[S. 808, 92d Cong., first sess.]

A BILL To amend the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to provide for more effective protection against the hazards caused by economic poisons

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 2(f) (2) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act is amended by striking out the word "The" and inserting in lieu thereof "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the".

(b) Section 2(q) (1) of such Act is amended by striking out "or (B)" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "(B) any economic poison which the Administrator by regulation classifies as a 'banned hazardous substance', and the Administrator shall so classify an economic poison (i) whenever there is a reasonable doubt as to the safety of the economic poison for humans or the environment and there are less serious doubts as to the safety of any reasonable alternative to such poison or (ii) whenever the protection of humans or the environment otherwise requires; or (C)”.

(c) Section 2(q) (2) of such Act is amended by inserting "or clause (C)" immediately after "clause (B)", and by inserting after "Provided, That" the following: “(A) if the Administrator finds that the use of any economic poison presents an imminent hazard to the public health, he may by order published in the Federal Register give notice of such finding and thereupon such poison shall be deemed to be a 'banned hazardous substance' pending the completion of proceedings relating to the issuance of such regulation, and (B)".

(d) Section 2 of such Act is further amended by inserting at the end thereof the following:

"(r) The term 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

"(s) The term 'economic poison' means (1) any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any insects, rodents, nematodes, fungi, weeds, and other forms of plant or animal life or viruses, except viruses on or in living man or other animals, which the Administrator shall declare to be a pest and (2) any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.

"(t) The term 'imminent hazard' means any hazard referred to in paragraph (q) of this section which, if it damages human beings or the environment, is likely to do so prior to the time normally required to carry out the procedures under subparagraph (2) of that paragraph."

SEC. 2. Section 4 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

"(i) The use by any person of an economic poison in a manner that is prohibited by the express terms on the label of such poison.

"(j) The sale or offer for sale of any economic poison which has been designated a 'banned hazardous substance' and which has moved in interstate commerce."

SEC. 3. (a) Subsection 5(a) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act is amended by inserting ", except subsections (i) and (j)" immediately after "section 4".

(b) Section 5 of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(c) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (i) and (j) of section 4 of this Act shall be subject to a penalty not exceeding $2,500 nor less than $100 or to imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the court. For purposes of the preceding sentence, each day of any continuous prohibitive activity shall be considered a separate violation. One half of said penalty shall be paid to the person or persons giving information leading to the imposition of said penalty. Any such person may sue any person subject to said penalty for recovery of that portion of the penalty to which he is entitled. Court costs and legal fees may be apportioned to the parties if the interests of justice require such apportionment."

SEC. 4. Section 17(a) of the Hazardous Substances Act is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 17. (a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify or affect the provisions of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1191–1200), or any regulations promulgated thereunder; or of chapter 39, title 18, United States Code, as amended (18 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), or any regulations promulgated thereunder or under sections 204(a) (2) and 204 (a) (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended (relating to the transportation of dangerous substances

and explosives by surface carriers); or of section 1716, title 18, United States Code, or any regulations promulgated thereunder (relating to mailing of dangerous substances); or of section 902 or regulations promulgated under section 601 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (relating to transportation of dangerous substances and explosives in aircraft); or of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or of the Public Health Service Act; or of the Dangerous Drug Act for the District of Columbia (70 Stat. 612), or the Act entitled "An Act to regulate the practice of pharmacy and the sale of poisons in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes", approved May 7, 1906 (34 Stat. 175), as amended; or of any other Act of Congress, except as specified in section 18." SEC. 5. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Hazardous Substances Amendments of 1971".

STATEMENT OF DR. J. GORDON EDWARDS, PROFESSOR OF ENTOMOLOGY, SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE, SAN JOSE, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the United States Senate Committee on Agricultural Pesticides, I thank you for inviting me to submit my testimony concerning wild birds and pesticides for your consideration.

