with us today. We will accordingly, if there is no proxy, submit his testimony for the record.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD D. MCCARTHY,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee in order to comment on the policies controlling the regulation and use of the herbicide commonly known as 2,4,5-t. Your examination is most timely, for the effects of this defoliant on plant and animal life suggest that more stringent regulations regarding its application are called for.

As you may know, I have spent much of the past year investigating the government's chemical and biological warfare program. I am happy to report that several significant changes have taken place in U.S. policies: changes which I have advocated for many months. These include a promise to resubmit the 1925 Geneva Protocol outlawing chemical and biological agents in warfare, and a ban on any further biological warfare development, including toxins.

These are small steps forward, but the chemical warfare program still contains many features which are of questionable value and safety. One of these is the defoliation program in Southeast Asia. There is evidence that one of the compounds sprayed on a widespread basis is teratogenic, or birth-deforming. Without objection, I wish to insert an article from the New York Times of March 15 which examines possible birth defects in babies born in areas where compounds containing the chemical 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid are used. This spray, containing an agent known as 2,4,5-tricholrophenoxyacetic acid, has also been in common use as a brush killer in the United States. The commercial compound is known as Silvex, and is produced commercially by Dow Chemical Company under the trade name, Kuron. It is used by the U.S. Forest Service to kill brush as part of watershed projects in the Southwest United States.

Last year, I learned some startling facts about 2,4,5-t. As I have noted before, laboratory tests conducted by the Bionetics Laboratories for the National Cancer Institute indicated that the compound is teratogenic. A recent discussion of these laboratory tests appears in the Medical World News of February 25, 1970. Without objection, I wish to insert the article, "Defoliants, Deformaties: What Risk?" in the Record at this point.

I was therefore relieved when the White House, on October 29, 1969, announced that the Agriculture Department was to terminate its use around food crops after the first of the year. The new year came, but instead of receiving word of compliance, I was informed that the Department of Agriculture had no intention of restricting its use. In their words:

"We are awaiting advice from DHEW as to whether or not they intend to establish tolerances for 2,4,5-t before we decide whether to cancel or extend uses of 2,4,5-t on food crops. Our January 1, 1970, date was based on DHEW's expectation that they would have reached a decision by that time. That agency believes that the public interest would best be served by waiting for additional research data which will be available shortly. We concur in their judgment.”

I tried in vain to find out why the White House directive had not been put into force. The explanations from all agencies involved, the White House, the Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration, simply ignored the original directive, and I was informed that the spray would be authorized until further laboratory tests were completed sometime this Spring. The best analysis of this confusing situation appeared in the New Yorker Magazine of February 4, 1970. Without objection, I wish to insert the article entitled "A Reporter at Large: Defoliation", by Thomas Whiteside in the Record at this point.

I have not had the opportunity to examine the effects of defoliation in Vietnam firsthand, but I am happy to know that Dr. Matthew Messelson, a distinguished biologist and expert on chemical and biological warfare, is in the process of initiating a thorough investigation on this matter under the auspices of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I can only say that I am shocked by the unregulated manner in which the Department of Defense permits its widespread application, and I am appalled that no field investigation regarding its long-range effects has been conducted

by the military. I have, however, had the opportunity to review the policies and examined the effects of 2,4,5-t spraying operations in this country. I hope my observations on this matter will be of interest to the members of this committee. Last year, I learned about a controversy over one spray project carried out by the Forest Service in Eastern Arizona. Reports from Globe, Arizona indicated that the Chapparel Management Program, a part of the Salt River Watershed Project had been suspended because residents of the area had complained of irregularities in the program.

Because of the difficulties I had in obtaining adequate information from Administration officials in Washington, and because of the nature of the controversy in Globe, Arizona, I made arrangements to conduct two days of public hearings in that town to learn first-hand about the spray program and its problems.

