN. Well, I would suppose that there is no way in the ultimate analysis to prevent completely all misuse. There is always the guy that can't be told. On the other hand, legislation that would require in the case of acutely toxic pesticides, that they be placed into a category for restricted use only, and that they are only to be applied by a trained applicator would prevent many mishaps. The Administrator of EPA will develop and publish guidelines for the licensing by State authorities of these trained applicators. Among the qualifications for obtaining a license as a trained applicator would be knowledge on the part of the individual of the proper use of a pesticide, its toxicity and its antidotes. These are fairly simple bits of information, but he would have to demonstrate his knowledge of this before he could be licensed as an applicator. In many cases these applicators would doubtlessly be the farmers themselves.

Senator ALLEN. Well, now, on these trained applicators, would that not place additional burden on the farmer in the growing of his crop, not only a time-consuming burden, but a monetary, financial burden?

Mr. TRAIN. The amount of training or additional education that a farmer would have to undergo to be licensed would be very minimal. We are not talking about complex entomological education here at all, but rather a very practical understanding of the dangers of the use of certain pesticides and how to deal with those.

Senator ALLEN. Well, the farmer would have to qualify as an applicator for his own farm, then?

Mr. TRAIN. That is our intention.

Senator ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. TRAIN. It is also an expectation that farmers normally would be able to qualify for a license with 1, 2, or 3 days of training of some sort, reading or perhaps some classes.

Senator ALLEN. Well, in what way would it interfere with the right of a farmer to choose the pesticides that he wished to use on his crops? Mr. TRAIN. I believe that in the case of pesticides registered for general use or for restricted use only, there would be no interference with his choice in the matter.

In the latter categories we have discussed there would be a requirement that the person putting it on would have to know his business, and, as I said, that could well be the farmer himself.

In a third category, which I mentioned, use by permit only, the legislative proposal is that a licensed consultant, a pesticide consultant licensed by the State, must approve the particular use of the pesticide which the farmer wishes to apply.

Now, it is anticipated that these licensed consultants would have to have considerably more background in the field of pesticides and entomology generally than one would expect of a licensed applicator. We would suppose that perhaps the agricultural extension people would fill this bill in part. But this is the only case where the farmer would have to actually get permission for the use of a particular pesticide.

This is to insure, in the case of pesticides that are known to have adverse effects, either on health or on the environment generally, that they

are used in the right way. The purpose is not to interfere with choice. on the part of the farmer, really, but to assist him in that choice, in the final analysis to prevent a wrong choice.

Senator ALLEN. Well, what change would be made in the relationship between your State agencies, your State agricultural department, and your extension service and the Environmental Protection Agency? What change would be wrought by the proposed bill?

Mr. TRAIN. I think I am going to pass that, Mr. Chairman, and suggest you ask the representatives of the Department of Agriculture and the EPA.

Senator ALLEN. Well, now, have you appeared before the House committee?

Mr. TRAIN. No, sir; I expect to on Thursday of this week.

Senator ALLEN. Have those hearings been going on for some days? Mr. TRAIN. They have been going on for some while. They were not called specifically on the administration's bill, but these have been extensive pesticide hearings. The administration's bill has been introduced both by the chairman, Mr. Poage, and by the ranking member, Mr. Belcher.

Senator ALLEN. What additional personnel is going to be required for the enforcement of the provisions of the act?

Mr. TRAIN. I think there is no question that additional personnel will be required. I don't know specifically the number. I know that the Environmental Protection Agency, where these people would have to be, is presently examining this and perhaps when they testify they will have more information.

Senator ALLEN. Well, now, how many employees of the Agriculture Department and how much work was taken over by the Environmental Agency when the Executive order went into effect?

Mr. TRAIN. I am informed it was between 300 and 400.

Senator ALLEN. This will not be anything like-other than to carry out the provisions of the act?

Mr. TRAIN. I believe EPA will need some additional people, but how many I do not know.