I have served on the faculty of San Jose State College since 1949, and I have taught Medical Entomology, Agricultural Entomology, Systematic Entomology, Larval Taxonomy and related subjects during those years. During the Second World War I served in the Medical Department, U.S. Army, and had numerous opportunities to work with DDT applications for the prevention of human disease. I have thus been associated with the principles of chemical pest control for thirty years, and have taught college courses dealing with the subject for twenty years. I feel that this involvement with certain pesticides has provided me with some insight into the problems confronting us today, but I have never been employed by any organization dealing in those chemicals. Our Department at San Jose State College has never received any funds from any such organizations, either, hence I feel that my involvement in the controversy is that of a citizen and consumer more than as a specialist with vested interests in pesticides. Because my background also includes ten summers of Ranger-Naturalist duty in the National Park Service, many years of interest in ornithology, and membership in several conservation-oriented organizations, I have felt it my responsibility to investigate the environmental effects of pesticides and to attempt to inform other conservationists about the numerous errors and misstatements in the anti-pesticide propaganda which many of them have accepted as valid and. truthful. In these times of malnutrition and world-wide starvation it seems incredible that some persons and organizations are actively seeking to deprive farmers of the chemical tools needed for the production of food. I wish to protest the threatened suspensions of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, not only because of the obvious need for them in American agriculture, but because they are even more urgently needed in the "emerging countries." If the pesticides are suspended or banned in the United States surely the people in those other countries will fear that they are too deadly or destructive to be used there, too. If DDT is withdrawn from the malaria control program, millions of people will die. If it is unavailable for agricultural uses in those countries, starvation and severe malnutrition will ensue. We could not expect the officials of those underdeveloped lands to favor the use of pesticides that have been outlawed here, hence I am concerned that a suspension of DDT in the United States will indirectly cause great human suffering elsewhere in the world. It has been said that we should not merely "live and let live", but rather should "live and HELP live". I sincerely believe we must protest unnecessary suspensions of valuable chemicals in United States not only for ourselves but also as "citizens of the world”.

I also wish to express opposition to the suspension of DDT and DDD, as a representative of the total animal community of this country. The use if DDT has been of great value to birds, mammals, fish, and honeybees, because it has increased the productivity of wild plants as well as cultivated crops and has saved millions of acres of forests from destruction by destructive insects. I strongly protest irresponsible actions such as that which has resulted in the loss of much of the eastern oak forests to the Gypsy Moth, and I urge all conscientious organizations to fully publicize that loss and to place the blame for it squarely where it belongs. . .

The great array of insecticides that have been developed during the past two decades differ in their physical and chemical properties and in the effects they exert on various kinds of plants and animals. I find it impossible to make meaningful comments that would apply truthfully to all of them, or even to the majority of them. I do believe that my testimony should be specific, rather than generalized, therefore I wish to restrict the remainder of my testimony to the single insecticide, DDT. The opponents of pesticides have chosen that relatively innocuous chemical as their major target, despite its remarkable record of safety. They have stated that "DDT is just the start", and have made it clear that the suspension of DDT would provide them with the great power-structure they need in order to control all other agricultural chemicals and processes. Because the major attack by the environmentalists has been against DDT, I felt it essential that those scientists who are aware of the true facts about DDT speak out publicly in its defense. As you know, several hundred scientists have been doing just that, and the number grows daily. Perhaps it is too late to "save" DDT, because most of us did not believe the threat was a serious one until late 1969 and the propaganda against it was remarkably successful. Our response was delayed so long that the "myths" about the alleged environmental harm caused by DDT had become firmly established among the dedicated protectors of the environment, who unfortunately believed those allegations were true. Fortunately, most of those conservationists are intelligent and open-minded, and when they become aware of the untruthfulness of one or two of the anti-DDT propaganda "lines" they respond by actively searching out the other fallacies and publicizing them. Regardless of the final outcome of the DDT controversy I believe we shall have benefitted by the experience, and I do not believe scientists OR laymen will ever be so easily misled by spurious propaganda, in the future.

I wish to devote the remainder of my testimony to a brief discussion of the following topics:

(1) The length of time required for DDT and its residues to "break down", under various environmental conditions;

(2) The past and present status of the Osprey;

(3) The past and present status of the Peregrine Falcon;

(4) The past and present status of the Bald Eagle;

(5) The past and present status of the Brown Pelican;

(6) Causes of thin eggshells in birds, and the "unscientific" base on which the "thin eggshell myth" rests.

(1) Perhaps the most remarkable charge made against DDT by the "environmentalists" may be their insistence that "DDT persists in the environment for years, or even for decades". (As a side-effect, of course, they can then express concern that it "travels around the earth in wind and water" and that it "accumulates in the oceans".) A few well-authenticated samples taken from the oceans, from the air, from streams, and from a series of locations downwind from the source of the insecticide will refute all of those secondary allegations. The major charge, that of extreme persistence in the environment is so readily disproven that it seems incredible anyone could believe it... but they do! The persistence, under normal environmental conditions, varies greatly, however it is usually measured in days or weeks, rather than years. I request permission to submit a supplementary list of more than one hundred scientific references dealing with the break-down of DDT and its residues, and I hope that it might be accepted as part of the record of these hearings. It is obvious that DDT degrades readily in the presence of living things, in organic soil and water, in alkaline soil or water, in the blood or digestive tract of most kinds of animals, in cold, in heat, and in sunlight. It is untruthful and misleading for any person or organization to imply that DDT does not break down normally under environmental conditions.

