fall considerably. With DDT's 15-year half-life, it could take 35 to 40 years before the residues in the fish get down to 5 ppm. The coho, chinook, and lake trout are at the top of a food chain that passes through the alewives from the microorganisms in the mud of the lake. DDT in the mud is magnified as it passes up the chain.

The principal arguments against DDT and its relatives must rest on their drastic alteration of the living environment. These alterations are subtle but profound and in the long run may threaten man's survival.

ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS AREAS OF CONCERN IS THE EFFECT ON OXYGEN PRODUCTION

One of the most dangerous areas of concern is the effect of DDT on oxygen production. Marine biologists subjected five common species of oceanic plant plankton to roughly the DDT levels found in the surface waters of the open ocean. Addition of the DDT was followed by a severe reduction in the rates of photosynthesis and cell division in all species. In one case the reduction in photosynthesis was more than 50 percent. Photosynthesis is the process by which green plants convert carbon dioxide, water, and the energy of sunlight into food for their own growth. Oxygen is a byproduct of this process. Between 50 and 70 percent of the Earth's oxygen is produced at sea by phytoplankton (plant plankton). Even without considering DDT, oxygen production is lagging behind oxygen consumption because of man's vast demands. If the effect found in the laboratory is widespread-and it is reasonable to believe it is-the results could be more disastrous than a nuclear war. Decreased conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen, accompanied by the buildup of carbon dioxide from air pollutants, could result in planetary overheating due to the greenhouse, or heat-trapping, effect of this gas in the atmosphere. As a result, polar caps would melt, and sea levels would rise perhaps 200 feet. It can be hoped only that there is enough flexibility in the oxygen cycle to prevent such drastic consequences until the DDT in the oceans decomposes.

Even supposing that this long-term effect does not occur, a relatively shortterm consequence probably cannot be avoided. Zooplankton (animal plankton) also is highly susceptible to DDT. Reduced amounts of zooplankton along with reduced photosynthesis and cell division in phytoplankton means a decrease in the amount of plankton available for organisms that eat it and a consequent drop in their population, a drop in the population of organisms that feed on them, and so on. Plankton lies at the bottom of almost every marine food chain. It is unfortunate that this basis of marine productivity is being eroded just when optimists are proposeg to feed ocean products to the increased billions of human population predicted in the next few decades.

A second area of concern, DDT's effect on hormones, has been receiving some publicity lately, due mainly to the fact that the bald eagle is the Union's symbol. Raptorial birds, of which the eagle is one, have been the first victims of the hormonal effects of DDT pollution because of their position at the top of food chains. In concentrations of a very few parts per million-in mammals and birds at least and perhaps in other animals-DDT stimulates the liver to produce enzymes that destroy many other enzymes and hormones. Among the destroyed substances is estradiol, which in birds regulates the withdrawal of calcium from bone for the manufacture of eggshell in the oviducts. Consequently these birds lay thin-shelled eggs-in some cases eggs with no shell at all. Such thin-shelled eggs cannot be incubated properly, so a potential eagle, hawk, or fish-eating bird is lost. Because of their position in their food chains, raptorial birds in the United States have been reduced to desparate straits by chlorinated hydrocarbon pollution. The once-numerous peregrine falcon is now extinct as a breeding bird in the East and is surviving only precariously elsewhere, partly because of breeding success depressed by DDT and its relatives and partly because of direct effects on these birds. The Everglades kite, pushed to the brink by man anyway, may be doomed to rapid extinction by pesticides. The Southern bald eagle is endangered, with perhaps only 600 birds surviving. The American osprey or fishhawk, once numerous, because of its feeding habits is especially liable to ingest DDT, and its population is in sharp decline and already at the danger point. The osprey feeds on fish; and fish, of course, are prime biological magnifiers.

Too many farmers dislike hawks and as a group are not inclined to mourn their demise. What once again goes unrealized, however, is the importance of

the falconiforms in maintaining ecological balances. Birds of this order that do not eat mostly carrion, one valuable service, likely include rodents as a major item of their diet as another valuable service. One team of writers has estimated that, were the rodent control performed by these birds removed, mice would cover the United States from coast to coast 21⁄2 inches deep. This example is a statistical trick, but it indicates the important service that, if not done by hawks and other predators, would have to be done by some agency of man's devising.

