attributed to Dr. Simmons was taken out of context, and the grossly inaccurate figures were not supported by any factual basis and were arrived at through a series of projections based upon the assumption that pesticide mortality and morbidity cases are inadequately reported. In fact, the interrogator rather than Dr. Simmons made the projections and fabricated the figures.

While there are no accurate national figures relating to mortality and morbidity from pesticides in the United States, there are some reports on pesticide mortality and morbidity data on both national and local levels. The reports on a national level are obtained primarily through the National Clearinghouse for Poison Control Centers. Data obtained from this source for 1970 indicate the type of deaths and hospitalization from all causes including those resulting from pesticides and allow the comparison of these figures with those of other commonly available products.

The data show that deaths and injuries resulting from pesticides are primarily attributed to pesticides found within the home environment and include deaths resulting from suicides, accidents (including oral, dermal and inhalation exposure), misuse, etc. Only a small percentage are attributed to occupational

exposure.

The National Clearinghouse for Poison Control Centers recognizes that their tabulations are not to be construed as the total number of cases occurring annually, but they add that for their tabulations, "there is no reason to believe that there is any bias in the types of products reported."

In the 1970 report, the National Clearinghouse listed a total of 5,771 individual pesticide poison reports. These reports consisted of 3,627 telephone inquiries and 2,144 treated cases submitted by 432 centers in 49 states. These figures show that pesticides accounted for 5 percent of all cases reported. This compared with 12 percent for cleaning and polishing agents, 56 percent for medicines (of which aspirin was responsible for 19.6 percent of the total for medicines), 5 percent for cosmetics, 4.4 percent for turpentine, paint, etc., and 4.2 percent for incidents arising from vegetation.

Information from California is particularly pertinent to deaths or accidents attributable to the agricultural use of pesticides since approximately 20 percent of all pesticides used in the United States for agricultural purposes are used in California.

Reporting of pesticide deaths or injuries by physicians is mandatory in California. The most recent publication available from the state on this matter was prepared by the Department of Public Health, Bureau of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology, and is entitled, "Occupational Disease in California Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals, 1970". In relation to mortality, the following excerpts from that publication is pertinent: "Since 1951, there have been 36 occupational fatalities attributed to agricultural chemicals [including fertilizers]. In this same period, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals were implicated in the accidental deaths of 93 children and 38 adults in a nonwork situation [including accidents, suicides, misuse]. There were no occupational deaths in 1970 only the fourth year in the last two decades free of such deaths." [Emphasis and material in black brackets added.]

Illnesses to farmworkers have been attributed to pesticide exposure as workers contact residues on foliage during harvest. This is a problem related to limited local conditions, in the view of investigators, and is generally unique to Southern California because of dusty, dry conditions. The semi-arid conditions which exist make it extremely difficult for applicators to wear impervious clothing and respirators and farmworkers often work without protective clothing. In terms of this type of illness, the Department of Health reported:

"There were 1,493 reports of occupational disease attributed to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals in 1970 [including fertilizers]. Between 1969 and 1970 the number of cases [excluding reports of eye conditions and burns] increased 32 percent.

"The increased number of reports reflects in part a series of pesticide poisoning outbreaks in 1970 among citrus pickers and other farm laborers in the San Joaquin Valley. Residues of several organophosphorus compounds on foliage were responsible.

"Worker safety time intervals were put into effect by the California Department of Agriculture in June 1971 to reduce the exposure of farmworkers to residues of hazardous pesticides on foliage . . . Crops and pesticides covered by the regulations were those that mainly caused worker illness in 1970 and earlier poisoning outbreaks or that might do so. During 1971, only one episode

was reported of illness attributable to pesticide residues on foliage which affected several field workers in a crew." [Emphasis and material in black brackets added.]

As indicated by the above, there may exist local or regional situations with respect to particular pesticides and particular crops. This does not, however, support the assertion that there is a grave danger.

Other than the earlier reports of illnesses reported to have occurred from contact with foliage of pesticide-treated crops in California, reports of such illnesses in other regions of the United States in the last few years, and in earlier years, have been extremely sparse. It would seem that illness from exposure to pesticide-treated crops has been a local problem confined almost entirely to California citrus crops, and the extent of this problem has been alleviated by state reentry regulations.

Reports from other areas of the United States do not support the contention that a massive threat exists. A study in South Carolina was reported in the publication "Industrial Medicine and Surgery", Volume 41, No. 5., in which 120 workers with mixed occupational exposures to pesticides averaging 12 years were compared with a control group. The study covered a 4-year period and concluded that, "Four years of intensive study of 120 workers occupationally exposed to a wide spectrum of pesticides indicate that these subjects have no greater incidence of morbidity or mortality than a control population."

