Senator DOLE. I think even better, that we might suggest EPA furnish it for the record. Maybe the committee can make that request. That might have some more impact than industry making that request. Senator LEAHY. Without objection, so ordered. Senator DOLE. Maybe they will be able to document it. Maybe we just missed the last rites notices. In any event, there are a lot of P.R. people around these agencies with nothing else to do, and if they do not put out stuff like that, they will be doing something more damaging. [General laughter.] In any event, I think it would be helpful to us-and I do not want to keep going back to this Montgomery Ward catalog that you have given us but if you would provide a summary I notice you indicate that summary could be made available to those of us who may want to look at it. Dr. EARLY. I can supply you a copy of the statement I used as a summary. Senator DOLE. It would be helpful to us to know, if there are 5 priorities, what they are without studying 33 pages. Dr. EARLY. I think this would bring it out, sir. Senator DOLE. I would rather read a good novel. Have you read the book, Eating May Be Hazardous To Your Health? Dr. EARLY. I am aware of it, but I have not read it. Senator DOLE. I am reading it, but I am still eating. Senator LEAHY. But you are enjoying it less. Senator DOLE. That gets into pesticides. It is written by Gene Veret, FDA. Do you deal with the FDA also? Dr. EARLY. That portion of the Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act that deals with the tolerance setting procedure has been implemented by the administrative EPA. So we do not deal with Food and Drug at this time. We did at one time. Senator DOLE. The only Federal agency you deal with, then, is EPA, and some with USDA ? Dr. EARLY. Yes, sir. Senator DOLE. As you indicated in the statement, you support what we may hear from farm groups, as far as private applicators. Dr. EARLY. We certainly do, sir. We think they have a very real problem in this area. We thought they could address the issue much better than we could. Senator DOLE. But this statement does represent the views of all your members? Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes, sir, it does. [The following information was referred to on p. 50.] U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Mr. JOHN D. CONNER, DEAR MR. CONNER: This letter is in response to your request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act which was received by the Agency on May 20, 1975. This request seeks the inspection and copying of documents which were considered by EPA in preparation of an announcement made on "EPA Radio News Service" for use on Friday, May 16, 1975. That radio announcement contained the statement that "estimates of the numher of farmworkers made ill every year from misuse of pesticide range in the hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of these workers die." The document relied upon as authority for this estimate was the Report of the Senate Committee on Commerce [S. Rep. No. 92-970, 92d Congress, 2d Sess. 27 (1972)], concerning amendments to the bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). That Report notes on page 27 that "testimony before the Migratory Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in 1970 revealed that as many as 800 workers are killed each year and over 800,000 injured as a result of the unwise and improper use of pesticides." The testimony referred to was given by Mr. C. C. Johnson, Chief, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health, HEW, and Dr. Samuel Simmons, Director, Division of Community Studies, Office of Product Safety, FDA, Atlanta, Ga.. in hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor on August 1. 1969. The estimates pertaining to pesticide-induced injuries and deaths may be found in volume 6-A of the Subcommittee's published hearings, entitled Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Powerlessness, at pp. 3186-3195. Persons who are familiar with data regarding human injuries or deaths attributable to pesticide exposure generally agree that the statistics used in this testimony cannot be substantiated. The Agency was in error in using any estimates of annual injuries or deaths associated with the application or other use of pesticides. The crux of the matter, as you well know, is that there are no reliable national statistics. The "EPA Radio News Service" announcement issued on May 21, 1975, makes it clear that the Agency has not embraced these or any other figures as accurately reflecting the scope of the human health and environmental hazard associated with pesticide use. This subsequent announcement noted that "EPA itself acknowledges doubt about the statistical validity of (the figures reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce), and points out that other people have estimated annual illnesses from pesticides as low as 14,000 for all users-not just farm workers." The controversy generated by the Agency's unfortunate use of these statistics in the first radio announcement should not obscure the fundamental aims of the toll-free telephone program. Regulation of pesticide use was an important new thrust of the 1972 FIFRA Amendments. Because of the difficulties inherent in monitoring such a widespread activity as pesticide use, the Agency has initiated a response-oriented program of pesticide enforcement. The toll-free telephone program was established to inform the public of the Agency's interest in enforc ing against pesticide misuse, and to receive reports of pesticide misuse from the public. Where warranted, the Agency will investigate these reports to determine if a pesticide has been misused. The Agency will also analyze such cases to discover possible patterns of misuse that could be prevented in the future by other regulatory action. Sincerely yours, A. E. CONROY, Director, Pesticides Enforcement Division, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, MEMORANDUM Subject: American Farm Bureau Federation Comment on EPA Radio News Service Broadcast. From: Marlin Fitzwater, Assistant Director for Press Services. To: Steffen Plehn, Executive Assistant to the Administrator. Bruce Hawley of the American Farm Bureau Federation has telephoned a complaint about our news broadcast of Friday, May 16, concerning the new tollfree telephone pesticide reporting service (text is attached). Mr. Hawley finds "greatly exaggerated" the estimate that illnesses among workers numbered in the hundreds of thousands each year. This information was provided by the Pesticides Enforcement Division and is based on a quotation from Senate Committee on Commerce Report No. 92970 (1973) on the farm worker protection amendments to the Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act. The