The Department of Agriculture plays a unique role in a State like Arizona. It has jurisdiction over approximately 80 percent of the land area, most of which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

Originally established to preserve forest regions in their natural state of wilderness, the Forest Service now participates in a series of commercial projects which attempt to increase the water supply for human consumption. One step is to kill unwanted flora-in this case chapparel trees, which absorb what officials believe is too much water. Traditionally, burning accomplished this mission. In the past few years, however, chemical sprays, including Silvex Kuron, have been used extensively.

According to Forest Service officials, Kuron has been sprayed on four occasions since 1965. Following the latest spraying operation in June 1969, residents complained of illnesses to themselves and to their livestock, including respiratory problems and deformed offspring to their animals.

My purposes in conducting hearings on February 12 and 13, 1970 were the following:

(1) To learn the regulations under which the Department of Agriculture authorizes the use of the spray, and how they are enforced. In addition, I wanted to learn how new policies from Washington were transmitted and implemented, and how each regional office of the U.S. Forest Service was advised of the latest scientific information on chemicals which were in use.

(2) To ascertain the degree of scientific understanding of the ecological effects of the herbicide 2,4,5-t, and

(3) To learn the scope and nature of citizen complaints, and what if any, relation they have with the chapparel spraying operations.

Accordingly, I requested six witnesses to appear at the public hearing. They included Dr. Arthur Galston, Department of Biology, Yale University; Dr. John Pierovich, Assistant Regional Commissioner, National Forest Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Dr. F. I. Skinner, Veterinarian, Globe, Arizona; and Dr. Paul Martin, Department of Geochronology, University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona. In addition, two residents of Globe, Mrs. Billie Shoecraft and Mr. Robert McKusiak gave accounts of their experiences following the June 1969 spraying.

Mr. Pierovich gave me a full explanation of the chapparel management program, including the regulations to be followed while the compound is being sprayed.

These include restrictions around crops, over water, and above certain wind speeds.

Mr. Pierovich admitted that violations had occurred; the spray has found its way into bodies of water, and the compound had drifted onto private property as a result of wind speeds above the prescribed ten miles per hour. In addition, he informed me that new policies regarding the use of sprays containing 2,4,5-t were transmitted to the field office long after the fact. For example, Forest Service officials in Albuquerque were furnished with a policy statement from the Department of Agriculture in December which referred to the DuBridge statement. Mr. Pierovich also admitted that he has learned of the 1966 laboratory tests on 2,4,5-t from the press. Evidently no effort was made by the Department of Agriculture to inform the field offices of the latest scientific evidence regarding the possible dangers of 2,4,6-t.

I therefore concluded that the U.S. Forest Service is negligent in enforcing current regulations regarding herbicides; that it fails to transmit new policies

quickly, and that no adequate system exists to transmit new scientific information. Mr. Pierovich himself stated:

"The most healthy thing that could happen in this area would be a definite summary of literature that our technicians could refer to. There are abstracts available now, but the combination of inputs from the universities and from the various departments of government in one abstract builerin would be helpful to us."

I intend to write the Secretary of Agriculture urging him to arrange such an information system.

A second purpose of my visit was to duseuss with a competent scientist, the ecological effects of herbicides on a semi-arid region.

Dr. Arthur Galston assisted me in this effort. An experienced biologist who has studied at length the impact of defoliants at home and abroad, he outlined in his testimony the chemical reactions of these compounds and discussed certain government investigations which caution against untested use of herbicides and pesticides. He refers, for example, to the Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environmental Health, prepared by the distinguished panel shared by Doctor Emil Mrak, the Chancellor Emeritus of the University of California at Davis. He goes on to say:

"This report to which I have alluded includes as its final statement, a chapter on Teratology. I would like to read you the summary which emphasizes my concern: 'All currently used pesticides should be tested for teratogenicity in the near future in two or more mammalian species chosen on the basis of the closest metabolic and pharmacologic similarity to human beings possible. Pesticidest should be tested at various concentrations including levels substantially higher than those to which the human population is likely to be exposed. Test procedures should also reflect routes related to human exposures. Apart from the obvious route of ingestion, attention should be directed to other routes of exposure, including inhalation exposures from pesticide aerosols and vaporizing pesticide strips used domestically and exposures from skin absorption. Parenteral administration is an appropriate test route for pesticides to which humans are exposed by inhalation, or for pesticides which are systematically absorbed following ingestion.

