Mr. ELLINGTON. Yes. Senator ALLEN. And the farmer, while he doesn't have to pay a fee, can get a permit and become his own applicator on his own land without charge from the State? Mr. ELLINGTON. Yes, that is right; yes sir. Senator ALLEN. Now, the consultant, what is his role? Mr. ELLINGTON. You mean under the Maryland law? Mr. ELLINGTON. Well, the State legislature, when it was deliberating on that bill that is now our law, looked at it this way: That if you license applicators only under the bill there will be many people who will engage in business but make no applications themselves. They will hire themselves as consultants, but will refer the actual applications to someone else. Under that set-up they would not be licensed, nor would he be, in fact, held accountable for his deeds. The Maryland legislature put in the category of a licensed consultant to preclude this. As I understand it, the way it has worked out, everybody wants to be a licensed applicator rather than a consultant. Senator ALLEN. Could you charge the farmer a fee, then, for his services? Mr. ELLINGTON. Yes, you may. He would be engaged for hire before he would be required to have a license in Maryland. So this would be part of his business. Senator ALLEN. Well, now, would you envision if the Federal law is passed, that it would preempt this procedure on the part of Maryland and that the Federal law would take over and do away with your present two classifications of pesticide control regulations? Mr. ELLINGTON. It could work that way, Senator, so that our program would in effect just be out-dated and not used except as an instrument to carry out the requirements of the Federal law or the Federal act. Senator ALLEN. I believe you did suggest, though, to the extent that you went beyond the Federal law, that would still be permitted? Mr. ELLINGTON. Yes. Senator ALLEN. So then we can envision, if the Federal law is passed, a farmer might have to get two different permits, then; is that right? Mr. ELLINGTON. Conceivably, yes. Senator ALLEN. One from the Federal Government and fromnot from Federal Government, but from someone acting under Federal law? Mr. ELLINGTON. That is right. Senator ALLEN. Who might be somebody entirely different from Maryland law? Mr. ELLINGTON. It is conceivable, yes. Senator ALLEN. Well, now, on the issuance of this permit, since it is in the entomology department, would they send somebody out to look at the field, the farmer's field, or he would just go in and get a permit? We are talking about Maryland law. Mr. ELLINGTON. Under Maryland law now? Senator ALLEN. Yes. Mr. ELLINGTON. The way it works, we meet with the office of the State entomologist or he meets with and has met with various grower groups in the State of Maryland. We have met with the orchardists, the tobacco growers, the protesting industry and explained our law and explained those materials that are on the restricted list and encouraged the growers, if they knew they were going to have a need for it, to immediately come back to this office and, the county agricultural agents office and make those needs known so that we could handle those ahead of time. We don't have a full staff to go and investigate every farmer who asks for a permit. But we do, if we think there is some reason for it, we will send a man there before a permit is issued. Senator ALLEN. A permit, then, would cover the whole growing season? Mr. ELLINGTON. Under ours it may, yes. It may not. It may be thatWell, a good example is the earworm in sweet corn. We don't know where it is going to be and how severe until we get into the growing season and see. Those permits, we have got a system arranged; if the county agricultural agent or a representative of the State entomologist's office can survey an area and it is found that it is infested there and one of the restricted materials is needed, we can handle that by telephone so that the farm is not delayed in getting the pesticide he needs to control it. Those are not issued ahead of time. They are issued at the outset of the difficulty. Senator ALLEN. Would it be an undue burden, then, to require a permit for each application as apparently required by the Federal legislation? Mr. ELLINGTON. It would seem to me to be a burden to everyone concerned to require at all times a separate prescription for each application of a restricted material. Senator ALLEN. Well, now, under Maryland now, is that a penal statute? I mean, does it have criminal penalties for a violation? Mr. ELLINGTON. Yes sir. Senator ALLEN. Is it working well there in Maryland under your two category provision? Mr. ELLINGTON. Well, I think it is. The program is young, and from where I sit we always could use one or two additional men to help carry it out. But even with our present staff I think we are doing a creditable job in it. The advisory board reviews constantly the materials that we have got on the restricted list and the permitted uses of those materials. Situations arise in which they feel that another use is justified or one that we have now is no longer justified. Modifications are made in the program. I think it has been responsive in that regard. Senator ALLEN. Well, now, a farmer on his own land does not need a license as applicator, but he does need a permit? Mr. ELLINGTON. He may need one if he wishes