Hawks and eagles are merely the first birds to be affected by DDT's action on the liver. Brown pelicans are now in a dangerous decline, and other birds with less DDT in their diet must follow suit to some degree as they accumulate the chemical. Then there are the mammals to worry about. (Man, of course, is a mammal. What effect might DDT accumulation have on human biochemistry?) The third area that greatly worries scientists is the possible mutagenicity of DDT. Whether DDT can cause mutations is not definitely known. It is known that many chemicals, including some that are widespread as pollutants, can cause changes in the gene structures of certain organisms, so biologists keep a sharp eye out for this phenomenon. (What effect might chlorinate hydrocarbons have on human genes?)

Obviously there are many unanswered questions about persistent pesticides, as well as demonstrable harmful effects.

THE BEST THAT CAN BE DONE IS TO TOTALLY HALT THE USE OF DDT AND ITS RELATIVES

What can concerned Americans do to protect themselves against DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons? It is impossible to escape the chemicals now. DDT has been found everywhere, even in the fat of Antarctic penguins. The best that can be done at this point is to totally halt the use everywhere of DDT and its relatives; dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor, lindane, chlordane, and endrin are the principal offenders among the chlorinated hydrocarbons. The latter chemicals can be hundreds of times as poisonous as DDT, depending on the animal being poisoned. They have avoided being a worse problem only because they are more expensive so have not yet been used as widely. President Nixon's Environmental Quality Council has been considering the effect of the use of persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons on the environment in this country. If the Council decides that these chemicals are harmful, it has the duty to recommend to the President that he use the power of his office to halt their production and use. (It may be noted that 125 million pounds of DDT were produced in the United States in 1968. True, the bulk of it went abroad, but it will work its way back to us through the winds and waves, or through shock-waves in the planetary ecosystem.)

Meanwhile there are many control methods for insects other than chlorinated hydrocarbons, and the homeowner would be wise to seek them out. Japanese beetles, for instance, usually can be more effectively controlled with milky spore disease, a natural check on their population, than with chemicals. Often one application of MSD does a permanent job.

If a homeowner wisely decides to dispose of his stock of chlorinated hydrocarbons, he should use foresight or he will do worse damage than he could by using them on his garden. They should not be flushed down the toilet; this is the fastest route to the aquatic environment where they can begin their trip up the food chain. They should not be burned, because aerosol cans would explode, and besides higher temperatures than a simple bonfire are needed to break down the substances; they would either remain in the ash or go up in lethal smoke. Neither should they be thrown into the garbage can unless one knows for certain that they will go into an incinerator with temperatures of 1300°F. or above. The best recommendation other than incineration over 1300°F. is to bury pesticide containers in the backyard encased in the heaviest polyethylene bag obtainable and well knotted-or better yet, encased in concrete or asphalt-under at least 2 feet of soil.

Having urged his state and federal governments to protect him from a poisoned environment and having buried any chlorinated hydrocarbons he may own, there is something more the citizen can do. He can stay alert to technological propaganda. Those who would develop and apply technology without sufficient foresight and at any cost are fond of casting their pet project as an irresistible force that we must all go along with, else we will be considered reactionary fossils or butterfly chasers.

Technology has but one justification: to serve man's needs for food, shelter. and clothing so that he can be free to develop his unique assets-mind and spirit. Technology whose end result is an impoverished setting for the human mind-let alone technology that kills people is worthless, a total failure. Man may survive the DDT blunder; he may survive the automobile; he may even survive the invention of the hydrogen bomb. But there must be a limit to narrow escapes, and that limit will be reached soon, barring a change in the present attitude of awe and enthusiasm for every new product of technology.

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INCORPORATED; SIERRA CLUB, WEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL, AND NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, PETITIONERS, TO HONORABLE CLIFFORD M. HARDIN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

PETITION REQUESTING THE SUSPENSION AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF ECONOMIC POISONS CONTAINING DDT

Petitioners request the Secretary of Agriculture to exercise his authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 61 Stat. 163, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 135-135k, to take immediate action to ban the use of DDT. Scientific evidence which has been accumulating at an accelerating rate clearly establishes that DDT is causing irreparable damage to the environment, and present scientific information establishes that DDT is a cancer-causing agent. Many other jurisdictions, in this country and abroad, have banned or severely restricted the uses of DDT. The Federal Government, charged with responsibility for protecting the health and welfare of its citizens and the protection of the nation's natural resources, must take appropriate action to stop the use of DDT. The Department of Agriculture has the power to suspend the registration of DDT and economic poisons containing DDT. The Department should exercise that authority at once.

