CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

STATEMENT OF ROGER BLOBAUM

I am Roger Blobaum, director of the Americans for Safe Food Project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. CSPI is a nonprofit organization that has 250,000 members nationwide and advocates improved health and nutrition policies. We appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony relating to FY 1992 funding for sustainable agriculture research and extension programs. Our statement begins with a general recommendation covering all these programs. Its main emphasis, however, is on the critical need for adequate funding for the newly-authorized National Organic Standards Board.

CSPI recommends adoption of the FY 1992 budget request for research and extension programs outlined in the attached document. We supported these sustainable agriculture programs during consideration of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and feel they are essential to continue the transition underway in American agriculture. We participate actively in the coalition that developed this consolidated funding request and urge its adoption.

We want to call special attention to the request for firstyear funding for the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) authorized by Sec. 2119. The Administration is now supporting a $120,000 spending level for the board and for implementation of the newly-authorized organic standards program in FY 1992.

The coalition request of $200,000 included in the attached document for the NOSB was developed early in February before the broad outline of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's implementation plan became available. More recent discussions of the work required suggests $120,000 falls far short of what is needed and that an increase to $200,000 would still be insufficient to maintain the effort needed to complete the implementation process by the September, 1993, deadline. result, we urge you to approve $300,000 for this purpose in FY 1992.

As a

It is important to emphasize that the NOSB is directed to carry out a much broader range of activities than other agricultural advisory committees and to complete them in a relatively brief time period. This unique board will work closely with the Secretary in developing an entirely new national program at USDA and making it operational at the state and local levels.

Like other advisory committees, it is directed by law to advise the Secretary regarding implementation of a USDA program. But unlike others, it also has statutory responsibilities that include scientific review and evaluation of a long list of production and processing inputs and the development of rules required to make the national program operational. Statutory responsibilities include proposing a national list of approved and prohibited substances, convening technical advisory panels to conduct scientific evaluation of inputs, reviewing currently-used botanical pesticides to determine whether any should be restricted or prohibited, and advising the Secretary concerning testing for residues from unavoidable environmental contamination.

Much of the work involved in developing national organic standards will be based on years of experience in programs operated by state departments of agriculture and established

certification entities. Little work has been done on livestock and processing standards, however, and this responsibility was delegated by law to the NOSB. We believe Congress took appropriate action in charging the NOSB with an unusual number of statutory and other responsibilities. However, in order for the board to be able to carry these responsibilities in the 2-year period allowed, it is critical to ensure that adequate funding is provided.

It seems obvious that the members of this unpaid board will have to be much more active than other USDA advisory committees. It is estimated that the board's work will require at least six annual working sessions lasting two or three days. Adequate financial support is also needed for the technical advisory panels authorized. Finally, it is essential to provide the Agricultural Marketing Service, the lead agency, with sufficient staff to coordinate this work and make certain it is completed on time.

USDA has indicated it is prepared to fully implement this important new program and to complete it in time to meet the statutory deadlines. This is a difficult and complex challenge for an agency that has no first-hand experience with organic standards. We urge you to provide $300,000 for NOSB support to ensure fully and timely completion of the implementation effort.

[CLERK'S NOTE.--See referenced document on page 425.]

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. BAKER, PRESIDENT

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its resources. CBF has offices in Annapolis, MD, Richmond, VA, and Harrisburg, PA, and operates an agricultural research and demonstration farm in Prince George's County, MD. CBF is committed to influencing actions that will ensure protection of the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and the living resources that are dependent upon these vital natural resources.

To this end, we firmly believe that research, development, and technical information efforts should be accelerated on the practical and efficacious use of biologically based methods of pest control. Critical needs exist for control of insects in wooded areas, of insects and plant diseases on food crops, and of weeds on both crop and non-crop lands.

Specifically, we are concerned about the increased infestations by the gypsy moth in the Bay region and the efforts to control its destruction. Widespread application of chemical pesticides poses a potential threat to the Bay. As well, widespread loss of hardwood trees could be an environmental disaster. Effective pest controls are needed, but the controls need to minimize adverse impacts on the Bay. Biological methods of pest control show great promise, particularly in and near wetlands, in wilderness areas, on recreational lands, and in highly populated residential areas.