(2) The past and present status of the Osprey in the United States: Long before DDT was used in this country Dr. J. J. Hickey (in his Guide to Bird Watching, 1943) attributed a 70% decline of Ospreys to "pole-trapping, etc." around fish-hatcheries, but after DDT was developed he blamed it for bird declines. At Hawk Mtn, Pennsylvania, the survey of migrating Ospreys over the years since DDT appeared revealed the following data: 191 Ospreys in 1946, 254 in 1951, 352 in 1961, 457 in 1967, and 529 Ospreys in 1969. It is difficult to believe the propaganda about "disappearing Ospreys"! Even the Chesapeake Bay Ospreys were doing well in the DDT-contaminated areas. In a 1963 study there, 92% to 100% of the eggs examined by Ames were fertile. Ospreys still thrive

until man moves into their domain, then they either leave or succomb to sewage and industrial wastes. Quantities of lead chromate in the Hudson River have allegedly caused severe damage to the environment. Even 6 p.p.m. of lead (in experimental quail) have been shown to cause the production of thin eggshells.

(3) Several of the anti-pesticide lobbyists have claimed that the Peregrine Falcon "is known to have maintained a remarkably stable population" prior to the DDT years. That is simply not true. The great tree-nesting Peregrine population of eastern United States vanished fifty years before DDT was used and the rare cliff-nesting Peregrines were nearly extinct also. Berger recorded 72.5% of the nesting ledges in southeastern United States were abandoned, and Rice wrote that 56% of those in Pennsylvania were deserted before DDT had been used. The remarkable book. Peregrine Falcon Populations" (1969), includes summaries of Peregrine conditions in many parts of the world. Most of the contributors to that book blamed human disruption for the declines . . . shooting, nestrobbing, bull-dozing, etc. The final summary, however, attempted to place the blame on DDT, even though pesticides were only rarely suggested by the contributors as the cause of declines. Studies of Canadian and Alaskan populations of Peregrines commented on the fact that there was no evident reproductive difficulty there, even in birds containing more than thirty times as much DDT and residues as the Wisconsin specimens (yet the species was nearly extinct in Wisconsin). Enderson & Berger also expressed surprise that the Canadian eggs contained "about twice the levels found in the stricken British Peregrine population", yet "appear to be reproducing normally". (Condor, 70: p. 153, 1967). Evidently these men did not know that the British Peregrine decline had ended as soon as limitations were placed on the use of another insecticide which was previously used as a seed dressing (hence was picked up by pigeons, upon which the Peregrines fed).

Another report states that the Peregrine with the highest level of DDT and residues ever found in northern Canada was busily feeding her three young, which surely indicates there was no inhibition of reproductive capability! Another survey deserves mention here, because it indicates the extent of the Peregrine decline before DDT appeared on the scene. That survey was made by Dr. Hickey and 146 cooperators, and revealed that only "about fifty per cent of the eyries were definitely occupied at some time during the past decade" and that 45 of those were already "abandoned or probably abandoned" (Auk, vol. 59, 1942). Hickey admitted that "Without the special protection which has been given them, half the eyries in Massachusetts would today be deserted" and that "this has indeed already taken place in Connecticut". It was very misleading for those men to say the Peregrine population was "remarkably stable" before DDT, when it was actually verging on extinction, and it was therefore untruthful for them to say that DDT caused a Peregrine decline in the United States. In 1970 a small booklet was published by one of the leading Peregrine experts in the world, Frank L. Beebe (a contributor to the Peregrine Population book cited earlier.) Beebe's book is entitled "The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine," and is subtitled "A study in the techniques of the manipulation of public and official attitudes." He points out that the abandonment of the eyries in most of western U.S.A. and southern Alberta & British Columbia preceded by many years the use of DDT, and that the anti-DDT conspirators "know full well that their 'endangered peregrine' is a fabrication." "The Patuxent and Cornell projects certainly" (he adds) “immediately qualify for U.S. Federal grants the moment the peregrine was officially declared to be ‘endangered"." With the Committee's permission I would like to present Beebe's booklet for consideration for inclusion into the record of this hearing, because it documents the sort of conspiratorial "scientific evidence" that has also been used as a weapon against DDT in the myth of the vanishing bald eagle and the endangered brown pelican.

