On February 24, 1971, Dr. Albert C. Kolbye, when testifying before the House Committee on Agriculture, said: "The total diet investigations conducted by FDA since 1964 show that the daily intake of most specific pesticide chemicals is well below, usually by an order of magnitude or more, the acceptable daily intake established by the FAO-WHO Expert Committee on Pesticides. This intake has not been increasing for chlorinated organic chemicals, organophosphates or herbicides or for specific chemicals during this period."

Concurrence of this statement was made by Dr. Virgil O. Wodicka of the Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug Administration, during the 1971 National Agricultural Outlook Conference on February 23, 1971, when he said: "There is still no demonstration of actual harm to the human race from the consumption of food with pesticide residues. . . . One of the reasons why I rank pesticides low in the list of hazards is that the fact that they do destroy life among the pests has made it obvious from the beginning that they are hazardous. Accordingly, they have been used all along under more or less close control. As public concern over their safety has mounted, the stringency of the controls has increased correspondingly... between the strong public interest in this problem and the strong regulatory efforts, I cannot rate as very high the hazards that survive all this scrutiny."

Shifting to the use of herbicides, we have a similar hue and cry to ban many essential materials and uses. Specifically, 2,4,5-T a few months ago was said to be teratogenic. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, then charged with the responsibility of pesticide registration, reacted by cutting off some important uses of 2,4,5-T, particularly on food crops. According to an AP story in the Washington Post on March 5, 1971, a White House scientific report now states that the material at well below "dose" levels is probably not toxic. There is a classic case of the USDA reacting to "emotion" rather than basing their earlier order to restrict uses on scientific fact. The Environmental Protection Agency on March 18, 1971 announced further study of the matter, which does indicate that there is scientific data in the process of being gathered. Meanwhile, the continued use of the herbicides has been placed in jeopardy.

In all the years 2,4,5-T has been sprayed on ranges, there is no case of which we are aware of a deformed calf, or any other animal, having been born as a result of using this valuable material. Certainly 2,4,5-T and other materials should be continued for approved use, until, and if, scientific fact proves them harmful to humans, animals, or the environment.

2,4,5-T is extremely important to range cattle production to control brush. For example, in the state of Texas, it is about the only material that will control mesquite. Mesquite is a most difficult plant to keep under control and, if given the opportunity, will completely take over a range. This means two things: (1) grass production, thus the carrying capacity for grazing declines severely, and (2) heavy mesquite usage results in wasted water that could be used by humans and/or livestock and wildlife.

Similar circumstances appear in other parts of the United States. The devastating brush fires that ravaged parts of Southern California this past fall could have been avoided with proper brush control, perhaps leaving strips that would prevented soil erosion. The presence of too much brush only only creates a severe fire hazard, it also cuts down ultimately on water run off counted upon for domestic water supplies in the highly-populated Southern California area. Beyond this, such fires completely destroy wildlife habitat and do severe damage to the environment. 2,4,5-T and similar herbicides can be used to selectively control or kill the useless brush, while not hurting the environment and yet helping mankind. To bring the matter of brush control further into perspective, we think that the Forest Service is an example of where the use of herbicides can control brush while enhancing wildlife habitat (the environment), increase crarying capacity for domestic livestock because of improved range conditions, and increase water run off so critical to human survival. Fine work has been done in this respect in the state of Texas and the U.S. Forest Service in other sections of the nation, to mention only two sources of information.

To summarize, the nation's cattlemen have a deep obligation to produce wholesome beef for our consumers. By the same token, we have an instinctive desire, being so close to Mother Nature in our business, to protect the environment. The use of pesticides is a necessary tool for the efficient production of beef in the United States. If many of these efficiency-producing tools are removed from usage or are severely restricted based on anything but scientific fact, it is the consumer of the United States who will suffer in the long run. Amendments

to S. 745 as now written are needed to assure that a scientific basis is provided should any pesticide be considered for usage withdrawal. Practical guidelines also need to be spelled out in the legislation in order to prevent unnecessarily restrictive regulations which could interfere with efficiently using approved pesticides.