"The use of currently registered pesticides to which humans are exposed and which are found to be teratogenic by suitable test procedures in one or more mammalian species should be immediately restricted to prevent risk of human exposure."...

Dr. Galston continues:

"Here, then, is the Government's most distinguished panel saying that there is evidence that 2.4.5-t has produced teratogenic effects in one or more mammalian species. To me, this means should be restricted immediately. The committee also said no new pesticide found to be teratogenic, should be used only in circumstances where risk of human exposure is minimal."

In spite of this recent information, the Forest Service-in Arizona, at least --was unaware of its contents. Dr. Galston's remarks about the overall purpose of the project are worth repeating. He states:

"My overall view after one day of looking around is one of puzzlement. I wonder why anyone desired to initiate this kind of an operation in this kind of an environment. The stated objective is to improve water runoff, and water runoff will benefit, I presume, the citizens of a nearby urban area, Phoenix, which is growing rapidly, and which has a lot of water requirements, and their water requirements will grow as the years go by, and we know this is an arid area. "Truly, water is going to be wilting in this area for all activities. So far as I can see unless nuclear technology makes it available on a massive scale, taking water from this area to give to another area, is, in fact. robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you are removing water from this area you are going to partially change the vegetation. Perhaps you are going to denude some of the areas in order to increase the runoff. This involves a comparative set of valves. Whose ox is going to be gored here? Whose interests are paramount? Clearly, cities are not going to be able to grow indefinitely; we are going to have to put some limit on them. We know, for example, that the city of Los Angeles got into a lot of trouble with smog because there are just too many people there. In the same way, cities in the Southwest may have to limit their size ultimately based on the number of people they can support on the basis of the amount of water resources available. "Now that President Nixon among others is calling for a campaign to restore the environment, it might be that we would want to look at this project

in the context of what we are doing to the enire Stae and to the entire countryside."

I cannot help but conclude that such land management programs involve much more than the immediate water needs of urban sprawls. The natural regions of the Southwest are a great natural resource. They must not be sacrificed so recklessly.

My third interest was to determine whether any relationship existed between the maladies of certain residents and their livestock and the spraying of Silvex.

The Agriculture Department readily admitted that the spray drifted out to private property. The owners have a rightful complaint regarding this fact which has not yet been resolved. The local veterinarian, Dr. F. I. Skinner informed me that he would not have recommended the use of 2,4,5-t compounds had he been familiar with the results of the Bionetics Laboratory's tests.

It is also true that illnesses developed whose symptoms are similar to those which are known to be associated with herbicides. In addition, I saw malformed animals who were born after the incidents of last June. Statements were made regarding this fact by persons testifying in good faith, and should not be dismissed outright. They obviously have some bearing because the Forest Service has suspended further sprayings in the area. This decision followed the complaints, and while Federal investigation found no direct relationship between the spray operations and the illnesses, Forest Service officials await further developments before resuming.

No one is being helped by the procrastination of officials in Washington. Three agencies are now involved in the 2,4,5-t controversy, yet none have assumed responsibility for regulating this herbicide. The Food and Drug Administration, which under the 1954 amendments to the Cosmetic Act of 1938, has the obligation to establish safe tolerance levels before a chemical of this kind is put on the market, has failed to enforce the Law. The Agriculture Department continues to ignore other agencies in administering the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The Pesticide Regulation Division established by this act, was sharply condemned by the House Government Operations Committee report of November 13, 1969 for not carrying out its responsibility to police the licensing of herbicides. In addition to the charge that no legal steps have ever been taken against firms which violate licensing regulations, the Committee report brought to light repeated instances of conflict of interest among various officials of the Pesticide Regulation Division and agro-chemical companies.