quotation reads as follows: ". . . testimony before the Migratory Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in 1970 revealed that as many as 800 workers are killed each year and over 800,000 injured as a result of the unwise and improper use of pesticides." The EPA publication, The Strategy of Pesticide Control, puts deaths from pesticide misuse at 200 a year and illnesses at 14,000 a year. So there is some disagreement over the number of illnesses and deaths related to pesticide misuse. In view of this disagreement, even within our own Agency, we are broadcasting today a new radio message which points out the uncertainty of these figures. We hope this second broadcast will fairly represent the views of the National Farm Bureau and EPA. Copies of both broadcasts are attached. In my view the procedures followed in developing the first radio message were appropriate and responsible. In light of the disagreements later raised, however, we are happy to broadcast the opposing point of view. Attachments. EPA RADIO NEWS, FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1975 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RADIO NEWS DATELINE Estimates of the number of farm workers made ill every year from misuse of pesticides range in the hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of them die.1 Misuse of pesticides in homes, gardens and other areas also has caused illness and destroyed plant and animal life. In an effort to reduce these episodes and accidental poisonings from misuse of pesticides among all sectors of the population-EPA today inaugurated a free reporting service. Peggy Quarles of the Pesticides Enforcement Division explains how it will work: we'll have a 38 second cut, five seconds from now. Beginning today, EPA is inviting anyone aware of a misuse of pesticides that has caused harm to people or to 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 suppose safety precautions on the label are not clear. In all cases such as this, please call us. That number again: 800-424-1173. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RADIO NEWS DATELINE WASHINGTON FOR USE THROUGH WEDNESDAY, MAY 21 Farm field workers constitute a large group exposed to the dangers of pesticide misuse. These workers are in frequent contact with pesticide residues on plant surfaces. The problem is that nobody really knows how many of these workers become ill from this source. EPA, relying on a Senate report of 1972, said Friday that according to some estimates hundreds of thousands of farm workers become ill from pesticide misuse each year. For the last two years, a number of individuals and organizations have criticized these estimates as greatly exaggerated, including representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. EPA itself acknowledges doubt about the statistical validity of these estimates. and points out that other people have estimated annual illnesses from pesticides as low as 14,000 for all users-not just farm workers. Terrell Hunt comments: The wide range of estimates relating to injuries from the use of pesticides underlines the need for an additional means of measuring the problems in this area of environmental hazard. EPA's establishment of a toll-free telephone to receive information from persons aware of or affected by the use of pesticides will serve as a supplement to industry, health service and farm organization reporting systems. For this reason, and to promote pesticide safety and prevent future pesticide exposure, I urge all those with special information about pesticide misuse to call the toll-free number 800-424-1173. [The prepared statement of Dr. Early follows:] STATEMENT OF DR. JACK D. EARLY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION I am Dr. Jack D. Early, Vice President of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA). Our members produce and sell virtually all of the basic 1 Source: Pesticides Enforcement Division. pest control chemicals (active ingredients) and most of the formulated pesticides used for agricultural production in the United States. I have with me Mr. Charles O. O'Brien, CIBA-GEIGY, immediate past chairman of our Board; Mr. Robert E. Hamman, chairman of our Regulatory Committee; and Mr. John D. Conner, our Association counsel. The pesticide industry has always been vitally concerned with the proper implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. We are on record as supporting the objectives of amended FIFRA; i.e., to protect the public health and welfare and the environment by the comprehensive regulation of pesticides and their use. For the last 22 years, since the enactment of the amended Act, we have attempted to work with Environmental Protection Agency and to assist them in promulgating effective regulations which follow the intent of the legislation. However, we must state now, based upon the history of the Agency's actions, that the Environmental Protection Agency has started a trend that will turn our farms back to the insects, weeds, and fungi; that will reduce output and quality; and which will accelerate food shortages. In very few areas has the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations which actually encourage research and further the progress of agricultural production. The Agency's excess concern for absolute security from risks, the high costs and time involved in research and development, and the time lag for obtaining Agency permission to develop and market products, pose substantial obstacles to the industry's efforts to supply the pesticides needed to meet our food and fiber demands. This committee has oversight responsibility to review and appraise the manner in which the amended FIFRA is being implemented and to determine whether the administrative and regulatory policies of the Environmental Protection Agency are in keeping with the approach of this committee to have a balanced regulatory system which accommodates competing goals of obtaining the benefits from the use of pesticides on the one hand, and of securing the protection from undue risks posed by such use on the other. The need for this benefit/risk balance was recognized by the House Committee on Agriculture. It stated: "As the Committee labored through the months of hearings and discussions, one central legislative philosophy developed . . . the theme of a 'search for balance.'” (H. Rept. 92-511, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (1st Sess. (1971) at p. 5.) We believe that this balance has been greatly upset and we agree with the House Committee on Agriculture that: "In summary H.R. 10729 is not a 'farmer's bill.' It's not a 'manufacturer's bill.' Neither is it an 'environmentalist's bill.' It is rather a mixture of each, a composite of all, and