The decision must be made on who pays the bill. If the cost of producing food increases because of the loss of important production tools, food prices will increase and the quality of the food will decline.

In conclusion, we think that the Resolution recently adopted at the Annual Convention of the American National Cattlemen's Association expresses this rather well and we attach a copy of it to this letter for your added information. We also respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the hearing record. Thank you.

Cordially,

AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION,
C. W. MCMILLAN,

Executive Vice President.

RESOLUTION No. 17 (1971)

Whereas, it is recognized that the use of agricultural chemicals is essential to the production of food in the world; and

Whereas, there seems to be an exaggerated attack on these chemicals related to the so-called deterioration of the environment; and

Whereas, the American National Cattlemen's Association recognizes that agriculture does contribute to, while at the same time being harmed by pollution, so that agriculture and agribusiness must contribute fully to the creation of an environment which best serves the many needs of man; and

Whereas, the ANCA recognizes an environmental control problem in the U.S. and that agriculture and agribusiness must contribute fully to the creation of an environment which best serves the many needs of man; Therefore be it Resolved, that the committees in the House and Senate concerned with legislation pertaining to agricultural chemicals, should thoroughly review all agricultural chemical legislation to come before the Congress and that those committees should take such legislative action which will properly weigh the benefit risk ratio to the essential needs of agriculture and its ability to produce a wholesome, high quality food supply; Be it further

Resolved, that the American National Cattlemen's Association work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and offer its cooperation to the Agency in properly weighing that Agency's decision-making proposals on the same benefit risk ratio basis as that recommended to Congress.

ATHENS, GA., March 31, 1971.

Mr. Corys M. MOUSER,

Chief Clerk, Senate Agriculture Committee,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MOUSER: The "Federal Environmental Pesticide Act of 1971 (H.R. 4152, S. 745)" would impose great hardship upon farmers, pesticide manufacturers, and all consumers, with an obvious adverse effect on the general economy. Our farmers cannot continue to produce an ample supply of wholesome food at a reasonable price if they are continuously hampered by unnecessary governmental restrictions. Consumers who pay exorbitant prices for food cannot buy the many less essential products of our industries. Manufacturers who cannot sell their products must reduce their labor force. Agriculture is still the foundation of our economy.

The "Federal Environmental Pesticide Act of 1971" fails to provide criteria to compare the beneficial effects of a pesticide with any possible harmful effects. The desirability of a pesticide that provides effective pest control and only slight harm should be carefully evaluated. A literal interpretation of the Act would authorize the EPA to deny registration, or cancel or suspend registration, of any pesticide use that causes any injury to man or the environment. This is ridiculous! It is doubtful that man has ever used any chemical or any device that did not, even when properly used, cause some harm to man or to the environment.

For effective pest control, nearly all farmers apparently would need "restricted use" and "use by permit only" pesticides. The necessary for using "approved pesticide applicators" and "approved pest management consultants" would cause the

farmer a financial hardship and, frequently, disastrous delays in obtaining protection for his crops during pest outbreaks. The corn blight outbreak of 1970 should make us all aware of what can happen if adequate pest control measures are not available.

The proposed requirement for a written approval for each application of a "use by permit only" pesticide is completely impractical and unnecessary.

The requirements for registering a pesticide are so stringent and the duration of registration so uncertain, under the Act, that industry would hesitate to take the financial risks inherent in developing new pesticides. This would further erode the diminishing incentive that companies have for developing new pest control materials.

We feel very strongly that the "Federal Environmental Pesticide Act of 1971," as written, could cause irreparable harm to our country. Please advise if additional information or comments are needed.

The undersigned Thomas B. House presents the following statement on behalf of the American Frozen Food Institute, which is a voluntary, non-profit organization formed for the advancement and protection of the frozen food industry. The Institute maintains offices in Washington, D.C., and Burlingame, California. Its members are located nationwide and are engaged in manufacturing, selling, and shipping frozen foods to all states and abroad. Currently, annual production of frozen foods is in excess of fourteen billion pounds with a retail value approaching seven billion dollars. Institute members account for substantially 85% of this production.

