There will be improvements in nonphosphate products' safety. We certainly hope that the Eldib development will make a contribution in this direction.

Housewives are becoming ecologically conscious. They want to do their share. Let us not confuse them by playing down the fact that phosphates pollute.

LABELING BY PHOSPHATE AND ANY HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS IS

ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL

I urged the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate a rule which requires detergent manufacturers to list the amount of the phosphate ingredient in their detergent, the amount of the sodium metasilicate, and the amount of any other ingredient that the Food and Drug Administration determines to be hazardous.

I have made these recommendations to FTC during my testimony before that Commission on April 27, 1971. On June 16, 1971, I presented to FTC an actual design of a box of detergent which I am submitting here for the record.

Having worked in the field of controlling pollution from detergents for the past 10 years I am pleased to give you my views on Senate bill S. 2553 introduced by Senator Griffin on September 20, 1971, Senate bill S. 1478 introduced by Senator Hart (for Senator Magnuson by request) on April 1, 1971, and the amendment to S. 1478 as proposed by Senator Spong.

The bill:

COMMENTS ON S. 2553

(1) Limits the amount of phosphorus in detergents to 8.7 percent.

(2) Authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make exceptions in geographical areas where no significant pollution threat would be imposed.

(3) Provides for Federal preemption of incompatible State or local law.

On the question of 8.7 percent phosphorus please let me tell you that

(1) 8.7 percent phosphorus means 35 percent sodium tripolyphosphate; in other words, for every pound of detergent it will be 35 pounds of sodium tripolyphosphate.

(2) No one sells, buys, or uses any phosphate compound in the detergent on the basis of its phosphorus content.

(3) The only meaningful practical gage is setting limits on the tripolyphosphate content in household power laundry detergent.

The leading brands of powder household laundry detergents on the market contain between 38.5 to 49.6 percent by weight of sodium tripolyphosphates or the equivalent of 9.6 to 12.4 percent phosphorus-if you want to settle for 8.7 percent phosphorus as an upper limit, remember that means that any product which contains 35 percent sodium tripolyphosphates or less would be exempt from the law. If this bill is passed, please also remember you have succeeded only in reducing the phosphate content of detergents by about 10 percent on the average

71-179 O 72 pt. 2 - 2

and 20 percent at the most. If this is the only reduction to be achieved, then I believe it means very, very little progress to arrest eutrophication can be expected.

Senator Griffin said that it will be 5 years or longer before treatment plants to remove phosphates are constructed in Detroit and other cities. My guess is that this may be an optimistic time schedule. But one thing I am sure of-we cannot continue to pollute for 5 years.

Since all the major phosphate detergent manufacturers are on record as searching for phosphate replacements, we have full confidence that their efforts will prove successful. Accordingly, I propose that section 3 (a) of S. 2553 be amended to read as follows:

(1) after January 1, 1972, the sale or distribution in the United States of cleansers and detergents for all household and industrial uses containing phosphates calculated as sodium tripolyphosphates in excess of 35 percent is prohibited.

(2) after January 1, 1973, the sale or distribution in the United States of cleansers and detergents for all household and industrial uses containing phosphates calculated as sodium tripolyphosphate in excess of 20 percent is prohibited.

(3) after January 1, 1974, the sale or distribution in the United States of cleansers and detergents for all household and industrial uses containing prosphates calculated as sodium tripolyphosphate in excess of 0.5 percent is prohibited.

Regarding EPA making exceptions to phosphates reduction in certain geographical area, the big detergent makers have repeatedly stated that the locations of their manufacturing plants make utterly impractical the distribution of detergents custom made for different phosphate contents.

Regarding the provision for Federal preemption of incompatible State or local laws, I do not believe that EPA would want to promulgate rules against the needs of the respective States and municipalities which may be confronted with local water supplies threatened by algae feeding on phosphates from detergents.

COMMENTS ON S. 1478 AND THE AMENDMENT

These bills call for amending the Federal Hazardous Substance Act by inserting before section I of such act:

"Title I-Hazardous Consumer Products."

