thousands. Hundreds of these workers die. The misuse of pesticides in homes, gardens and other areas also has caused illness and has destroyed plant and animal life. In an effort to reduce these episodes and accidental poisonings from the misuse of pesticides among all sectors of the population, EPA today inaugurated a free reporting service. Peggy Quarles of EPA's Enforcement Division explains how this program works.

Ms. Quarles: Beginning today, EPA is inviting anyone aware of a misuse of a pesticide that has caused harm to people or the wildlife and plants in the environment to report this on a toll free telephone from anywhere in the country. The number is 800-424-1173. Suppose you know of a worker who has become ill from a pesticide, or suppose someone's pesticide spray has damaged plants in your garden, or safety precautions on a label are not clear-in all cases, please call us.

Mr. Chairman, we are particularly concerned about this kind of a press release because of the erroneous numbers spelled out in the beginning, such as hundreds of thousands of farmworkers are being subjected to misuse every year, and that hundreds of these die.

Senator LEAHY. Have you notified the agency of your concern? Dr. EARLY. We have been in communication with the agency and other people, and we think that this is an appropriate point, to point out that here is a misrepresentation of some numbers.

Senator LEAHY. Have you received a response?

Dr. EARLY. No; we have not.

Senator LEAHY. Well, when you do, would you mind making that response available to the committee?

Dr. EARLY. We would be glad to.

Senator LEAHY. Along with copies of your original inquiry.

Dr. EARLY. I would like to leave a copy of this with some supporting information, Mr. Chairman, for your files, if I may.

Senator LEAHY. The press release will be in the record; it has been read. The remaining material, if it is alright with Senator Dole, will be available for the committee's use.

[The information referred to may be found in the files of the committee.]

Doctor, in your statement you said that pesticide sales last year were over $1.5 billion-a fairly substantial amount. Have you any idea how much of that was profit? Is there a general percentage of profit on pesticide sales?

Dr. EARLY. Maybe Mr. O'Brien might respond to that.

STATEMENT OF C. O. O'BRIEN, PRESIDENT, AGRICULTURAL

DIVISION, CIBA-GEIGY CORP., GREENSBORO, N.C.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I do not think so, sir. And so many of these companies are integrated chemical companies, and even in their annual reports it is hard to determine what the profits attributable to the pesticides are. There are some rules of thumb in the industry-I believe if a manufacturer cannot realize something like a 50 percent gross margin, then the product becomes uninteresting. That is to cover, of course, all of his research on the losers-and as you know, only one out of every 10,000 pesticides we synthesize eventually gets to the market-and all the normal marketing and business costs. So, I think 50 percent gross margin is a rough rule of thumb.

Senator LEAHY. What are the major producing firms? Is there just a small handful of companies that have a lion's share of the market?

Mr. O'BRIEN. I think, like every industry, there are a handful of large companies.

Senator LEAHY. What are they?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Monsanto, Elanco, CIBA-GEIGY, Dow, Union Carbide a handful of others, perhaps. Our association consists of how many members?

Dr. EARLY. I believe there are something like 130 members now. Mr. O'BRIEN. They represent, basically, the industry.

Senator LEAHY. Your association has dues? Is it supported by dues on a pro rata basis for those various companies?

Mr. O'BRIEN. There is a dues assessment each year, based on sales. The basic manufacturers pay one level, and the formulator-distrib utors pay a lower level. We raise enough dues to cover our budget each year.

Senator LEAHY. The preregistration testing and study regulations are excessive-I believe you said that. But you stated also in your testimony that no new legislation is needed in this area.

What action would you say the committee should take? What action should the subcommittee recommend to the Senate Agriculture Committee?

Dr. EARLY. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this committee could give the Environmental Protection Agency some excellent guidance in the way of a strong committee report, if it felt inclined to do that, sir. And instruct them to weigh a little bit more on the benefit side of this equation than they have been.

You heard Secretary Long allude a little bit to that, and I think we would support his contention.

Senator LEAHY. You think it could be done within their power of regulation and not require a change in the basic law?

Dr. EARLY. Yes, we do.

Senator LEAHY. If EPA does deemphasize reregistration studies, do you feel that a stronger system of monitoring is desirable to catch effects that the tests might miss?