Allegations by a migrant legal services organization in the Goshen, New York area that 60 per cent of the migrant workers were being poisoned by insecticides used in the celery and lettuce fields were investigated and studied by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).* Results from the July, 1972 study indicate that no significant health hazard was posed by exposure to the insecticide materials [90% organophosphates; 10% carbamates] in the fields. However, it was stated that concern for protective clothes and personal hygiene measures should be stressed. There was no significant correlation between the symptoms reported by farmworkers and abnormal cholinesterase levels.

Dr. Wayland J. Hayes states in an affidavit, [F]rom 1950 through 1961, the number of deaths caused by pesticides varied from 100 to 152, and showed no general trend toward increase or decrease. There is no evidence at this time that suggests that the annual number of deaths caused by pesticides since 1962 has changed to any significant extent from the numbers (100–152 per year) for the period 1950-1961." Further he states, "It is my opinion that there is no basis in fact for the statement that there have been 800 deaths and 80,000 injuries per year attributable to pesticides. Based upon actual reports and projections, the number of accidental deaths from pesticides is less than 200 per year. This figure does not include deaths officially recognized as suicides and murders. To my knowledge, there have been no deaths reported attributable to entry into pesticide treated fields by farmworkers during harvesting."

Based upon the foregoing, and review of the transcript of the testimony of Dr. Simmons (Exhibit 1), it is very clear that the figure of 800 deaths and 80,000 injuries alleged to be caused by pesticides is a fabrication and as such does not reflect the true situation pertaining to the use of pesticide materials in agriculture in the United States.

Senator LEAHY. Next on the witness list is John Kirkpatrick, director of the division of agricultural chemistry at the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, Montgomery, Ala. I know that with you testifying, Senator Allen wanted to be here. Senator Allen is also on the Rules Committee of the Senate. The Rules Committee has been extraordinarily busy these past few months, because of a contested election in the State of New Hampshire. There are those of us who think Senator Allen has the ability to be in four or five places at once. He is a hard-working Member. That is why he is not here.

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 72-46. Hazard Evaluation Services Branch, Division of Technical Services, NIOSH (HEW), Cincinnati, Ohio, February, 1973.

• W. J. Hayes, Jr., M.D., Ph. D., Schol of Medicine, Vanderbilt University.

Affidavit filed in Answer of Intervenor-Defendant, Civil Action No. 502-73, U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. (Charles Thomas, et al. v. Peter Brennan et al.).

54-495-75—6

STATEMENT OF JOHN KIRKPATRICK, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES, MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you indicated, I am employed by the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries as a director of the division of agricultural chemistry. In this capacity, one of my responsibilities is the enforcement of Alabama's pesticide laws regulating pesticide sale and use. The statement that I shall present was developed only yesterday, when I received the invitation to appear at the committee hearings. So late Friday, at the time I was on my way back from a short visit in Washington-so I had only yesterday to prepare. Thus, my statement is not as refined as I would like to have it, nor is it in presentable copies for the presentation to the committee; and for the short side of it, I do apologize.

We do, however, greatly appreciate the opportunity for expressing some of the concerns which we in the Department of Agriculture and Industries have concerning the FEPCA amendments to FIFRA. Although we are not at all enamored of the FEPCA amendments, the fact remains it is law, and we in Alabama will do our best to live with the statute.

Our concerns center around the implementation of the FEPCA amendments and the problems which we foresee resulting from the enforcement of the statute. We are concerned about the continued emphasis on cancellation of agricultural pesticides, which is resulting in a reduced inventory of good compounds available to Alabama agriculture for the production of food and fiber. We are concerned about the implications of the certification of private applicators, and EPA's tendency to insist on written examinations for certification of private applicators before full certification can be realized. We are concerned about the legalistic approaches which EPA is taking toward implementation of the FEPCA amendments, and the consequences which it will have on the use of pesticides in the future. We are concerned that those individuals in the EPA who are responsible for the development and enforcement of regulations under FEPCA do not have a working knowledge, or even a nodding acquaintance, with the agricultural activities as they actually exist in our State. Finally, we are concerned about the inability of EPA to publish a complete list of those pesticides which will be declared as "Restricted Use".

In a seemingly very short time, the farmers in Alabama have been deprived of the use of some very useful pesticide compounds; DDT, aldrin, and dieldrin. Moreover, they are currently threatened with the possible cancellation of two other useful compounds, heptachlor and chlordane. Cancellation of a pesticide forces farmers to turn to other compounds for protection of their investments.

After the cancellation of DDT, Alabama cotton farmers were forced to find such a substitute compound. Some farmers turned to methyl parathion, as EPA had anticipated. However, most of the farmers in the State turned to endrin and endrin/methyl parathion combinations, to protect their crops. Because they were forced to this compound endrin, Alabama was plagued with economic loss due to fish kills in private ponds and public waters.

