amounts of degradable pesticides that may be used if the persistent ones are replaced; and the techniques for accurately measuring pesticide residues and their biological effects.

The action programs recommended of researching, monitoring, coordinating, communicating, educating, and regulating-actually doing things-require funds. Without this support, our recommendations, plans and laws will be of no avail and the problems will continue unabated.

The long-term productivity of our resources and the standard of living of man depends on our maintaining reasonably high environmental quality. If lawmakers, labor and industry leaders, community leaders, government administrators, educators and the general public do not understand the ecological complexities of man's environment-the interrelationship of all living things desirable and undesirable our standards of living and very existence may be threatened. The only way to achieve such an understanding is through education-teaching respect for the environment, awareness of the competitive elements in it, and the responsibility of man's stewardship.

RECOMMENDATIONS

With the summary as background, the following recommendations for immediate implementation have been agreed upon:

1. That the United States Food and Drug Administration be requested to establish an appropriate tolerance level for DDT in fish following a petition based upon the recommendations of the Committee on Public Health of the Great Lakes Governors' Conference on Pesticides.

2. That in order to attain necessary production levels of high quality food; to protect the health and welfare of all people; and to preserve and enhance the region's natural resources:

(a) pesticides be used carefully and judiciously with a full awareness and concern for potential secondary effects;

(b) programs recommending proper selection and application of pesticides be expanded; and

(c) appropriate legislation and regulation be adopted as needed.

3. That the use of persistent insecticides, such as DDT, dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor and lindane be rigidly restricted to uses for which there are no acceptable substitutes or to uses that minimize the needless escape of these chemicals into the environment and that uses of the persistent materials be progressively discontinued consistent with research and development of alternative methods of control. Development of such alternatives should be accelerated.

4. That as the results of the initial phases of the Upper Great Lakes Coordinated Monitoring Program are analyzed, a selective long-range program be initiated to determine, fully and accurately, point sources and residual amounts of pesticides in the environment, the means by which these materials move from point of use to the land to the streams and into the lakes and their occurrence in plants and animals (These objectives are consistent with those of the StateFederal Enforcement Conference on Pollution of Lake Michigan in January, 1968).

5. That the several states develop a uniform reporting mechanism for determining accurately, at least to the county level, the amounts of pesticides used, the types of uses, and the location of their use to assist in planning education programs and determining regulatory needs.

6. That representatives of each state be appointed to an interstate group, interdisciplinary in nature, to enhance communications and coordination of programs and regulations relating to pesticides and that the State of Illinois will host the first meeting.

7. That research effort necessary to make sound judgments concerning the need for and use of pesticides, to detect hazards to human health, and to determine possible long-range effects of low levels of pesticides on man and other forms of life be significantly increased, and further, that there be increased coordination of the various state and federal research programs.

8. That all levels of our education systems strongly emphasize the development of an understanding of the ecology of our environment including the relationship of pest control programs; and, since this involves constructive programs of preservation, management and controls, that agriculture, natural resources, and public health agencies, schools, universities and cooperative extension services exercise their responsibilities to assist in the development and implementation of such educational programs.

9. That adequate funds be provided from federal, state and local sources and from industry to initiate and continue action programs.

Senator HART. Realizing the kind of schedule under which he has to operate, I am sure that you will all agree that we should now ask the chairman of the State senate committee on agriculture, Senator DeGrow, to present the views of his committee in person.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALVIN J. DeGROW, SENATOR OF THE 28TH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRMAN, MICHIGAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Senator DEGROW. Senator Hart, Mr. Meserve, Mr. Webber: I am Alvin DeGrow, Senator from Michigan's 28th District and chairman of the Michigan Senate Committee on Agriculture. This statement was prepared 3 months ago in preparation for your July 7 hearing.

Senator HART. I should have reminded everybody this hearing was supposed to have been held months ago, but we got entangled in another aspect of Federal spending and where we should cut that week -voting on the military construction authorization bill. We came as close as we could, 50-50, to stopping spending there, but we did not quite make it. Anyway, that is why I did not come.

Senator DEGROW. Although I have been a member of the legislature for only 10 months, I have become aware of, and very interested in, the pesticide problem. I place special emphasis on the words "pesticide problem" because I view it differently than many people. I feel that the problem is over reaction, not inaction.