Dr. EARLY. I think a strong system of monitoring may be, indeed, desirable and helpful if it done in a proper way. We really have not seen, up to this point in time-one of the things that really disturbs me quite a bit is when I see numbers thrown around, as we see figures like hundreds of thousands of poisonings a year. I think the immediate public reacts to this word "poisoning" rather frighteningly, and I certainly would, too; but when it turns out-you analyze so many of these cases, you find they are not really what you and I call a poisoning.

Senator LEAHY. It is not a case of those weekend gardeners keeling over in these tomato bushes.

Dr. EARLY. That is right.

I think a proper accident reporting system would be, indeed, very appropriate. On several occasions we have attempted to work with EPA in developing a realistic reporting system that is backed up with some facts and remove some of the emotions, I think, that revolved around this.

Senator LEAHY. Do you favor making a reporting system a mandatory one?

Dr. EARLY. I think that bothers me a little bit.

Mr. O'BRIEN. The word "mandatory" disturbs me with regard to anything, Senator, so it is an immediate reaction. Unless, based on the data we have, we are convinced there is a serious problem, then I think farmers are serious, I think the manufacturers, the dealers are serious, and I think with a little public education, that we want to gather some data to really determine whether we have a serious national problem. I think a voluntary program should succeed. I would rather see a voluntary program, and then if it fails, perhaps a mandatory program. Senator LEAHY. What would you consider as a failure of the voluntary program?

Mr. O'BRIEN. We are talking right off the top of our head here, Senator, and we have not had a chance to consider this. I do not know. I think we have county agents, we have farm associations. I think as we gather some data over a period of time, perhaps some selective communities on a voluntary program, and then fed that data back as the results of the program, and does that seem to coincide with the knowledge, the impression, of experts in the area. If it seems way out of line. I think the program has failed.

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Conner, do you want to add anything?

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. CONNER, COUNSEL, NATIONAL
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION

Mr. CONNER. One of the problems that I would see with attempting to make a reporting program mandatory is the very large number of instances where there is a real doubt or dispute as to whether or not a particular case is a pesticide poisoning. About 2 years ago, there was an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on re-entry regulations establishing conditions of time limits during which a person could not re-enter a field that had been treated with pesticides. And during the course of the investigation, there was a great deal of testimony as to the number of instances in which there had been cases of illness by workers and where subsequent investigation raised very substantial doubt as to whether or not those instances, say of nausea, were pesticide-related.

Senator LEAHY. I get your point. Doctor, do you favor the indemnity provisions of the law?

Dr. EARLY. Counsel, would you like to respond to that-or Charlie? Mr. O'BRIEN. Maybe I will try. I think, in a word, yes. I think it's well to remember that the indemnity provision was not urged upon the Congress primarily by the industry. It was urged by the user groups, I believe Farm Bureau and others. We certainly supported that provision, and we do support it today.

Senator LEAILY. Is it not somewhat limited if, for every substantial indemnity, they have to go back and get another authorization for it? Mr. O'BRIEN. First, I think we have not had any cases of that, No. 2, we do not think that it should pose a serious problem. Recall that we are talking about indemnity in case of a suspension. That means the pesticide was registered. It takes us somewhere between 6 and 8 years and $6 million and $8 million to get a pesticide registered. I wish I could show you pictures of the data that we must submit in connection with registration. There is so much data on that compound before EPA puts it on the market that we think the opportunities for

imminent hazard which would require suspension, without permission to go and sell existing stocks in the trade are not going to be very frequent. And I think lately, we think it is healthy for EPA from time to time, to pause and think about the economic impact of some of their

actions.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Senator Dole, do you have a question? Senator DOLE. I do not find any opinion on the bill in that lengthy statement-and the hearing is primarily on S. 1629. You do not even mention the bill in your 33-page statement; are you for it or against it?

Dr. EARLY. I think we would like to respond. This calls for a 2-year extension of the authorized appropriations. I should have gotten to that in my oral, Senator Dole, and I will at this time.

Our association would like to recommend to this committee that the committee recommend that you authorize appropriations for 1year extension, to allow you to get another look, at the end of 1 year, as to how EPA might be keeping in touch with the law, as it was presented to them. So I would like to go on record as recommending it for 1 year.

