STATEMENT OF DR. NED D. BAYLEY, DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. T. C. BYERLY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

Dr. BAYLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am Ned Bayley, Director of Science and Education, Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture. I have with me Dr. T. C. Byerly, Assistant Director of Science and Education.

Before I proceed with the formal statement. I would like to respond to some extent to the information which has been presented already this morning.

Senator HART. Let me make it easier. Let me encourage you to do it, and any succeeding witnesses, too.

To make the record as useful as possible, we would welcome exchanges in the nature of reply.

Dr. BAYLEY. I appreciate in doing this I am putting myself in an impromptu position and, therefore, would appreciate the privilege to provide to the committee, for the record if they desire, fuller statements regarding the activities of the Department of Agriculture in regard to pesticides.

Senator HART. Very well.

Dr. BAYLEY. I testified before this committee previously regarding the broad policies and positions of the Department in the pesticide area, and stated that we recognize that all pesticides are economic poisons. They are only one group of the tremendous number of economic poisons which we use for a large number of useful reasons, not only for economic purposes but also to take care of public health.

We recognize also, as part of our civilization and as part of the standard of living and the food supply that we already have, that without these economic poisons and their judicious use, we would be in a very serious situation from the standpoint of our ability to produce food and fiber for this country.

Now, I also want to point out very briefly the references to the activities of the Department of Agriculture regarding the registration of pesticides. I will be the first to agree that there have been some problems in regard to these registration procedures and I will be the first to agree that we haven't resolved all of them.

We have, however, particularly during the past year, taken a number of steps towards eliminating some of the complexities and bureaucratic difficulties which have existed in the area of registra

tion.

The references which have been made here this morning primarily reflect the relationship among the departments that did exist, but, I think I am safe in saying, do not exist now.

Senator HART. I remember in those earlier hearings we discussed this problem.

Dr. BAYLEY. Yes, we did.

Senator HART. And I had the impression that there was a transition period.

Dr. BAYLEY. I will very briefly refer to that. The crux of the problem was that there was an interagency agreement for resolving differences in regard to registration. There was a procedure within the agreement of bringing differences to the attention of the three Secretaries involved.

Unfortunately, however, over the years this agreement was in existence, not one of the departments ever used this procedure to resolve their differences.

We in the Department of Agriculture must share the major responsibility for not getting the differences resolved primarily because the enforcement of FIFRA was primarily our responsibility. But I am glad to say that since that time, with the initiative of Secretary Hardin and Secretary Finch and Secretary Hickel, there has been a new agreement worked out between the departments. This agreement specifically provides the basis whereby differences in judgments regarding pesticide regulation can be brought up through the decisionmaking procedure and the three Secretaries can share in this as needed.

We believe this is a sound basis for increasing the interdepartmental relationships and providing a basis for all three departments to have a rightful input into this.

I think you are also acquainted with the fact

Senator HART. Doctor, if you are going to leave that new agreement, I would like to ask one question. In the event of disagreement, when the three Secretaries' attention is invited to the competing claims, is the decision made by majority vote, or does the Secretary of Agriculture retain the final voice?

Dr. BAYLEY. It is my understanding that they will pursue the disagreement until they agree. The Secretary of Agriculture does retain the final voice according to the law, however. We believe that based on the way we are operating today this procedure can be effective. Senator HART. A meeting in Paris?

Dr. BAYLEY. Well, we are not dealing with that. I think we recognize that three Cabinet officers have the public interest in mind when they get together and can make a decision along these lines.

Senator HART. Just to push you a little harder on it, and I suppose this is academic at the moment since no such dispute has yet reached the three Secretaries?

Dr. BAYLEY. This is correct.

Senator HART. If one does get there, it will involve the tricky balance that Senator Baker was talking about, the economic claims, the public health claims, and the environmental concerns. HEW will tend, I assume, to emphasize the health factor. Is Interior the third department?

Dr. BAYLEY. Yes.

Senator HART. They would I suppose, be concerned principally with effects on fish and wildlife, and Agriculture would think primarily of the utility to the agricultural economy.

To put it harshly, why shouldn't the fellow who says it has not yet been established as safe for humans have the ultimate vote and voice?

Dr. BAYLEY. May I say this, that from the standpoint of the Department of Agriculture, we recognize that issues involving human health should have priority over all other issues.

The reference which was made earlier that the emphasis in USDA had been primarily on effectiveness is not only incorrect regarding the past but it is utterly incorrect regarding our position now.

Senator HART. Whatever the past, I would hope that human health does have the overriding concern of three or any other numbers of men that meet on this kind of claim.

I interrupted you.

Dr. BAYLEY. Surely.

With those preliminary comments, I will be glad to turn to the issue of 2,4,5-T and the facts as we see them at the present time.

The herbicide 2,4,5-T has been recognized as the most effective herbicide registered for use for control of certain weeds and brush species for more than 20 years. About four-fifths of the domestic use of 2,4,5-T is for nonfarm use, the largest such use being for control of brush on rights-of-way. It is also used extensively to control brush on forest lands and certain weeds in turf. 2,4,5-T has been used in the production of fruit crops, cereal grains, and sugarcane. It is the most effective herbicide for control of brush on several million acres of rangeland in the Southwestern United States.

2,4,5-T is degraded in the environment within a few months after application so that residues do not persist from one season to the next. Residues on foods are unusual. Among 5,300 food samples analyzed by FDA for 2,4,5-T during the past 4 years, 25 were reported to contain trace amounts; i.e., amounts less than the 0.1 p.p.m. limit of accuracy of present analytical procedures for foods. Two samples showed residues of 0.19 and 0.29 p.p.m., respectively.