to use one of the restricted materials. Senator ALLEN. That is what I am talking about. Of course, your general use pesticide doesn't require anything? Mr. ELLINGTON. That is right. Senator ALLEN. Now, are your sales outlets, your co-ops, your retail stores, your wholesale stores, are they all also licensed in Maryland? Mr. ELLINGTON. They are not licensed. They are issued a permit to handle or dispense restricted materials. This is more of a registration really more than anything else. So we have a knowledge of which stores or which outlets are handling materials on our restricted list, and this is a provision in the Maryland law that those dealers handling restricted materials must keep records and make them available to us for our inspection. Senator ALLEN. Are they supposed to offset their purchases with their sales to show, as to the restricted compounds, that they were purchasde by authorized persons? Mr. ELLINGTON. Yes sir, yes sir, this would be part of it. Senator ALLEN. What do you think of the role of pesticides in farm production? Mr. ELLINGTON. Well, it is an absolutely essential tool of production in agriculture today. It is something that if we were forced to do without, and in many States this is a real concern right now-the State legislature is sometimes not rural oriented and sometimes emotion prone and want to ban certain products and keep them out of agriculture in certain States or out of any use, not only agriculture, and this poses a real threat to those farmers and it would nationwide. We simply cannot produce with the population that we have on farms today, from less than 5 percent I believe, of our total population, we could not begin to produce the food and fiber needs of this country without the use of some pest control agents. They do not necessarily have to be the pesticides we have been using up to now for a given time or for a given purpose, but we simply must have some effective means of combating pests. Senator ALLEN. Is the professional applicator, consultant, is that getting to be a large profession in Maryland? Mr. ELLINGTON. It has grown in recent years, in agriculture; yes. Many of the fertilizer companies that historically have sold fertilizer only, now find dispensing it, and many have gone into the application of herbicides or soybeans and other crops, and they do this as a custom service to the farmer. It has several advantages from the farmer's standpoint, in that he has a reliable custom operator in his vicinity; he no longer has to maintain his own equipment and take time off from other operations to stop and calibrate the equipment and go spray a small amount. It is a convenience matter. He calls a bona fide custom applicator in to do the job. In that respect it has grown in the State. I think it has grown nationally, to my knowledge. Senator ALLEN. Applicators and consultants, many of them have sidelines of selling pesticides? Mr. ELLINGTON. That is right; yes, they do. You see, if it is a fertilizer company that has an outlet in a given community and is selling fertilizer and herbicide, let's say, for corn and they have their own crew for applying it, yes, they are licensed and they do sell as well as apply. Senator ALLEN. Is that a pretty large percentage of their business, the sale of pesticides? Mr. ELLINGTON. It depends. In some cases it is quite a high percentage of the business. În others it is more sideline and is incidental to the main operation of the business. Senator ALLEN. Are you satisfied with the cooperation with the Federal Government under the existing law as combined with the Maryland law? Do you feel there is any need for additional legislation? Mr. ELLINGTON. Well, the real need, Senator, comes about in establishing national guidelines that we in Maryland, and that other States can live with. I indicated a while ago if we don't have the national guidelines, and we don't have them at the moment, each State will grow up set in its own guidelines and setting up its own programs. From the standpoint of uniformity throughout the United States, we need a set of national guidelines for the use of many pesticides that are in common use today. We do not have that under FIFRA at the moment. We do not have it at the moment under the memorandum of understanding that many of the States have signed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is my feeling that we need some bit of legislation which would establish this in the country today. Senator ALLEN. I believe you were suggesting that you thought the proposed Federal law is not correct; it is not properly drawn where it requires the farmer seeking to apply pesticides on his own land to attain the same type of license that a man in that business is required to get. There ought to be separate types of licenses or possibly no license for the farmer on his own land? Mr. ELLINGTON. Yes, that is my feeling; yes, sir. I did not mean to imply by this, however, that the farmer in all cases should not be held accountable for his knowledge of the use of this particular material. But if he demonstrates his knowledge and capability of handling material and applying it-I use the term here "certificate of competence"he could be issued some authority saying this man is competent. It is not necessary to require him to take the examination or pay the