First, public hearings held by a joint Senate-House pesticide study committee last fall pointed out something rather startling: The major source of pesticide in lakes and streams is not the farmer, but rather the urban dweller who believes that if a little bit is beneficial, then more pesticide does twice as much good.

Because the farmer must use large quantities to cover his fields, he cannot afford to use more than the dosage recommended. It strikes me that what is needed is not a banning of pesticides, but a campaign to educate people in the use of pesticides.

The second issue brought to my attention by the study committee report is the question of the alternative to the use of pesticides. Perhaps it is not starvation in this country, but certainly higher food prices and inferior quality.

Currently, Michigan farmers are battling two new enemies: The cereal leaf beetle and the alfalfa weevil. At the present time, large acreages are being sprayed to save Michigan's grain and hay crops. Without this spraying, feed would have to be brought into Michigan. to sustain our dairy herds. The cost of transportation of the feed would raise the price of milk. Unchecked, the cereal leaf beetle would do the same to bread and other grain foods.

Currently, Michigan State University scientists are working on what may be the ideal solution: A bug-eat-bug program, as the newspaper has called the program. Several natural enemies of the alfalfa weevil are being checked to find which would do the best job in killing the weevils. However, this takes years of research to make sure that they will do the job and also not become a pest themselves.

The third and final conclusion I have reached is that pesticides are not the villain they have been pictured, and I would like to quote several sources. The Michigan Department of Public Health:

There are many potentially harmful substances contaminating our environment today which are much more hazardous than DDT. The pollution of our soil and waters by chemicals, oils and solid wastes; the pollution of our air by carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides; these are matters of continuing and serious concern, along with pesticides.

In dealing with such substances, the problem is always to balance the benefit against the risk. It has been estimated that some 5 million human lives have been saved because of DDT since its introduction in 1942. Over these same years, except for accidental ingestion or exposure to concentrated material in application, not one single death or even serious illness has been documented from its use in the control of insects.

A great deal of adverse publicity has focused on DDT as a result of Michigan's coho salmon program. DDT has the affinity to be attracted to, and deposited in, body fat. Salmon are a fat fish and therefor show a higher part per million count than other types of fish.

Gentlemen, I submit that if the coho program had not been such a fabulous success that there would not have been nearly as much concern over the pesticide problem, and there would not be such great pressure to eliminate pesticides that have done so much for man until suitable replacements have been found.

I realize that it is claimed that DDT now has a replacement, but it is more costly and does not do as good a job.

Dr. Wayland Hayes of Vanderbilt University has done considerable research with persons who have, for as long as 20 years, worked in a chemical plant manufacturing DDT, as well as with a group of volunteers at a Federal correctional institution. One man in the DDT factory was found to have 648 p.p.m. of DDT in his body fat. This is 85 times the average that is stored in the general population. Dr. Hayes relates

In the group of DDT workers, findings from medical history, physical examination, routine clinical laboratory tests, and chest X-ray film did not reveal any ill effects attributable to exposure to DDT.

Fifty-one prisoners volunteered to take daily oral doses of DDT for different intervals. One-third of the men received no DDT except that in the ordinary diet. One-third received 3.5 milligram per man per day, and one-third received 35 milligrams per man per day, which is about 200 times the daily rate at which an average man receives DDT in his diet.

During the entire study, no volunteer complained of any symptoms, or showed by the tests made, any sign of illness that did not have an easily recognized cause clearly unrelated to exposure to DDT.

If we follow this line, we could eat nothing but coho salmon, three meals a day, at the highest reported residue level, and still be well below the level fed to the volunteers, or absorbed by the factory workers.

About 18 or 20 months ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture asked a special committee of the National Research Council to investigate the pesticide problems. Four months ago the report of the committee was released. This report states

As far as experts can determine, at present, pesticides are not damaging man's health.

The report also called for

New steps, all over the world, to reduce needless or accidental release of long-lasting pesticides into the environment.

Gentlemen, I think this statement sums up the problem: Needless or accidental release of long-lasting pesticides.

The United States and the entire world needs these pesticides, but continued warnings must be given to the people using them. They must be made aware that overuse can offset the result desired. I would suggest that the greatest possible service this committee could render to the people of this great Nation would be to make them aware of the possible danger arising from the overapplication of pesticides. Senator HART. Thank you very much, Senator. And, again, my apologies for causing the 3-month delay in your presentation.