Finally, the White House has backed down from its assertive position of last October. After reversing an earlier ban, I am now told boldly by Dr. Lee A. DuBridge in a letter of March 2, 1970, that "we anticipate, indeed we will insist upon final action of 2,4,5-t before its period of principal usage in late spring."

I will not hold my breath.

Mr. Chairman, there are obvious irregularities in the regulation and management of herbicide compounds containing 2,4,5-t. It is clear that the National Forest Service no longer regards preservation of lands in their natural state as a primary responsibility. There is insufficient information regarding its risks and inadequate statistics on its effects to animal and plant life. Its use must not be continued until its safety is assured.

Accordingly, I recommend an immediate five year ban on the use of herbicides containing 2,4,5-t. During this period of suspension, the Food and Drug Administration should establish, once and for all, whether the chemical has a safe tolerance level. The latest word from FDA is that the officials "are in no position to say that the chemical 2,4,5-t or the dioxin is without hazardous effects". A letter to me of March 12, 1970, reflects the inconclusive evidence regarding its safety. It is worth repeating in full. Without objection, I wish to insert the letter from M. J. Ryan of the Food and Drug Administration, along with an attached fact sheet in the Record at this point.

In addition, steps should be taken immediately to collect information on the number of children born with birth defects, including those which might be caused by herbicides.

Accordingly, I will be writing to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare urging him to instruct the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Strokes of the National Institutes of Health to begin gathering information on these phenomena.

Mr. Chairman, I am confident that these hearings will help resolve a most important issue. There can be no more delay.

Mr. Chairman, without objection, I wish to insert various documents pertaining to my hearings in Globe, Arizona for inclusion as an appendix to these hearings.1

Senator HART. We will move to the next scheduled witnesses. James Turner and Harrison Wellford of the Center for Responsive Law.

STATEMENT OF HARRISON WELLFORD, CENTER FOR STUDY OF RESPONSIVE LAW, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. WELLFORD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

We appreciate very much the invitation to appear at these hearings this morning. I would like, if I may, to read excerpts from my testimony rather than reading the entire testimony.

In this testimony we wish to bring to your attention that herbicides containing 2.4.5.-T are widely marketed for casual use by the individual consumer in residential and other populated areas. The herbicide 2.4.5-T even in extremely small doses, causes massive and severe birth defects in test animals, including mice, rats, and hamsters. The herbicide 2.4-D, which is often mixed with 2.4.5-T in the popular herbicides such as Ortho Weed-Be-Gone, is also teratogenic, but at higher dose levels. We feel that these herbicides, as currently used, may pose a grave and unnecessary danger to public health.

In a recent article, the biologists Arthur W. Galston, William Cooke, and William Haseltine stated that 2.4.5-T "may represent the ecological equivalent of thalidomide." (Congressional Record, Feb. 19, 1970, S. 1984). Professor John T. Edsall of Harvard University, stated before the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Committee on Chemical and Biological Warfare that "the use of these compounds is much more seriously questionable than the use of eyelamates. If one applies the same criteria, one would consider the risks quite unacceptable." (Quoted in the New York Times, Dec. 29, 1969). The tests performed by the Bionetics Laboratory, by the Food and Drug Administration, National Institute of Dental Research, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences clearly show that these chemicals are potentially harmful. Whether or not human beings are more or less susceptible than test animals to these chemicals, we do not yet know. But clearly on the evidence now available, the burden of proof should be on the industry to demonstrate that they are not harmful. In the meantime, all uses of these herbicides around the home and in populated areas should be immediately suspended.

We wish to discuss this morning the nature of the danger as we see it and the serious failures of both the Federal Government and private industry to reduce the unnecessary risks to public health of exposure to 2.4.5-T and other suspicious weedkillers. Specifically I am concerned about :

(1) The attempts by Government and industry to conceal the facts about 24,5-T and 2,4-D from the public and from other scien

tists.