the manifestation of a sincere effort by the Committee on Agriculture to meet the need for reasoned progress in this important area of public concern." (id., p. 5) Pesticides sales totaled over 1.5 billion dollars last year, and are estimated to treat hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland engaged in the production of food products for human consumption; and to control diseases and insects which are detrimental to man. Despite this volume of pesticides, most of the chemicals are biodegradable in nature, and/or are short-lived after they have performed their function. The significance of pesticides in increasing agricultural production, the role of research in developing new pesticides, and the interplay between the production of new pesticides and regulatory requirements have recently been considered in a publication of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled "Agricultural Production Efficiency" (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1975). This noted group of authorities recognizes the role of private research in the development of new pesticides and states at page 73: "Research and development is inevitably a high-risk investment, and potential profits on the successes must cover the cost of failures. Will private funds continue to support the discovery and development of new crop and livestock protection chemicals, better and less expensive fertilizers, and other inputs to an efficient agriculture that history has shown can best be done by agribusiness? It is significant that very few agricultural chemicals have been discovered or developed by governmental agencies in any country, including those with centrally planned economies. If the world of the future is to have improved agricultural inputs, it seems imperative that society allow for profitability to private business in research and development investments." On the interplay between research and regulatory restrictions the Academy summarizes: "Restrictions on agricultural chemicals require that extensive evidence be developed to prove that each new chemical will not have harmful side effects. Such regulations are a protection for the health of the general public. But since the cost of testing for possible harmful side effects of one new chemical now exceeds a million dollars, many companies have withdrawn some of their support from the research and development field. The number of new chemicals appearing on the market is decreasing, and their cost is rising precipitously." (id., p. 94) And they finally conclude: "The public needs to recognize that a double-edged regulatory system that outlaws insect and mold fragments on the one hand, yet restricts the development of insecticides and pesticides on the other, is bound to reduce agricultural production efficiency, increase food costs, and reduce the quantities produced." (id., p. 94) It was their conclusion-and to which we agree that a number of pesticides that are effective in controlling insect damage to crops and livestock are being removed from the market, and that fewer new pesticides are being marketed. Proper regulations and proper administration of those regulations are needed to encourage private enterprise in the development of improved products and extended uses, while giving due regard for the safety of the environment, and for the health of the public. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has taken certain regulatory actions, has issued proposed regulations in some instances, and has promulgated final regulations in other instances. In some cases, the Administrator has implemented substantial portions of the Act; in other important respects, no action, proposed or final, has yet been taken. On these portions, the manner in which the Act will be enforced is an unknown quantity. On a number of significant issues, it is the consensus of our members that the proposed or final actions of the Environmental Protection Agency are at variance either with the statute as enacted by Congress, or with the intent expressed by Congress, or with both. The Agency is attempting to obtain by regulation what Congress did not see fit to give by legislation. In many areas the Congressional intent underlying the Act has not been clarified and considerable discretion has been delegated to the Agency. As a result, the pronouncements of the Agency have been dominated by a trend to totally disregard scientific and practical considerations in favor of an overlegalistic approach to the agricultural industry. The present goal of the Environmental Protection Agency, as evidenced in its public pronouncements, would appear to seek elimination of all pesticides, rather than to regulate their proper uses and exposures to the environment. The Agency appears to operate on the presumption that all pesticides are illegal. Agency actions would, in effect, outlaw pesticides in a search for obsolute security and administrative convenience which is inappropriate in this area. It would appear that the basic policy decisions of EPA on pesticides are governed by lawyers and ecologists who have little or no experience with agricultural problems, and that the input of farmers and scientists is being disregarded or ignored. EPA has stated as part of its principles of decision making that: "The views of the agricultural community, industry, academia, other Federal agenices, State agencies, environmentalists, and the public at large are of utmost concern. EPA believes that viable regulations and policies which are in harmony with reality can only be achieved by the active participation of all interested parties." (EPA Statement on Federal Regulation of Pesticides, 1975, p. 4.) Development of Sec. 5 regulations for Experimental Use Permits is an example as to how EPA effectively implemented this part of its principles. Regulations pertaining to experimental permits were to have been promulgated within one year after the passage of the Act, or by October 21, 1973. Draft proposals were distributed to interested parties for comment, to the credit of EPA. On March 27, 1974, proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register inviting comments within 30 days. The proposed regulations were so impractical and unworkable from the standpoint of gathering experimental data that EPA was deluged with comments, As a result an informal public meeting was held on August 27, 1974 to receive comments on a revised draft of the published proposals distributed prior to the meeting. Many constructive and practical changes were included. On April 30, 1975, final regulations on Experimental Use Permits were published in the Federal Register. It appears that these regulations are workable. In this case, EPA did listen and the intent of amended FIFRA can be carried |