We anticipate the proper safeguards necessary for the protection of agriculture as well as for the American public in the area of pesticides will be maintained in the new agency and that the Department of Agriculture will have the opportunity to work closely with the new agency on all items that directly affect agriculture.

From the experience since the actual transfer, I think most observers would conclude that the Department of Agriculture has had an excellent opportunity to work with the Environmental Protection Agency and vice versa.

I think, however, that the basic question remains of whether or not effective regulation of pesticides in the public interest can be administered outside the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Now, to continue with the statement.

Excessive restrictions on the use of pesticides would negate much of the value of the billions of dollars spent on fertilizer and farm machinery which contribute to the productivity of today's agriculture. More land would be required to produce food and fiber requirements. It would mean lower farm efficiency and inferior products. The lower quality of food would cause enormous increases in the cost of processing and higher food prices. Further, higher product costs would result in loss of export markets for U.S. agriculture products which contribute more than $6 billion dollars to the U.S. balance of payments position.

The chamber believes that economics as well as environmental and health considerations must be weighed in controlling the use of pesticides. It should be emphasized that meaningful decisions will require measuring the risks against the benefits for each pesticide and to each crop for which that pesticide is needed.

There is also much concern as to the method and extent of controls S. 745 would impose on the producers, handlers, and users of pesticides. In addition to requiring each pesticide that moves in interstate commerce to be properly registered, labeled, and packaged, the administration bill would require each pesticide to be classified into one of three groups: (1) For "general use," (2) for "restricted use,” or (3) for “use by permit only."

The "restricted use" category would require the applicator of the pesticide to obtain a State license approving him or a person under his supervision as competent to apply the pesticide under provisions established by the Administrator of the act.

A pesticide designated for "use by permit only" would require, for each application, approval in writing from an authorized pest management consultant. The consultant would be licensed by the State in accordance wih standards approved by the Administrator. There would be no restrictions on the "general use" category.

The pesticide industry, particularly the farm users, are extremely apprehensive over the feasibility of any provision which would require a virtual prescription to obtain and apply a pesticide, without which the farmer could suffer a total crop loss. This is because of the importance of timing in applying the appropriate pesticide. Access to the licensed consultant, availability of the particular pesticide, and qualifications of the applicator are just a few of the problems imposed by such a regulation. Another is the liability for faulty judgment and costly delays in application. The National Agricultural Chemicals Association offers a better alternative. NACA recommends that two

categories, "for restricted use" and "for use by permit only" be combined into a restricted category, which for regulatory purposes could be subdivided into:

(a) Those which may be applied only by a licensed or certified applicator because of acute toxicity considerations, and (b) those which may be subjected to other regulatory restrictions because of a potential for substanial environmental damage.

It seems here, Mr. Chairman, that the acute toxicity might be one category of compound because of the immediate hazard to the individual, whereas those which might cause substantial damage to the environment, but not cause any immediate damage or hazards to the applicator, are such that they might be handled entirely differently. Also, I would submit that I believe the bill at this point is very vague as to how these controls would be carried out, and it might well be in the committee's interest to ask the administration to submit a detailed plan as to how this is going to be carried out, what it would cost, how the money would be raised, and to put the actual pesticides in the various categories which are recommended. Otherwise, how can we expect the continuity to be maintained in the production and manufacture of pesticides, and even more importantly from the public interest standpoint to maintain food production for this Nation and the earth.

Now, you have heard witnesses from the manufacturers of the agricultural pesticides. They are a part of the agribusiness industry which is so essential to the welfare of the whole agricultural complex. They invest millions of dollars and years of scientific research to produce a pesticide that will reduce or eradicate certain known pests. The chemical companies must have some degree of confidence in the need for, and approval of their formulated products for nonhazardous uses in order to invest their funds and scientific talents in new and improved pesticides to control the never-ending influx of new pests.

Already a significant number of companies have announced reduction and even termination of their research and development of new pesticide chemicals. It will indeed be a misfortune if our pesticide laws become so restrictive as to deprive the pesticide industry of the scientific and technical skills available to assure the chemicals necessary to protect human health, our environment, and the economy.

Another problem that affects the maintenance of adequate supplies of pesticides and an uninterrupted flow of agricultural products is the confusing administrative process used with respect to any decision. to "cancel" or "suspend" a pesticide which is on the market and in active use.

Experience has proven how the media will overreact to an announcement which, in reality, may be only to serve notice that the administrative agency will initiate proceedings to show cause why a particular pesticide should or should not remain on the market. Here's a good example. On January 7, 1971, the U.S. court of appeals ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to "cancel" the registration of all products containing DDT. The average headline reader believed this to mean that the production of these pesticides will promtply be terminated. Actually, the notice of "cancellation" is official administrative parlance for initiating a review and making a subsequent decision as to whether the registration for each of the pesticides containing DDT should ultimately be canceled in fact.

On March 18, Mr. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced that in the absence of evidence of “imminent hazard," presently registered uses for DDT will not be "suspended" at this time. ("Suspension" is another official term which would immediately prohibit further movement of such products in interstate commerce.) Accordingly, Mr. Ruckelshaus will hold public hearings and consult with an advisory committee appointed by the National Academy of Science before making a decision. In the meantime, DDT may continue to be produced and used for federally registered purposes except, of course, in those States where such uses have been restricted.

Review and advice by scientific experts outside the jurisdiction of the administration agency is important to the resolution of conflicting opinions between the agency and the industry. Such authority is provided under the existing law-the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. However, such review authority is not provided for in S. 745.

Therefore, the legislation should be amended to provide for the use of independent advisory committees nominated by the National Academy of Science to help settle differences of opinion where questions of scientific judgments are challenged. This practice could also result in fewer cases being contested or referred to the courts for time-consuming litigation.