I have the feeling that the long term effect on man of certain of these pesticides is not yet known or understood. Indeed, we have not been concerned about the possibilities of damage to the human animal long enough to permit us, over a period of several generations, to identify the degree of harm and consequences which might result. I would hope that what we all could agree on is that there is need for the best possible research to answer the question: What will we be like as human beings three generations from now if we continue to absorb X levels of pesticides. That, I think, should be something we would all agree on.

While I recognize in each of the points you made the fact that you can cite authority for it, the documentation is now clear, I think, that there are harmful effects from pesticides. And if there are acceptable alternatives, we should avoid continuing that kind of harm for both fish and bird life. I repeat, though, that the person is not alive who can jump up and down and say for sure what the effects will be on us in the long haul, as people.

But that committee report to which you referred on the bottom of page 3-the National Research Council's report to the Department of Agriculture does include as one of its seven recommendations that in the public interest, action be increased at international, national, and local levels to minimize environmental contamination where the use of persistent pesticides remains visible. That full document is contained in pages 260 through 280 of the committee hearing which I mentioned had been published over the weekend.

Mr. Meserve, while you are cranking up, let me cite one more thing that is in the early hearing report. There is documentation on nonfatal illnesses in man that have been identified as resulting from exposure to hard pesticides. In California alone in 1 year, 1964, there were 1,328 reports of occupational disease attributed to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

Senator DEGROW. Senator, how long was that; do you know?
Senator HART. In 1964.

Senator DEGROW. Perhaps it is a little longer. The new ones that are coming out to replace DDT are much more dangerous to the applicator than to wildlife because many of them are direct derivatives of nerve gas research.

Senator HART. It is my understanding that some of the so-called softer substitutes, during their shorter lifetime, pose a much greater degree of hazard to the user.

Senator DEGROW. Someone has said we stand the chance now of saving the rabbit or wildlife and killing the operator because they have to be used with strict care.

Senator HART. That is a point I want to make, but let us see if we cannot do well by both.

Mr. Meserve.

Mr. MESERVE. I would just like to ask you two questions, Senator DeGrow. First of all, you mentioned that the urban user tends to use a little bit more of a pesticide than he has to, so he can be doubly sure that the treatment will be effective. Don't you think the same attitude might prevail among farmers? Although the cost of the pesticide is significant, the loss a farmer might sustain if he has not eradicated the pest might be very much greater.

Senator DEGROW. I think there is a possibility all right, depending on the size of the area to be applied to and so on. But I think one of the major sources also of urban contamination has been the backyard mosquito spraying program and the Dutch elm spraying program, both of which have been eliminated in Michigan. But this fell upon vast acreage of sidewalk and street and washed into the sewer system and eventually into the river and into the lake. And this is where a lot of our contamination came from.

Mr. MESERVE. I think there is no question about that. The orientation of these hearings has not been directed toward agricultural uses exclusively. I think that is one of the mistakes that some people make. We are well aware that municipal spraying programs, particularly for Dutch elm disease, have been a major contributor to this problem.

You mentioned the serious harm that could occur if we were to abandon the use of pesticides. Again, I think we might point out that most people have not suggested that we abandon their use at this time. The question is whether we can move toward less hazardous, nonpersistent, pesticides where there is a potential of damage to fish and wildlife. Don't you think that is a realistic possibility?

Senator DEGROW. Yes. Of course, there are certain groups who would like to see all pesticides eliminated. I myself would. As I say, if this program of bug-eat-bug works out, it is the best possible solution. But it takes years and years of research. And when you start introducing insects that are not native to the area, you run the risk that they themselves will then become hazard or a pest.

And I know that Michigan State is also working in areas of breeding plants that are resistent ot certain diseases and so on. I know one of the grains, some 55,000 varieties, they are checking out to see if they cannot come up with one that would be resistant to cereal leaf beetle and so on.

Mr. MESERVE. Has your committee authorized funds to help promote these bug-eat-bug programs?

Senator DEGROW. Well, this comes under the general appropriation budget to the university itself. And I suppose they could always use

more money.

Mr. MESERVE. But have the people on the Agriculture Committee taken the lead in trying to promote this kind of program in the legislature?

30-831 0-69-pt. 2