We appreciate this opportunity to discuss S. 272, S. 232, and S. 745. We believe the following are basic to a regulatory scheme if there is to be proper balance of interest among growers, processors, and consumers:

a. The regulatory decisions must be based upon scientific evaluations. b. The intended function of the pesticide must be appraised in connection with the actual environmental conditions under which it is used.

c. It is the use of the pesticide which should be regulated not the pesticide as a chemical entity.

Essentially, we are in agreement with the position taken by the National Wildlife Federation concerning the use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides. However, we must oppose S. 232 and S.272 which are a complete ban by making it unlawful to distribute, sell, offer for sale, ship, or deliver for shipment DDT, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, heptachlor, toxaphene, chlordane, lindane, or DDD/TDE. We feel a regulatory agency should have the authority to make the pesticides available when there is an essential or unique need in controlling insect-caused disease or under extreme conditions where insects are destroying our food and fiber with dramatic adverse effects on the environment-what of malaria? Use of DDT under emergency situations is an essential part of our recommendation.

Turning to S.745, the Institute favors this proposal with certain suggested amendments. For several years there has been an increasing need to revise the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. S. 745 contains the following major provisions (by section). We also note major departures from existing authority.

Section 1 designates the title of the proposed act as the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971 and proposed appropriate findings.

Section 2 defines certain terms used in the Act. It contains the following major changes from existing authority:

(1) The term "pesticide" is substituted for the term "economic poisons." (2) The authorities contained in the bill are given to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(3) An article is considered misbranded if compliance with the instruction on the label is not considered adequate for protection of health and the environment.

(4) An article is considered misbranded if when used as directed or in accordance with common practice it is injurious to man or the environment.

In determining whether a pesticide is injurious, the Administrator is directed to consider both the short-term and long-term effects on man and the rest of the environment and the pesticide's persistence, degradation, and potential for movement and accumulation in the environment.

(5) Protection of health and environment is defined to mean protection against any injury to man and protection against any substantial adverse effects to environmental values, taking into account the public interest. The term "public interest" means a weighing of the probable benefits derived from the use of the pesticide with the risks inherent in its usage.

Section 3 denominates prohibited acts. It prohibits the delivery or sale in interstate commerce of any pesticide which is unregistered, not labeled, mislabelled, adulterated, or misbranded. Among other prohibitions, the section proscribes advertising a pesticide without stating whether it is for general use, for restricted use, or for use by prescription only.

Section 4 requires that every pesticide which moves in interstate commerce be registered. It permits the Administrator to issue a registration for experimental use prior to issuing a regular registration. The use of a pesticide which is registered for experimental use must be under the supervision of the Administrator.

When registering a pesticide, the Administrator is required to designate it as belonging to one of three categories: (1) for "general use;" (2) for "restricted use;" or (3) for "use by permit only." A pesticide designated for restricted use can be used only by or under the direct supervision of an approved pesticide applicator. Such an applicator must have obtained a State license based upon a demonstration of competence, according to standards approved or prescribed by the Administrator. A pesticide designated for use by permit only can be used with the approval in writing of an approved pest management conusltant who has obtained a State license meeting certain standards approved by the Administrator. The approval of a consultant must be obtained for each application of a pesticide classified as for use by permit only. The Administrator may change the designation of a pesticide at any time, subject to due notice and an appeals procedure. The Administrator is given up to four years to fully implement the system of classifying pesticides, because the major burden of licensing approved pesticide applicators and pest management consultants will fall on the States, and some time will be required for the State to train and certify sufficient numbers of applicators and consultants. Section 12 of the bill provides for Federal contracts to assist in such training.

The appeals procedure for an applicant whose registration is refused is changed from current authority by deleting the opportunity for the applicant to take the matter to an advisory committee. The applicant may request a public hearing on the matter and may then appeal in the courts.

Within 30 days after registering or refusing to register a pesticide, the Administrator must make public the data submitted with the registration and other scientific information he deems relevant to his decision, subject to the usual restrictions concerning proprietary data.

Section 5 provides authority for cancellation and suspension of the registration of pesticides. A pesticide is registered for an initial five-year period and for fiveyear periods thereafter. Three years after the initial registration, the registrant must submit to the Administrator a report on any new findings on the environmental or health effects of the registered pesticide.