I. PETITIONERS

Petitioner Environmental Defense Fund, Incorporated (hereinafter “EDF"). is a non-profit, tax-exempt membership corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. EDF is made up of scientists and other citizens dedicated to the protection of man's environment, employing legal action where necessary. EDF has, through litigation, sought to protect the environment from various forms of pollution. Its Scientists Advisory Committee, with more than 200 members, including some of the world's foremost environmental scientists, assures that positions taken are thoroughly supported by scientific evidence. An extensive bibliography on DDT has been compiled by EDF. The articles on DDT which are cited in this petition are listed in Appendix A, attached hereto.1 In its activities, EDF does not concern itself with the pecuniary interests of individuals; rather, it seeks to assure the preservation or restoration of environmental quality on behalf of the general public.

Petitioner Sierra Club is a non-profit membership corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with membership of 80,000. The Sierra Club has been in existence since 1892. Among its stated purposes is the preservation of scenic resources, forests, waters, wildlife and wilderness. In furtherance of its purposes, the Sierra Club engages in many educational activities, including an extensive publishing program and wilderness outing program. In addition, the Sierra Club has participated in several legal actions to preserve the environment and maintains staff offices and membership chapters in all regions of the country.

Petitioner National Audubon Society (hereinafter "Audubon") is a non-profit membership corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. Audubon has as its purposes the protection of wildlife and the natural environment, and the education of man regarding his relationship with and his place witihn the natural environment as an ecological system. Audubon has over 80,000 members and a history of 65 years devoted to these purposes. Audubon owns and operates 40 wildlife refuges, five nature interpretation centers and

Note. Appendices B through E not attached.

Also attached to the copy of the petition filed with the Secretary is a copy of the entire EDF bibliography, with reprints of the articles which are of special relevance.

three adult ecological summer camps, and maintains a lecture program that reaches 200 cities annually. Audubon supports important research on endangered species and publishes papers on ecological research.

Petitioner West Michigan Environmental Action Council (hereinafter "the Environmental Action Council") is an unincoporated association. It membership consists of 25 civic organizations and 300 individual members, primarily in West Michigan. Among hte Environmental Action Council's stated purposes is assisting and coordinating the efforts of individuals and organizations to protect and restore the quality of the environment and to take necessary and appropriate action in furtherance thereof, including the dissemination of information through newsletters, lectures, seminars, participation in official hearings, and preparing and promoting model legislation.

II. DEFINITIONS

"DDT," sometimes called dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is a mixture of substances which has as its major ingredient the chemical compound 1,1,-trichloro2.2-bis-(p-chlorophenyl)ethane. DDT is widely used, in a variety of economic poisons, as a pesticide.

“DDT residues" include DDT; DDE, 1.1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethylene; DDD, also known as TDE, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane; and several other closely related chemical compounds derived from DDT by conversion processes within the environment.

III. OTHER RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS

A. Petition to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Requesting Repeal of Tolerances for DDT

On October 7, 1969, a petition was filed by six individuals and EDF with the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare requesting the repeal of the tolerances for DDT on raw agricultural commodities. The petition, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix B, was based upon evidence that DDT is a carcinogenic or cancer-causing agent. (See, infra, pp. 16-17) Five of the individual petitioners therein are nursing mothers or are expecting to give birth in the very near future. The petition has not been acted upon as of this date.

On this day, said six individuals and EDF have requested the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare immediately to repeal the existing tolerances for DDT on raw agricultural commodities and to set such tolerances at zero. In addition, Secretary Finch has been requested to take all further steps to protect the health and welfare of the nation by banning the use of DDT on the ground that it is a carcinogen or cancer-causing agent. A copy of this petition was attached to the request addressed to the secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. A copy of the request to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare is attached to this petition as Appendix C.

B. Requests for Information on DDT From the Department of Agriculture

The petitioners have made diligent efforts to obtain from the Department of Agriculture documents relating to the registration of DDT and economic poisons containing DDT, and information in the Department's files relating to damage to the environment and to living man caused by DDT and such economic poisons.

