the growers in controls over the insect and disease pests which we must combat. We are 100 percent for the elimination or replacement of any of these chemical controls if there is a better, safe, and more economical method of getting the same results.

However, we object strenuously to the complete elimination of a known control without a proper replacement. When it takes 5 to 10 years to develop some of these programs, it is certainly going to take a period of time to work out a replacement. We growers feel that Government must share in the development of these new control programs, and until new programs are developed and tested, the existing programs should not be changed.

The nursery growers are ready to cooperate in any way and we are sure that this cooperation will make our fair land a better place to live.

Senator HART. Thank you very much.

Is it your opinion that there are as yet no substitutes for at least some of the persistent pesticides that you, as nurserymen, find necessary to use?

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. No. I would have to say that on many of our insect problems, the actual life cycle of the insect is not well enough known so that an example is the DDT with the pine tip borer. This is an insect that at the present time the colleges or Department of Agriculture do not know the exact life cycle. DDT was effective because of its persistence.

The guthion was recommended this year, has a very short residual and consequently was not effective apparently because the application, the timing, was not correct. And we must know more about the timing in order to develop a control.

Senator HART. In the list that you gave us of the chemicals used last year-if my understanding of earlier testimony is correct-I can see four which would be described as persistent. You list about 14 chemicals there which you have used. Only four, I think, are persistent-benzedrine hexachloride, chlordane, DDT, and aldrin.

Now, you have explained that you are not yet sufficiently informed on life cycles to make the switch from DDT to whatever this new, nonpersistent, chemical is that was recommended as a replacement this year. I would take it that this unresolved problem could be resolved rather quickly. If you know, what about proposed substitutes for aldrin, chlordane, and benzedrine hexachloride?

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. I am not familiar with what the research people are working on. I do know the particular insect that I mentioned, the pine tip borer, a substitute for that was gluthion by this year's Michigan State University's recommendation. We found in that insect, it did not work.

We used methoxychlor and guthion as substitutes in other insects and they did work. So consequently, the one insect requires more research.

The problem, of course, is that the growers like ourselves are the ones that suffer economic effects. If Michigan State or anybody else makes a mistake, so they reprint the book. But we are the guys that have got to put on the chemicals. And then we end up with a crop that we cannot sell if it does not work.

Senator HART. An argument that is used against the prohibition on the use of certain pesticides-in addition to the argument that there is no adequate substitute-is an argument I would like your reaction to. It assumes that there is a substitute that is adequate, but the substitute costs substantially more money. The economic burden is much heavier on the producer.

But is it not true that if there is a flat prohibition on the use of a persistent pesticide, all growers would be compelled to use the more expensive, nonpersistent, pesticide. And although there would be a cost increase, all competing nurserymen, or corn growers, or whatever, would be operating at the same competitive disadvantage? It might even be that the price to the consumer would increase, but the economic disadvantage would be equally distributed.

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. This, I would agree with.

There is one factor that has not been brought out here, and that is the method and the safety of applying the different insecticides. My own opinion is that one of the reasons that DDT has been so popular over the years is the relative safety to the applicator. We take the chemical parathion which is extremely dangerous to, not only the applicator, but possibly anybody in the area that the material has been used. And we have a number of other of these materials which, incidentally, are cheaper to use than the DDT was. But the safety factor has been one of the problems.

Senator HART. Mr. Meserve.

Mr. MESERVE. I would just like to ask whether you could give us a breakdown of the relative amounts of these various chemicals that you use. In other words, on this list of 14 chemicals, which one is the most widely used? Which one is the least used and so on? In terms of the number of pounds that the nurseryman applies, are the persistent pesticides near the top of the list?

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. Well, they are quite extensively used. This is not a set figure by years because insects have ups and downs. And there are years when we do not have real great insect problems.

For instance, the first one I have on the list is benzedrine hexachloride, which was very commonly used this year, very effective, relatively safe to use, and recommended for many of the programs we are using.

