Senator ALLEN. The committee will now adjourn, inasmuch as we have now heard from all of the witnesses scheduled for today, until 9 o'clock in the morning, at which time another series of witnesses will appear. The committee will stand adjourned. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene the following day at 9 a.m., Thursday, March 25, 1971.) FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room 324, Old Senate Office Building, the Honorable James B. Allen presiding. Present: Senators Allen (presiding) and Curtis. Senator ALLEN. The subcommittee will please come to order. There is a quorum of the subcommittee present, so we will proceed. The first witness will be Mr. Carlos Kampmeier, assistant marketing manager, Chemicals Division, Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, followed by Mr. Parke C. Brinkley, president, National Agricultural Chemicals Association; and then followed by Mr. John D. Conner; and in attendance possibly to supply information and answer questions will be Dr. C. Boyd Shaffer and Dr. Jack Early. So, Mr. Kampmeier, if you would proceed, please. STATEMENT OF CARLOS KAMPMEIER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION, PHILADELPHIA, PA. Mr. KAMPMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Carlos Kampmeier. I have worked 32 years for Rohm & Haas Co.; also I have been involved with agricultural chemicals. I am on the executive committee of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. Our members produce and formulate approximately 90 percent of the pest control products used on this country's farms and orchards. I am speaking for the association and will be followed by Mr. Brinkley, president, and Mr. Conner, general counsel of the association. Since my statement has been coordinated with theirs, I would suggest that questions follow completion of our joint statement. The pesticide industry is vitally concerned with the provisions of S. 745. We have spent considerable time in evaluating the impact it would have on our agriculture, our environment, and our industry. This was done in the framework of policy positions thoughtfully developed over the years. Various technical committees evaluated S. 745 from the standpoint of their particular expertise and their recommendations were considered by our executive committee in developing the positions which (411) 59-044-71- -27 were finally adopted by our board of directors. We have supplied each of you with a copy of S. 745 in which we have suggested changes including a number of separate amendments. These along with our statements represent the position of the agricultural chemical industry as represented by the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. We are a regulated industry and have been for a long time. We have a record of proposing and supporting constructive legislation and regulation at Federal, State, and international levels as our technology and use of our products has increased. We are proud of this record of contribution and safety. We understand and support the need of EPA to have legal power and machinery to protect man and his environment. We support regulation of pesticides to meet these requirements. We also believe in the general principle that the individual should give to the Government only the authority that is needed to accomplish the objectives which the people have agreed are necessary. We also believe there are workable and unworkable ways of accomplishing the same ends. Additionally, we believe it is wrong for the United States to dictate the actions of other countries. These are some of the basic considerations which have gone into the proposals we make for the modification of S. 745 which, if accepted, would result in a bill we would fully support. Basic to any control of pesticides is an understanding that the use of these materials is not without risk and that there is a need to weigh the risks against the benefits and make a judgment. I would like to read to you a portion of the association's policy which relates to this: For many years regulatory agencies have approved any use of any pesticide considered to be efficacious, and which when used as directed for the intended purpose did not present an undue risk to the user, the general public or the environment. We support the continued use of this procedure. We believe that each use of a pesticide should be judged on the same fundamental basis, accepting the benefit-risk concept. We recommend that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act should be amended in such a way as to clearly direct the regulatory agency to use the benefit-risk concept in determining whether or not each use of each product should be approved. In the extensive hearings held by the House Committee on Agriculture on the companion bill to S. 745, the benefit-risk concept was repeatedly recognized and unanimously supported. Indeed, Mr. Quarles, testifying for the EPA, said: The only logical approach is to learn more about the effects of pests and pesticides, use pesticides where the benefits are greater than the injuries and forbid them where they cause more damage than they do good. We believe it is terribly important that this concept be explicit rather than implicit in any legislation which is passed. To turn to another subject, the Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environmental Health recommended appropriate incentives be provided industry to encourage it to continue research for new pesticides. When members of our Board then met with the Secretaries of HEW, Agriculture, and Interior, the Secretaries said that they recognize that newer and higher barriers were being placed in front of industry in their attempts to develop new pesticides and that they hoped that we would suggest appropriate incentives for industry. |