No finite tolerance has been established for 2,4,5-T in food. In the absence of such tolerances, any detectable amount of 2,4,5-T in food would make such food subject to seizure if found in the channels of interstate commerce. From the data cited above

Senator PERCY. Do I understand your statement to mean, Doctor, that in the absence of the establishment of human tolerances for 2,4,5-T, it is the present policy of the Department of Agriculture to seize any shipments that show any measurable trace of 2,4,5-T on food shelves?

Dr. BAYLEY. It is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration to enforce the procedures and make the seizures.

Senator PERCY. I understood you to say there are no tolerances established; therefore in the absence of any established human tolerances for 2,4,5-T, it is the present operation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to seize any food stuffs that contain any measurable trace amounts of 2,4,5-T.

Dr. BAYLEY. It is the present obligation of the Food and Drug Administration to do so.

Senator PERCY. Thank you very much.

Dr. BAYLEY. From the data cited above, it is apparent that contamination of food with 2,4,5-T is very infrequent and then only at very low levels.

There is current concern over the continued use of 2,4,5-T arising from the report of a research study completed under contract by the

National Cancer Institute by Bionetics, Inc. This study was based on a commercial lot of 2,4,5-T acquired for the study in 1965. It was fed to pregnant mice and rats. Many of their developing young had birth defects.

After review of this information and after consultation with Federal agencies concerned, Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, the President's Science Adviser, announced on October 29, 1969, a coordinated series of actions being taken by those agencies with respect to the use of 2,4,5-T.

Among them was the announcement that: "The Department of Agriculture will cancel registrations of 2,4,5-T for use on food crops effective January 1, 1970, unless by that time the Food and Drug Administration has found a basis for establishing a safe legal tolerance in and on foods."

USDA was informed in January that the lot of 2,4,5-T used in the Bionetics study contained significant amounts of a highly toxic contaminant, tetrachlorodibenzo paradioxin. The Department was further informed that lots of 2,4,5-T of current and recent manufacture were reported to contain less than 1 p.p.m. of this contaminant in contrast to the 27 p.p.m. reported for the lot used in the Bionetic study.

Extensive studies are underway to determine whether 2,4,5-T is itself teratogenic. Preliminary reports are consistent with the hypothesis that the teratogenic results reported in the Bionetics study were due to the contaminant dioxins or to interactions of such contaminants with the 2,4,5-T rather than to 2,4,5-T per se.

The Department announced on February 6 that it would undertake examination of 2,4,5-T and 17 related compounds registered for pesticidal use to determine whether or not they are contaminated with dioxins. Preliminary results on 2,4,5-T show that those lots examined of current manufacture and those now in channels of trade gave the following results-I can summarize these quicklythe amounts ranged from a trace to 2.9 parts per million, and they were conducted both by the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

(The table follows:)

TABLE 1.-AMOUNTS OF TCDD FOUND IN COMMERCIAL 2, 4, 5-T BY TWO METHODS

4

N.D. Levels of TCDD are below the limits of detection or below 0.05 p.p.m.

• Sample supplied by Dow as a reference check and reported to contain about 0.5 p.p.m. TDCD.

These data are preliminary and are obtained from first drafts of methods developed by chemists in the Crops Research Division of the USDA and in the Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicology Division of the FDA. The dioxin values refer only to the 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro

dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD) and do not indicate levels of other halogenated dioxins (containing 5, 6, 7, or 8 chlorines) in the 2,4,5-T samples.

In view of all the information now available, we have not found that registered use of 2,4,5-T without a finite tolerance on food crops constitutes a hazard requiring cancellation or suspension of such registered uses.

There has been and is concern over the ecological effects of 2,4,5-T used as a defoliant in Vietnam. Dr. Fred Tschirley, Assistant Chief of our Crops Protection Research Branch, has reported the results of his examination of areas treated in Vietnam. He has reported no evidence of irreversible ecological damage. Allegations that defoliation will lead to extensive laterization of Vietnamese soils, that Mangrove areas will not recover, that fish production in wetland areas will be reduced were not verified.

Dr. Tschirley also headed a team of scientists who investigated allegations of injury to humans and animals due to herbicide treatment for control of Chapparal by the Forest Service on the Tonto National Forest near Globe, Ariz. They found that apparent damage consisted of damage to susceptible plants near the treated area from drift of the herbicides used. The alleged injuries to a duck and a goat were found to be groundless. Human illnesses were those expected in a normal population with the possible exception of one man with skin irritation on his eyelids. Clinical chemistry on specimens obtained during the investigation is in process.

Mr. Chairman, that is the completion of my formal statement. We primarily presented it to provide you with the latest findings that we have in the particular area.

Senator HART. Thank you very much, Doctor.

To summarize with respect to the sequence of events on the DuBridge announcement of October 29, 1969, the Department did not in fact deregister 2,4,5-T as DuBridge indicated would occur unless these affirmed findings came along. But you tell us your action was based upon information that the tests by Bionetics used samples that contained the contaminant dioxin, and that the current production of that product was free of the dioxin; is that right?

Dr. BAYLEY. Not completely free. The dioxin was at a sufficiently low level that we believed that

Senator HART. That the test material had sufficiently more dioxin than the normal production amount?

Dr. BAYLEY. Yes.

Senator HART. Are you aware that the preliminary results of tests conducted by Food and Drug, Dow, and by the National Instititute of Dental Research and by the National Institute of Environmental Health Scientists all indicate that 2,4,5-T contaminated with no more dioxin than is found in the currently produced 2,4,5-T is teratogenic?

Dr. Bayley. We are fully aware of this. The critical facts in regard to those experiments is that those low level dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T samples were fed at sufficiently high dosages that they would be comparable to the dosages used for the 27 parts per million or nearly so.

Therefore, we do not believe this in any way changes the hypothesis that the low level of dioxin is safe.