Now, next year, the insect that we are combating could be on the down cycle. But I would say the hydrocarbons are well up on it.

Mr. MESERVE. On a 6-year average, the four chlorinated hydrocarbons would be among the top seven of the list, say, in terms of frequency of use?

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. They have been. I would say they have been. Whether they would continue to be this list now includes items like I mentioned, the guthion, malathion, which are now listed by the universities as replacements for DDT and some of the others. And, of course, the cycle will change.

Mr. MESERVE. Is there a voluntary effort by some of the nurserymen to start phasing these out where they can?

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. As I pointed out, of course, one of the factors that we consider always is the safety of our men. And this is a very important one because these men become relatively familiar with

30-831-69-pt. 2-16

these chemicals. If they use them, say, for weeks, the first thing we know, we have got somebody in the hospital that some of it has got into his blood.

Economic is another one.

Mr. MESERVE. So would you say that for both these reasons there is not much of an effort to phase them out?

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. Oh, yes; we follow the recommendations. The problem with the insects and the problem with our industry is that, for instance, an insect that at this stage is in what we call a dormant stage, it is in an egg or a grub in the plant, that plant is not salable. That plant will have to stay in the position it is in there for another year. Possibly due to maybe market conditions or maybe the size of the plant or maybe the area it is growing in, if we leave it grow 1 more year, it is unmarketable. So these have to be marketed as they come along. So this is why you will find the growers do not stray too for away from the recommendations we received.

Mr. MESERVE. So, in other words, if there is to be a phasing out of the use of some of these pesticides, it is going to have to come as the result of recommendations from the MSU Department of Agriculture. As they find alternatives which they recommend to you as being effective, then the industry will generally start phasing them out, but they will not try to look for alternatives on their own.

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. Exactly what you said has brought on some real bitter arguments. We have a plant growing in the ground, and we cannot sell it. We have followed the recommendations of the people that should know, our Michigan Department of Agriculture and our Michigan State University. And to my knowledge, these people have given us the best information they have. And I have worked with both departments over the years.

But there are times when things just do not work properly, and we are stuck. And the nursery industry has not been a real profitable industry. The wholesaler is operating on approximately a 5-percentor-less profit margin. It does not take a very big crop loss to put them in the red.

Mr. MESERVE. Given that economic problem, if a nurseryman has used chlordane over a period of years to combat a particular type of insect and it has been effective, and MSU then recommends a different, nonpersistent, pesticide for the same use, and it costs the grower twice as much, is he going to change to that new pesticide when he knows chlordane has been effective in the past?

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. Most nurserymen, as I have said, live with the animals and the insects, the other good things. They are aware of this. It is not that big a factor. The chemical itself is not the major factor in the spray programs and the spray costs. The major factor is the application and the labor involved in putting it on. The chemical generally is a smaller factor. And I am sure they would go in this direction, certainly.

Mr. MESERVE. We will say the alternatives are applying a persistent pesticide which means you have to make only one application all season-or applying a nonpersistent pesticide which might have to be applied twice during the season for the simple reason that it does not persist and you might not otherwise eradicate the insect. In that

situation, wouldn't the grower opt for the cheaper persistent pesticide, which he knows from past experience has been effective, particularly if he knows that some of his competitors are doing that? Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. I would guess probably this goes a little bit with human nature because I really could not say. In the case of our own organization and most of the growers that I know, most of us are hunters and fishermen. We follow the pattern of people being in the outdoors. We do outdoor sports. And in talking with other nurserymen at groups, this problem of the DDT is one in our minds as strong as anybody else's minds. And I am sure they would go in the direction to improve the whole situation.

Mr. MESERVE. Thank you.

Senator HART. This is completely off the point of the hearing, but I notice that asparagus is a crop that is subject to State agricultural department inspection.

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. It is the root stock, I believe, Senator, the planting stock itself.