The Administrator may cancel the registration of a pesticide by giving notice to the registrant. The cancellation is effective 30 days after notice is given unless the registrant corrects the relevant deficiencies or objects to the cancellation and requests a public hearing. A cancellation then does not become effective until the appeal process has been exhausted.

If it is necessary to prevent an imminent hazard to health or the environment, the Administrator may suspend the registration of a pesticide. Such a suspension is effective immediately, but is subject to the same appeals process as a cancellation. If the Administrator suspends a pesticide, he must at the same time initiate proceedings to cancel the registration.

Section 6 provides for enforcement of the provisions of the Act. It authorizes the Administrator to prescribe the records which must be kept by manufacturers or processors of pesticides, and to establish standards with respect to the packaging of registered pesticides. The Administrator may certify violations of the Act to the Attorney General, who may then institute civil or criminal proceedings as appropriate.

Section 7 allows the Administrator to order a stop to the sale of a pesticide if he believes that the pesticide is in violation of the Act. He may also confiscate a pesticide if it is adulterated, misbranded, mislabelled, or unregistered.

Under the terms of Section 8 knowing violators of the Act are subject to eriminal penalties of no more than $25,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. All violators are subject to civil penalties of not more than $10,000. The provision for civil penalties is new, and the fine for criminal violation is increased.

Section 9 specifies the records which must be kept by manufacturers, distributors, carriers, and dealers. It requires that each establishment manufacturing or processing pesticides must register with the Administrator, and must provide him with information on the types and amounts of pesticides being produced, the distribution or sale of such pesticides, and, when requested by the Administrator for the purpose of recalling a product, the name of each recipient of the product. The section also contains provisions regarding entry and inspection of factories registered under the Act.

Section 10 exempts from the penalties for non-registration, misbranding, or mislabelling, purchasers who received a guaranty from the seller, carriers, public officials engaged in official duties, and those using pesticides in an approved manner for experimental use.

Section 11 authorizes the Administrator to establish procedures and regulations for the disposal of pesticides and to provide advice to the Secretary of Transportation on regulation of the transportation of pesticides.

Section 12 authorizes the Administrator to contract with States, localities, or non-profit organizations to assist them in training approved pest control operators and consultants.

Section 13 authorizes the Administrator to carry out research and monitoring necessary to implement the Act. The section also requires the Administrator to formulate and publish a national pesticide monitoring plan.

Section 14 deals with imports and exports. It requires that exports must file with the Administrator a certification that the article exported is in compliance with the laws and regulations of the foreign country to which it is being sent. The section also provides for prohibiting the sale of or confiscating imports which do not meet the requirements of the Act, and establishes procedures for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Administrator to implement controls over imports.

Section 16 authorizes the Administrator to delegate his authority to EPA employees and further states that he shall cooperate with the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, and Health, Education, and Welfare in carrying out the provisions of the Act. Insofar as such action is feasible, the Administrator will notify appropriate heads of Federal departments and agencies of relevant suspension and cancellation actions taken under this Act.

Section 17 authorizes appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to administer the Act.

Section 19 provides that the bill shall not be construed as superseding or limiting other Federal authorities. Actions taken under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, remain in effect until modified pursuant to this Act. States are not precluded from imposing stricter standards or added requirements, but they may not permit any sale or use of pesticide which is prohibited under the authority of this Act.

Section 20 repeals the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, and provides that all references to that Act in other laws, regulations, and public records, shall henceforth refer to the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act.

Section 21 adds tobacco to the definition of "raw agricultural commodity" in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended.

PROFFERED AMENDMENTS

The American Frozen Food Institute offers the following amendments to S. 745, which if adopted would make the proposal more workable and help achieve its intended purpose.

Section 2-Definitions-Paragraph (V) (2) (G) provides:

A pesticide shall be misbranded "if when used as directed or in accordance with common practices it shall be injurious to living man, including the person applying such pesticide, or to the environment, except pests, as designated by the Administrator. In determining whether a pesticide is injurious, the Administrator