On September 18, 1969, a request for access to such information was made by Petitioner Environment Action Council. On October 14, 1969, Petitioner Environmental Action Council renewed its request of September 18, 1969, and sought some related information. On October 24, 1969, Petitioners EDF and Sierra Club joined in the above request of Petitioner Environmental Action Council.

As of this date, the Department of Agriculture has failed to respond to any of these requests and has failed to give Petitioners Environmental Action Council, EDF, or Sierra Club access to any records of the Department of Agriculture. As a result, petitioners are unable to identify with particularity those economic poisons containing DDT that have been registered by the Department of Agriculture. As a further result, petitioners have been unable to determine the extent to which the matters presented herein have been considered by the Department of Agriculture.

C. Recent Actions by Administrative Agencies Against Carcinogenic Substances and Other Substances Posing Substantial Risks to Public Health

1. Cyclamates

A recent precedent was set by Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Robert Finch for immediate administrative action to protect the public where there is evidence that a substance on the market and in common use has carcinogenic qualities. On October 18, 1969, the Secretary acted to remove cyclamates from the market only five days after learning of scientific evidence of their carcinogenicity. His action was based on "recent experiments conducted on laboratory animals which disclosed the presence of malignant bladder tumors after these animals had been subjected to strong dosage levels of cyclamates for long periods." See statements of Secretary Robert H. Finch and Jesse L. Steinfeld, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, October 18, 1969, attached hereto as Appendix D.

Secretary Finch emphasized "in the strongest possible terms that we have no evidence at this point that cyclamates have indeed caused cancer in humans." However, he stated that he felt it "imperative to follow a prudent course in all matters concerning public health." Appendix D, Statement of Secretary Finch, p. 1.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Steinfeld added:

"We can in no way at this time extrapolate the new data from rat experiments to human beings. Nevertheless, we in this Department-whether from a legal or from a scientific point of view-cannot afford to ignore any possibility of the rat data being applicable to the human population. As long as this possibility exists, a prudent concern for the health of the public dictates that precautionary action be taken." Appendix D, Statement of Deputy Assistant Secretary Steinfeld, p. 6.1

2. The Herbicide 2,4,5-T

Dr. Lee A. DuBridge announced this week that the Federal Government will shortly initiate a coordinated series of actions to restrict the use of the herbicide 2,4,5-T. Among other actions, he stated that the Department of Agriculture would cancel the registration of the herbicide for use on food crops unless a basis can be found for establishing a safe legal tolerance before January 1, 1970. Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Press Release, October 29, 1969.

The Department of Agriculture's cancellation of the registration was based on a finding that the herbicide caused deformities in rats and mice. The data relied upon did not establish that the herbicide would have deleterious effects in man. The measure was explained as having a prophylactic purpose: to "assure safety of the public while further experience is being sought." "

D. Actions In Other Jurisdictions

The Michigan Agriculture Commission cancelled, effective June 27, 1969, the registration of DDT except for control of bats, mice and head lice. Cancellation was based on the fact that DDT is injurious to vertebrates and that there are safer alternative modes of pest control; thus DDT violated § 2z (2) (g) of the Michigan Economic Poisons Act. 12 Mich. Stat. Ann § 352 (2) (z) (2) (g). This standard is substantially identical to a parallel provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 61 Stat. 163, as amended, 7 U.S.C. $$ 135-135k (hereinafter "FIFRA”).

On October 29, 1969, the Director of the California Department of Agriculture issued a regulation cancelling the registration of DDT for use in that State on 47 field crops.

On March 27, 1969, Sweden announced a moratorium on the use of DDT and several other chlorinated hydrocarbons.

1 In an action in 1959, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Flemming made it clear that the strong policy against permitting cancer-causing agents in the market applies to pesticides as well as other products. By administrative interpretation, he ordered the seizure of all cranberries found to have residues of the pesticide aminotriazole, which had been found to cause cancer in mice. See CCH, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law Rptr., 54.109.03. See Bell v. Goddard, 366 F. 2d 177, 181 (7th Cir. 1966) (use of food additive barred where it caused cancer in animals notwithstanding small quantities ingested by man.

It was also reported that research evidence showed that the herbicide increased the incidence of cancer. Los Angeles Times, Oct. 30, 1969, pt. I, p. 11.