fee for a custom applicator. Senator ALLEN. Where would the funds come from to carry such inspection as is provided, according to your suggestion? That would take some supervision, would it not? Mr. ELLINGTON. Yes, it would. At the moment in Maryland, at least, these funds are coming from State sources, in general funds. I also believe I indicated under this bill there is no provision for the Administrator to do any cost sharing with us to carry out laws, to carry out a Federal law that may be quite at variance with what we have operating in the State today. Senator ALLEN. I thank you, Dr. Ellington and Mr. Cath, for coming before the committee and giving us the benefit of your views on this legislation. We will give serious consideration to your testimony. Clifford G. McIntire, accompanied by J. D. Hays, president, Alabama Farm Bureau Federation, in Montgomery, Ala. STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD G. MCINTYRE, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AND ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, we also list Mr. George Doup, president, Indiana Farm Bureau, who planned to accompany Mr. Hays and myself today, but an emergency developed and he could not be here today. However, I am happy, as a staff member of the American Farm Bureau Federation, to be accompanied by Mr. Hays, president of the Alabama Farm Bureau Federation. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the hearings now being held by the subcommittee are of deep interest to farmers and ranchers, woodland owners, nurserymen, wildlife interests, recreationists-in fact, all citizens of this country as well as millions abroad. Members of this subcommittee are to be commended for your announcement of hearings on the subject of pesticides and your prompt response to legislative interests expressed early in this first session of the 92d Congress. As pesticide materials have a vital relationship to a productive agriculture, it is most appropriate that any legislative changes to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act should be considered by this subcommittee of the U.S. Senate. We appreciate the privilege of presenting comments relative to the importance of pesticides to a productive agriculture and some specific comments on S. 745 introduced by Senator Packwood of Oregon. The American Farm Bureau Federation is a nationwide general farm organization with membership as of December 1, 1970, of 1,943,181 families who are voluntary, paidup members of 2,818 county farm bureaus in 49 States and Puerto Rico. Any action taken by the Environmental Protection Agency relative to pesticides or other materials and practices needed for a productive agriculture in this country is of interest to this membership. The voting delegates of member State farm bureaus to the 52d annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation in Houston, Tex., in December of 1970 adopted the following policy relating to agricultural chemicals and environmental protection: AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS Agricultural chemicals have been one of the major reasons for agriculture's phenomenal ability to produce abundant and high quality food. Any curtailment of the safe and proper use of these products would result in higher food costs to consumers. Farm Bureau should increase its leadership in this area so that the interests of farmers and the general public are adequately protected. We recognize that there may be problems in the use of agricultural chemicals as they relate to our environment. However, we strongly urge that proper recognition and consideration be given to human nutrition and to the importance of providing adequate quantities of high quality food and fiber. In the evaluation of any chemical its detrimental effects must be compared with its beneficial value. Only then can a balance between environmental control and chemical control be effectively attained. We urge that the new Environmental Protection Agency view agricultural chemicals as important tools in agricultural production rather than "pollutants." If the latter point of view were to prevail, it could mean the eventual elimination of these products before adequate substitutes are available. This would mean higher food costs to consumers and increased costs to farmers. We oppose a complete ban on the use of any agricultural chemical and recommend that continued use be determined on a product-by-product and use-by-use basis. The continued use of these products should be based on research and scientific data. The fact that some of these products may be persistent is not in itself sufficient reason for rejecting their continued use. State Farm Bureaus should take leadership in developing state programs and legislation which will insure the continued safe use of these products. Failure to do this will lead only to the banning of additional agricultural chemicals and increased federal regulations. Serious consideration is being given to amending existing federal laws which deal with the registration and control of the use of these products. This includes a proposal which would require that highly hazardous pesticides be applied by trained and licensed farmers or other technicians who would obtain permits and be legally responsible for any misuse. 59-044 0-71-23 |