(4) The past and present status of the Bald Eagle: These birds have suffered much at the hand of man, but not because of DDT. In 1917 Alaska enacted legislation providing a bounty of 50¢ per Bald Eagle. Conservationists protested (Natural History 20, p. 117; Bird-Lore 22, p. 253) but to no avail. From 1917 to 1952 Alaska paid bounties on 115,000 Bald Eagles (more than $100,000.00). In 1921, W. G. Van Name wrote an article in Ecology entitled "Threatened Extinction of the Bald Eagle”. Twenty years later, DDT was developed as an insecticide, after which Bald Eagles increased, rather than declining! In 1943 (Science News Letter, July 3) it was stated "When the timber was cleared it was inevitable that the eagles had to go. Moreover, the cities grew and befouled

59-044 0-71-47

the rivers with sewage and industrial wastes. The once-teeming fish population vanished. With their main source of supplies thus taken away, it was only natural that the eagles should vanish also." (This was written three years be fore DDT was used there.)

In 1956, Dr. J. C. Howell censused the nesting Bald Eagles in a 100,000 squaremile area, as he had every five years for many years. He had noted few changes previously, but in 1956 he discovered that since his previous visit two-thirds of the eagle nests had been deserted or had disappeared. He said "Bull-dozers had ripped out great areas of vegetation to make way for orchards, gardens, and housing developments. Many of the big trees that carried eyries of the eagles had been cut down. Inland marshes had been drained, destroying an important source of food for the fish-eating eagles."

In 1964, the Bureau of Sports Fisheries & Wildlife published an article entitled "America's Eagle Heritage", referring to Dr. Howell's observations and stating: "Fortunately, habitat changes of this nature do not occur in the Everglades National Park, where the number of nesting eagles seems to be remaining constant. In 1959, Park authorities reported 24 active nests, of which 11 produced 18 young. In 1964, they found 51 nests, of which 26 produced 41 eaglets." Notice the sizeable increase between 1959 and 1964. The Hawk Mountain Summary of Hawk Migrations, tabulated daily throughout the year, shows that the numbers of Bald Eagles migrating over the area more than doubled during the first six years of heavy DDT use in eastern United States (1946 to 1952). The same summary reveals great increases in other raptors during most of the "DDT years". In 1963 Dr. Alexander Sprunt, famed ornithologist, observed more than 200 Bald Eagles concentrated below the dam at Keokuk, Iowa. He mentioned this figure while writing with reference to the great numbers of Bald Eagles that gather along the Flathead River and McDonald Creek every fall to feed on the migrating salmon, in 1967. "During the winter months there are somewhat comparable concentrations of eagles at some points along the Mississippi River in some winters", said Mr. Sprunt.

In the Montana area just mentioned, near Columbia Falls, many years of increasing eagle numbers has finally been admitted by the Audubon Society. In 1970 that anti-DDT organization increased the "official" estimate of the number of Bald Eagles residing in Montana from 139 up to 209! Other great increases in Eagle populations have been occurring in Nebraska and Wisconsin and the U.S. Department of Interior now estimates that there are about 7,000 Bald Eagles in Alaska, YET the anti-DDT forces continue to claim "the Bald Eagle is being exterminated by DDT", and new books keep appearing in print with that fallacious information included to elicit support for the suspension or ban on DDT, For years the Hungry Horse News (edited by Mel Ruder, in Columbia Falls) has carried detailed stories and beautiful photographs documenting the annual "convention of eagles" along the Flathead River and McDonald Creek.

The rangers in Glacier National Park have made careful counts of the numbers of eagles fishing there, and the count increased every fall, culminating in 373 Bald Eagles counted along half a mile of stream on the morning of November 29, 1969. They also recorded the significant fact that 120 of those eagles were immature, indicating that successful mating and nesting is continuing in the northern rockies.

At the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (U.S. Department of Interior) autopsies were made on all 76 of the Bald Eagles that were found dead in eastern United States between 1960 and 1965. None of the deaths were blamed on DDT. Four had died of "probable disease of old age", 46 had been shot or trapped, and 7 died of impact injuries.

In 1967 and 1968, that laboratory reported 29 bald eagles whose death they attributed to dieldrin, but none to DDT or its residues.

In 1970, Interior Department scientists stated that dieldrin was "the only apparent cause of death" in most of the eagles, and they added that dieldrin and other environmental pollutants (certainly including the non-insecticidal PCB's) may reduce the birds' reproduction capabilities. The only other major cause of death cited was the killing of adults by hunters, which accounts for the majority of Bald Eagle deaths in United States every year.

Contrary to the known facts, the EDF, the Audubon Society, and certain Sierra Club leaders have continued to specifically blame DDT and its residues for "bald eagle declines", with the result that books and magazines now being published often carry the untruthful statement that "Bald Eagles are becoming extinct because of DDT in the environment", and a prime time TV show (Ameri.

the

of teac hile e