Senator DOLE. Is that in your statement?

Dr. EARLY. It is in the statement, yes.

Senator DOLE. I did not find it.

Dr. EARLY. If it is not in the statement, Senator, we would like for that to be our official position.

Senator DOLE. I assume you have raised all these concerns with EPA?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes, sir.

Senator DOLE. You do not want them all changed, but you want us to direct EPA to comply with your 33 pages of requests. Is that essentially

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes, sir.

Senator DOLE. You cannot get any resolution of your problem with EPA, so you want the Congress to do it for you. Is that it?

Dr. EARLY. I think we are looking to Congress for some help in this, because we have run into some stone walls in this area with EPA. Senator DOLE. You do not want to change the law?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Not at this time. First of all, we do not even have all the regulations. We think the law is a well-considered compromise. It is not environmentalist's law, farmer's law, industry law. We would like to see it work. We think it is a reasonable law. If EPA will follow what we believe was the intention of Congress in some important

areas

Senator DOLE. I note, early in your statement, you said they did cooperate in one area. I assume they cooperated in others.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes, sir; experimental permits, we think, is an area where they came out with some very unreasonable proposed regulations, then came to so many groups for comments and discussion, and we think the final regulations were a very reasonable compromise, and very liveable. They are much more stringent than we had before, but they are reasonable. We have no big problem with that. We would like to see that kind of behavior continue with some of these other areas. Senator DOLE. Who do you deal with in EPA?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Our problem, I think, Senator, is we deal with the scientists primarily, and the people in the registration group; and I

think generally, we find that we obviously do not agree on a lot of things. They are not an unreasonable group. Our problem is that the policymakers upstairs, who are primarily lawyers, we do not reach effectively; and they constantly, in the areas of guidelines and regulations, and they have the final say-they are making scientific judg ments, and that, I think, is in a nutshell one of our major complaints in dealing with EPA. Our scientists deal with their scientists. Their scientists are not listened to by the agency policymakers.

Senator DOLE. Just for the record, I presume you presented all of this to the EPA. How many times?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Our Association is made up of a variety of committees, and these committees work with the EPA people on proposed regulations whenever they let us; and I must say that they are quite reasonable from time to time in letting us participate, and comment. on proposal.

Senator DOLE. You do not expect that industry should write the regulations?

Mr. O'BRIEN. No, sir, absolutely not. We think, like Senator Bellmon said before, we have to hear from the farmers, we have to hear from industry, and we have to hear from the environmentalists, and hopefully come up with a balance. When you look at Mr. Agee's statement today, we talk about benefit-risks. EPA does not talk about benefit-risks. They talk about risk-benefit-always risk, the emphasis on the risk. We would like to see more emphasis on the benefit, and we think the industry input, the farmer, the user input, should help to strike that balance.

Senator DOLE. You are not suggesting there should not be any emphasis on risk?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Absolutely not, Senator.

Senator DOLE. I do not quite understand the importance of the press release. Is there something in there that I missed?

Mr. O'BRIEN. It is the numbers in the beginning. We think they are unfounded. We are going to ask EPA to substantiate

Senator DOLE. Have you asked them to document?

Dr. EARLY. We have not asked them to document the numbers yet, but we will ask them. We just got it yesterday.

Mr. CONNER. I have sent a letter to EPA today, or am sending it. because I just saw this yesterday, asking that they furnish this under the Freedom of Information Act; the documents upon which these figures are based. I know that they are unfounded, because I mentioned the OSHA proceeding about 2 years ago, in which we went through lengthy hearings ending up in judicial review before the fifth circuit, and the testimony in that proceeding showed that there was not a single confirmed case of death of a farmworker arising from exposure to pesticide residues. And the fifth circuit, in their review, confirmed this conclusion. I think the cross-examination of witnesses. including farmworkers. in the proceeding also recognized that; and for an agency like the Environment Protection Agency to put out a press release stating that hundreds of people die each year from pesticides, I think, is just a shame. It cannot be confirmed.

Senator LEAHY. You are going to supply it for us-not only your request, but every response you get?

1

1 See p. 51