Senator ALLEN. Well, do you feel that this act would be in any way a burden on the farmer? This is very important.

Mr. TRAIN. Obviously, it is going to cause a little more work on the part of the farmer. I don't think there is any reason to dodge that or deny it. The whole purpose of this legislation is to require more care, and a more informed use, of the group of chemicals that are creating a good deal of public concern. There will be some additional burden on the part of farmers, but we believe that it will be minimal and that certainly the benefits to be derived by the public generally and by the farmer himself far outweigh any burden imposed.

Senator ALLEN. Is it the function of the legislation to reduce the amount of pesticides used by the farmers?

Mr. TRAIN. We would certainly anticipate that, if this legislation is enacted and when it becomes fully operative-it will take quite some while to come into full operation-that the total amount of pesticides presently being used will go down substantially.

Senator ALLEN. Well, now, would you have any idea what you mean by substantially? I mean, would that mean 50 percent or 25 percent, 75 percent?

Mr. TRAIN. I think that is very hard to estimate at this time.
Senator ALLEN. I am sure it would be.

Mr. TRAIN. I think that there is still a very important administrative step to be taken subsequent to enactment before a real estimate of this could be made, and that is the system for classification of these pesticides into the three categories that I described. The bill has only very broad criteria for classification. So that I think that as the Administrator develops the criteria by which given products will be placed into the categories, we will have a much better fix on what the impact of this legislation is going to be in terms of use.

Senator ALLEN. Is the main purpose of the legislation to protect the environment or to influence and control the use by farmers of pesticides in his farming operation?

Mr. TRAIN. Well, I would say it is both. The objectives are broad and comprehensive. The President has continuously emphasized the need to maintain agricultural production of food and fiber, and this is a vitally important consideration to this country and to the world.

At the same time we recognize, and there have been many reports on this, that some pesticides and herbicides do represent both health hazards and factors which are damaging to the environment as a whole. The effort is to develop a rational system of better public control over such substances, which recognizes in a balanced fashion the need to maintain productivity and at the same time protect both the public and the environment. So it is a multipurpose effort.

Senator ALLEN. Now, the farmer would be considered a part of the public or is he a separate category?

Mr. TRAIN. He is in several different categories. He is a member of the general public and of course has the same, maybe greater stake as the rest of the public in a healthy, naturally functioning environment. As an individual who is constantly exposed to pesticides, many of which are acutely toxic, and as one who family is likewise constantly exposed to such products, he perhaps has a more direct stake in protective regulations than I and others who do not live on a farm. Of course, he also has a very strong economic stake in the effects of pests and their control. So in those three areas certainly the farmer has a very strong interest.

Senator ALLEN. Well, do you have any idea of the total volume of pesticides produced in this country?

Mr. TRAIN. I think we may have some figures with us, Mr. Chairman. They won't be entirely current, obviously.

I think rather than taking the committee's time while I pore through this document, if we we could submit this for the record, the production figures in dollar sales—————

Senator ALLEN. Certainly, if you would, please.

Mr. TRAIN. If that would be agreeable.

(For information above, see page 167.)

Senator ALLEN. I gather, then, that the main purpose of the bill, while not neglecting the duty to the consuming public in purchase of pesticides at the retail level, your chief aim and purpose is to control and regulate the use of pesticides in growing crops, and that they would have more effect on the environment than the retail sale of pesticides?

Mr. TRAIN. First, the bill extends to all users, not just agricultural users. It extends to household use as well. However, I think it certainly would be fair to say that the major regulatory impact in terms of volume would be in what I would call the mass uses, of which agriculture is perhaps the most important. I would suppose there are other mass uses, such as rights-of-way spraying and so forth, which would be significant.

Senator ALLEN. I believe I have no further questions.

Senator Chiles?

Dr. Talbot, do you have anything to say?

Mr. TALBOT. No, I don't believe I have anything to add at this time, sir.

Senator ALLEN. Would you like to add anything?

Mr. DAVIES. No, sir.