We are further concerned about the potential for agricultural and homeowner use of pesticides to contaminate our region's ground and surface waters. Alternative pest control strategies are desperately needed in order to reduce the use of pesticides and to limit their potential to pollute groundwater and the Bay. Biological controls offer some real hope that farmers and homeowners will have non-chemical choices in their battle against pests.

The time has come for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to accelerate its efforts to develop biological pest controls. Therefore, ARS should be directed to strengthen its efforts. A number of related activities are now underway at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), but there are a number of serious gaps.

Last year, we requested an annual increased appropriation of $2.40 million to fill gaps at BARC. Although we are pleased that Congress increased the annual appropriation for gypsy moth research by $250,000, most of the gaps we identified still exist. In addition, the public perception of risks associated with pesticide residues in food continues to be a major concern. Therefore, an annual increase in appropriations of $2.15 million is requested to accelerate research on biologically based methods of pest control at BARC. Specifically, research should be accelerated on the practical use of microbial agents, parasites, predators, and naturally occurring chemicals to control pests. Research on these control tactics should be integrated into a systems evaluation of pest and pesticide monitoring data and development research to improve pest monitoring, to refine treatment thresholds, and to develop practical decision support systems. The pest and pesticide monitoring evaluation efforts should be undertaken cooperatively with State Departments of Agriculture, the Agricultural Marketing Service and Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service. Further, a technical

information pilot project conducted in cooperation with the National Agricultural Library and/or a land-grant university should be included.

An increase in appropriations for the following research activities is requested:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Management systems for the gypsy moth in non-forest
environments

Microbial agents, parasites, predators, and behaviormodifying chemicals to control insects on vegetable crops

Beneficial fungi and cultural methods to control plant diseases on horticultural crops

(4) Biologically based methods of weed control

(5) Evaluation, prevention, and correction of excessive
pesticide residues where they exist in food

We believe that these requests are consistent with the Administration's proposed budget. However, we are concerned that the management, coordination, and integration of various program activities must be strengthened if biologically based methods of pest control are to have a major impact. Therefore, we urge that the requested increases be utilized as part of a deliberately managed and closely coordinated effort at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center specifically designed to insure that an effective research, development, and implementation program is developed and maintained.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation appreciates having this opportunity to present our views on this important subject. We hope that you will consider favorably our input.

CHILDREN'S NUTRITION RESEARCH CENTER AND BAYLOR
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

STATEMENT OF BUFORD L. NICHOLS, JR., DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S NUTRITION RESEARCH CENTER AND D. GAYLE MCNUTT, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

It is a privilege to submit our testimony to the Subcommittee on behalf of the Children's Nutrition Research Center (CNRC). The ongoing recognition by this Subcommittee of the importance of the work of the CNRC and the support you have given its programs, have provided a solid foundation for the Center's future.

As you know, this national center has occupied its new building and has been operating with great success at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas for the past two and one half years. However, the core laboratory of the CNRC, the Metabolic Research Unit, has not yet been provided with the operating funds necessary to begin work that is of extreme importance to the health of future generations and our nation's agricultural industry.

For example, this unique national center is prepared to begin a major research undertaking to determine nutritional standards during pregnancy. The studies are expected to have a major impact in the nation's effort to reduce the incidence of premature and low birth-weight babies, and in turn, infant mortality.

To illustrate the importance of this effort, the National Institute of Medicine's Division of Health Promotion and Disease prevention estimates that if the U.S. incidence of low birth weight babies can be reduced from 11.5 percent to 9 percent of total deliveries, medical costs would be reduced by $30 million a year and probably another $40 million in savings would result from shorter hospital stays.

The Metabolic Research Unit is ready for activation in the CNRC's new $55 million building. All support facilities for the unit are in place within the present budget of $10.7 million but an additional $4 million will be required to operate the unit itself, which is central to the Center's mission as defined by Congress.

One other key element of the CNRC that remains unfunded is the Food Bioavailability Unit, which will employ a team of agricultural scientists to develop grains and vegetables labeled with non-radioactive tracers to measure the body's use of selected food elements. An annual appropriation of $2 million is needed to operate this unit.

To summarize, the Fiscal Year 1992 request is as follows:

The Children's Nutrition Research Center is the nation's only federal facility dedicated to investigating the food needs that ensure health in pregnant and nursing women, and in children from conception through adolescence.