Senator HART. I was just curious why other perennials such as the nursery grape plant and blueberries weren't included.

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. Now, Michigan Department of Agriculture, for instance, inspects dune grass which our particular firm uses along the lake here to stabilize some of the sand dune. And we have been informed that if under any condition we do ship this out of the State, we have to have it inspected first. And it is not even on their list. But they think that maybe the cereal leaf beetle will be on this, too. So these problems really get involved.

Senator HART. What chemical is recommended for the cereal leaf beetle?

Mr. VAN SLOOTEN. I honestly do not know. I am not familiar with the program except as it is related to me.

Senator HART. Fortunately, you do not yet have any cereal leaf beetle.

Thanks very much.

Senator HART. Our next witness, who will be the last witness before the lunch recess, speaks as the chairman of the State Water Committee of the League of Women Voters, Mrs. Ruth Irvine.

Mrs. Irvine.

Were you chairman of the league's committee at the time of the preparation of the report last summer?

STATEMENT OF MRS. THOMAS IRVINE, WATER RESOURCES CHAIRMAN OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN

Mrs. IRVINE. On pesticides?

Senator HART. Yes.

Mrs. IRVINE. Yes.

I am Ruth Irvine, Water Resources Chairman of the League of Women Voters of Michigan.

We are pleased, Senator Hart, that you are having field hearings to consider the effects of pesticides. We wish to impart to you our interest and concern.

League members began their study of water in 1956. Our members are vitally interested in conserving our water resources to assure use by all citizens now and in the future.

Leagues in Michigan have just finished a concentrated study on the use of DDT and the other persistent pesticides. The conclusions we have reached represent the opinions of 4,600 members.

The League of Women Voters of Michigan call for the restricted use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons-now, we include in this insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides until such time as the scientific question of their effect on water has been conclusively resolved. We think that such restricted use should be carefully supervised and issued on a needs basis for health and agriculture where no alternative is available.

DDT, the once hailed pesticide, that was cheap and easy to produce, has become a threat because it refuses to stay where it is used and tends to persist too long in nature, where its toxic properties endanger mammalian, avian, and aquatic life.

The chlorinated hydrocarbons are very stable and can travel on air currents, in water runoffs, in dust particles, and in living organisms. The persistent pesticides have universal distribution.

The food chain in the aquatic environment is especially vulnerable to pesticides because it is exposed to runoff from the land as well as pesticides sprayed directly on them. Plankton which is the basic food for all life forms in the aquatic environment will when exposed to persistent pesticides at a concentration of 1 part per million in water for 4 hours decrease in growth and reproduction by 50 to 90 percent.

DDT residues are cited as the cause of heavy mortalities of coho and trout fry in hatcheries. Harvests of oysters have deteriorated and crab larvae are dying by the thousands. Sunfish and many other fish absorb DDT and dieldrin from water itself as well as through their food chain and then often die when the poisons reach certain levels. Adult salmon average DDT content of up to 19 parts per million. The tolerance level set by the Federal Government for meat is 7 parts per million. There seems to be no shortage of evidence that the persistent pesticides are destroying aquatic life.

Once persistent pesticides enter water, they cannot be "managed" in the usual sense of the word and residues cannot be removed from drinking water by the conventional treatment process.

Mounting scientific evidence shows DDT and the other chlorinated hydrocarbons are a threat to our environment and every living creature. We must face the fact our world today is in the throes of an environmental crisis. Men and women are needed today who understand and care enough about their environment to sustain an interest in what is going on, to keep up the necessary political pressure to ensure that laws are passed and enforced, and that the major steps taken by the Federal Government to improve our environment are funded. The gap between authorizing and appropriation must be closed.

Since persistent pesticides do not respect any boundaries, State or national, it is the opinion of the league that we must have Federal laws to regulate and control the use of pesticides. Money is needed for coordinated and cooperative research to study the effects of and the practical feasible use of other methods of pest control.