The recent cancellation of dieldrin and aldrin for agricultural uses will result in farmers in our State shifting to other chemical compounds with yet-to-be-realized consequences. The point is, when you deprive the farmer of the use of one compound, he turns to other compounds in his constant struggle to protect his investment against the pests which would seek to destroy it. Additionally, the farmer's ability to cope with the pest problem has diminished, because of the reduced pesticide arsenal.

One of the biggest problems confronting each State, not only our own, is the certification of private applicators to allow them to purchase and use restricted use pesticides. There is, to our mind, a current unwritten attitude on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency to look upon the certification of private applicators as being based on the successful completion of a training program and written examination.

On March 27, the Alabama Department of Agriculture received a draft from the Environmental Protection Agency outlining acceptable methods of private applicator certification. Page 2 of that draft was a discussion of the types of certification that would be acceptable, and a statement which I would like to quote.

A State may decide to implement complete training and/or testing programs and full certification programs prior to October 21, 1976, when certification becomes effective. Training and written testing area, of course, not mandatoryit is the determination of competency and the certification process that is mandated by the act and required by EPA standards. Although full certification is most desirable, and probably less expensive in the long run, it may be necessary for some States to employ interim measures to assure the availability of restricted use products to their private applicators for a period after certification goes into effect.

The draft then goes on to enumerate the various alternative measures that would be acceptable for private applicator certification.

Subsequent to the issuance of this draft, I had occasion to discuss the certification of private applicators with some members of the operations division of the Environmental Protection Agency. I discussed in detail the program for private applicator certification that the State of Alabama currently employs. Basically, our program is an educational one, carried out through the State extension service. The comments from individuals in the operations division of EPA with whom I discussed our procedures said, well, this sounds fine; but could you put in a few questions for the applicant to respond to, so that you would have something in writing as to his competency? This conversation, and the draft to which I refer, leads me to believe that EPA is determined that "full certification" means written examination before certification.

The problem in this area of private applicator certification hinges on who is going to determine when the private applicator is competent to use restricted pesticides and by what method will that determination be made. It is my judgment that the best individual to determine and evaluate the competence of the private applicator, the farmer, are those professional persons closest to him, and I refer to the county agent where the private applicator works and lives. I personally would rather have in the field an individual who has use experience behind him and who has demonstrated through agricultural employment and

endeavor that he knows how to use pesticides, rather than an individual who has simply regurgitated some answers to satisfy a written examination.

The training and testing of all farmers in the State of Alabama would be a mammoth undertaking. Not only is it a mammoth undertaking in terms of money and manpower on the part of our State agency, for which we are not equipped at the present time, but it is also a mammoth undertaking when evaluated in terms of time, effort, and uncertainty on the part of the farmers themselves. And I am not at present prepared to say the cost is justified. I would ask the Congress to specifically instruct the Environmental Protection Agency that the determination of competency and the means of determining this competency be left to the State.

By the way, we have suggested this to them several times over the last 2 years, and at this point, we have done so to no avail.

Senator DOLE. What are you suggesting the State is going to do then?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I suggest the States-we agree that some type of certification would be necessary as mandated by the FEPCA; however, it is our opinion that each State should be left to determine how that competency would be determined and allow the States to address that problem themselves.

Senator DOLE. What do you suggest in Alabama?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. We already have a program that we feel is working for our State. We require that farmers go to their county agent before they purchase and use compounds which we have already identified as restricted use pesticides go to the county agent with an application showing those products that he wishes to use. The county agent provides the individual with additional educational information on the particular compound.

Then that application is forwarded to the Department of Agriculture, and a permit is issued for purchasing and using these restricted compounds for a period of 3 years. And at the end of 3 years, the farmer must go through this procedure again to be recertified.

Senator DOLE. That is an operation in effect now?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. It has been in operation for 2 years, quite successful.

Senator DOLE. You cannot buy it without the permit?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. You cannot buy it without the permit. We control our dealers by licensing dealers who sell restricted pesticides.

Senator DOLE. A private applicator could not buy a large amount and transfer it; is that provided for?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Of course that is a possibility, and I am sure it is done. I am not naive enough to think everyone is going to fall in line right away, but the incidence of that we feel we can control through our dealers, by checking their records. If they are violating a law that addresses them, we would remove their license, and they are no longer allowed to sell restricted-use pesticides.

Senator DOLE. I assume you know fairly accurately how many use compounds. Do you know how many have gone to the county agents? What percent of your farmers are complying with the program?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. The last census identified some 70,000 farmers in our State. I do not have near that number registered. We have per