Senator ALLEN. I appreciate very much your attendance before the committee and your giving this testimony. If you will supply those figures for the record, we will appreciate it.

Mr. TRAIN. May I say we will be delighted and would look forward to working with you and your staff anyway you would desire as you mark up this bill.

Senator ALLEN. I would suggest that you all maintain close contact with Senator Nelson as he redrafts his bill, because actually we are supposed to be studying S. 745 as related to S. 660 and vice versa, and we will not have final draft of S. 660 until after the hearing. So it is really close. So we are somewhat at a disadvantage there.

We do believe it would aid the subcommittee in making its report to the full committee if we did have the final draft of Senator Nelson's bill and then any cooperation that you all could give him in the preparation of that bill, especially since he states that no irreconcilable differences in your approaches, and in the provisions of the two bills. Mr. TRAIN. We would be delighted to do that.

Senator ALLEN. It would be very helpful. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate it.

Dr. Ned D. Bayley, Director, Science and Education, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Bayley, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. NED D. BAYLEY, DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

Dr. BAYLEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee. I have with me Mrs. Lotus Prokop, Dr. Fred Tschirley, Dr. T. C. Byerly, and Dr. Francis Mulhern, who will assist in answering questions after we present a statement to you.

The bills under discussion, as you announced are S. 232, 272, 660. and 745. With your permission I would like first to outline some of the issues we believe are important during the committee's consideration of S. 745, and I will discuss these in terms of the Department of Agriculture's responsibilities and activities.

The Department of Agriculture supports the proposed legislation which would extend Federal regulation over the production, dis

tribution, and use of pesticides. The bill carries out the recommendations in the President's environmental message of February 8, 1971. It would help to assure the availability of adequate means of pest control, while minimizing the hazards to man and his environment from the unintended side effects of pesticides.

NEED FOR PESTICIDES

Pesticides have a double-edged effect on today's society-at the same time both beneficial and hazardous. The conflict arises from the need to control pests on the one hand, and to protect man and the environment on the other. Those of us who are responsible for making decisions related to this complex problem must consider scientific facts and make objective judgments. We must also consider environmental and social values.

Agricultural productivity has increased tremendously over the years. This has come about because of (1) genetically improved varieties and breeds, (2) improved crop and livestock management practices, (3) better plant and animal nutrition, (4) farm mechanization. (5) irrigation, and (6) the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The integration of the various production inputs has been responsible for what we all know can truly be called an agricultural revolution.

For example, between 1870 and 1939 the average yield of corn in the United States remained essentially constant at about 25 bushels per acre. Since 1940 the average yield has increased about three times to a high of 84 bushels per acre in 1959. Rice yields in the United States increased from 23 cwt. an acre in 1940 to a high of 45 cwt. in 1967.

High yield per acre is important in meeting increased needs for food and fiber... because land that would otherwise be used for agricultural production can be freed for other purposes, such as greenspace, recreation, and habitat for wildlife. Our production of 17 major crops in 1969, if produced with the average yields of 1940, would have required almost 300 million acres more land than was actually used. This is an area equivalent in size to the States of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

When we consider these beneficial effects, the pertinent fact is that pesticides are essential to the abundance and quality of agricultural production in this country. The balance of nature in our monocultural system of agriculture would be heavily weighted on the side of pests if we did not have pesticides.

Whether or not man has made decisions in the past that have led to an excessive dependence upon chemicals for pest control is being debated. However, the fact that modern agricultural productivity depends upon the coordinated use of pesticides, fertilizers, and machinery as well as improved varieties and breed of animals is not debatable.

The need to feed more and more people from available farm land puts increasing pressure on modern agricultural productivity. There is no indication that this pressure will let up in the foreseeable future. In this country, consumers have become accustomed to food products in their markets that are unblemished by pest damage and pollution. It would be difficult to persuade a major portion of them to eat the quality of fruits and vegetables that would be produced for the commercial market without pesticides.