Further, S. 745 does not call for the administrative agency to consider the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding farm production and marketing practices which affect pesticide usage and control. The transfer of authority over pesticides from the Department of Agriculture to the Environmental Protection Agency by the administration should not preclude dependence on the wealth of technical expertise and information readily available through the Department of Agriculture and its extension services. Wise congressional action on pesticides can result in legislation enabling us to have:

(a) Further reductions in pesticide residues in the environment; (b) a healthy, prospering pesticide industry investing substantial amounts of money in research to develop new products to meet the future needs of agriculture; and (c) further increases in efficiency of American agriculture with the prospect of continued abundance and reasonable prices.

In summary, the chamber recommends that the following features be provided in the pesticide legislation and administrative regulations: 1. The administrator (Environmental Protection Agency) shall be required to weigh recommendations on the benefits of pesticides and related matters received from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, land-grant colleges, and experiment stations, and the pesticide industry.

2. Decisions made by the Administrator should recognize that the health of man depends to a large extent upon the availability, variety, quality and price of food, and the dependable production thereof.

3. The Administrator should recognize that agriculture is a series of interrelated biological life processes, and he should weigh the effects of pesticides upon the totality of crop, livestock, and poultry production.

4. Where questions of scientific judgment are challenged there should be ample provision for review by scientific committees nominated by the National Academy of Sciences.

5. The Administrator must recognize that agriculture is part of the total environment with which he is concerned.

6. The legislation must guard against legislative and administrative controls so restrictive that there is insufficient incentive for the chemical industry to continue with the research and development that is so essential to meet the critical pesticide needs of the future.

Legislation to carry out the intent of these points, in our judgment, is essential to protect the total public interest and achieve the kind of environment in which we want to live and work.

Mr. Chairman, if I could make just one comment about a report known as the Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environmental Health. Mr. Mrak is the

chairman.

A number of witnesses, including those from the administration, have quoted from this report to substantiate the damage pesticides are doing to the environment. This report has a total of 14 official recommendations of the Commission. These official recommendations are the only part of this report agreed to by all of the members of the Commission; and they are found on pages 7 through 19 of the document report "Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship on Environmental Health, Parts I and II."

The remainder of this volume, Mr. Chairman, page 19 through page 677, includes the subcommittee reports. Mr. Mrak's committee has never reached any conclusion on the subcommittee reports.

Actually, from all of the witnesses you have heard, there is a great variation in scientific judgments on many of these matters. You can pick parts of the subcommittee report and substantiate virtually any position that you could take. But I would submit that it might be important for those studying the record and developing the legislation, to recognize that only the 14 specific recommendations have been agreed to by the membership of the Commission.

That concludes my comments.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Lerch and Mr. Stokes. I don't believe I have any questions to ask and we do appreciate your appearing before the committee and giving us the benefit of your views.

Mr. LERCH. Thank you.

Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

Senator ALLEN. I have a meeting of the Rules Committee subcommittee at 1 o'clock. It is around the corner and down the hall. So I can stay until about 2 minutes to 1, at which time we will recess until 2 o'clock. So if you would proceed, Dr. Saffiotti.

STATEMENT OF DR. UMBERTO SAFFIOTTI, ASSOCIATE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR FOR CARCINOGENESIS, NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, BETHESDA, MD.

Dr. SAFFIOTTI. My name is Umberto Saffiotti, M.D., and I am associate scientific director for Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

I am glad to have the opportunity to present my testimony on the problem of the evaluation of carcinogenic effects of pesticides.

The National Cancer Institute has committed a major effort to this. problem, beginning in 1964, following the recommendations contained in the 1963 report on the "Use of Pesticides" prepared by the President's Science Advisory Committee. A large bioassay screening program for pesticides and other industrial chemicals was organized, using standardized test conditions and was conducted under contract at Bionetics Research Laboratories. It represented the first example of a large-scale screening program of this kind ever to be implemented. The results of the carcinogenesis tests were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute [42: 1101-1114, 1969].

A second level testing project on pesticides is now underway in the NCI carcinogenesis program through several contracts. This includes more extensive bioassays in rats and mice. These tests are conducted not only to detect hazardous environmental chemicals, but also to provide necessary information for the scientific evaluation of the mode of action of environmental carcinogens and preventability.

The problems of evaluating carcinogenic hazards from enviromental chemicals in general, and from pesticides in particular, have been the subject of two recent reports.

The first report was prepared for the Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, by an ad hoc committee on the Evaluation of Low Levels of Environmental Chemical Carcinogens which was established at the National Cancer Institute and composed of distinguished scientists in the field of enviromental cancer. I served as Chairman of the Committee.

Publication of this report has been authorized by the Surgeon General, and the report has been submitted for consideration to the editorial board of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute for publication in that scientific journal.

The report discusses the major problems involved in the evaluation of carcinogenic risks, and therefore is directly relevant to the subject of the present hearings.

If agreeable to the subcommittee, I will submit the complete text. of this report for the record.

Senator ALLEN. That will be accepted.

(The report referred to follows:)

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CARCINOGENS-REPORT TO THE SURGEON GENERAL, USPHS, APRIL 22,1970

(Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of Low Levels of Environmental Chemical Carcinogens, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md.)

MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE EVALUATION OF LOW LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL CARCINOGENS

Umberto Saffiotti, Chairman, Associate Scientific Director for Carcinogenesis, Etiology, National Cancer Institute, Building 37, Room 3A21, Bethesda, Md. Hans L. Falk, Associate Director for Laboratory Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Paul Kotin, Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

William Lijinsky, Professor of Biochemistry, The Eppley Institute for Research on Cancer, University of Nebraska, College of Medicine, Omaha, Neb.