Why then is the emphasis directed to testing new chemical substances for danger to human health or the environment? The emphasis should be directed to testing the compounded product, which the consumer actually buys and uses. It appears to me at this point in time that the bills are well founded but that the manufacturer of the consumer product should have the ultimate responsibility for the safety of his product.

In the case of detergents, the detergent manufacturer should stand behind his product.

In closing, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you and I shall be pleased to answer any questions now and in the future.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Dr. Eldib, for your testi

mony.

It is my understanding that the polyelectrolyte substitute that you have developed and described to us has been criticized as not being biodegradable and that we may be creating another DDT through the use of this product. Yet on page 5 of your statement you say that biodegradability is a property of your product. In layman's terms, could you explain your basis for claiming biodegradability and give us an idea of how your product compares with the other detergent builders in use or proposed for use?

Dr. ELDIB. All right, sir. First of all, polyelectrolytes, as I explained, are a family of compounds. Some of them are not biodegradable, but others are. So it depends upon, as a scientist, it depends upon, does one want to solve a problem or does one not want to solve a problem? If a scientist wants to solve a problem he works on it enough to find where are the avenues of solution, and the avenues of solution are to make small molecules.

Now, what we have done is, at the level where we expect polyelectrolytes in sewage, we have carried on activated sludge tests in the laboratory. These tests simulate the sewage treatment process. And we found that under these tests, as we add polyelectrolytes every day, they do not build up.

Under these conditions, we can conclude that, taking into consideration the concentrations of polyelectrolytes in the type of detergents we are talking about and the type of polyelectrolytes which we recommend, that the polyelectrolytes would not build up in the sewage

treatment waters.

Senator SPONG. One criticism of no-phosphate detergents is that they simply do not work as well as phosphate-based detergents and thus the consumer will not accept these detergents. In fairness, there have been studies that do indicate that no-phosphate detergents do work well. Have you an assessment of how well your polyelectrolyte product works in relation to other products currently in use?

Dr. ELDIB. Yes. First of all, I want to state one position, that we are not only talking about polyelectrolyte detergents; we are talking about detergents which contain substitutes for phosphates and that these substitutes are made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Under his broad definition comes the polyelectrolytes, comes the citric acid, and comes a number of other alternatives.

So we are not wed to polyelectrolytes.

On the question of performance, we have made a large number of tests where we compounded polyelectrolytes in typical detergent formulations, and we have tested these detergent formulations using standard soil cloth. The cloth is soiled with different types of soils. We have washed these soiled cloths of different compositions, different fibers, under different washing conditions, and with our formulations-I cannot speak about somebody who does not know how to formulate polyelectrolytes; I cannot speak for somebody who uses other materials-we have succeeded in two things: one, overcoming the alkalinity problem. We do not use a caustic formulation; two, we have compared the performance of these detergents with the nationally advertised phosphate detergents, and on the average they are just as good.

Senator SPONG. In your statement you advise housewives to use low-phosphate or nonphosphate detergents, to read the "caution" labels carefully, and to follow directions. Some of this advice seems about 180 degrees away from the position the administration has taken, as the Surgeon General has now recommended that phosphates be used. Obviously you disagree with Dr. Steinfeld. Would you care to elaborate on your differences, particularly on the effectiveness of cautionary labels to protect small children from caustic detergents?

Dr. ELDIB. Well, I think that the Surgeon General has certainly a very good point-I have not talked to him, I do not know, I am just giving you my opinion here has a very good point about children, and they do not read cautionary labels. This is a problem, and I have been thinking about it. If a family has a lot of children and they are all small and they are running around and they are getting into the laundry detergents, then they should not buy nonphosphate detergents if they have such labels.

But the other question is, I have read in the newspapers, not scientific accounts, of phosphate detergents as well, and I recall that many of the phosphate detergents in the assessment of the Food and Drug Administration have and require cautionary labels. So you cannot just say, well, all nonphosphate detergents are no good, because if you say that you should say in the same breath, well, how about the other phosphate detergents tested by the Food and Drug Administration? What would the housewife use? If we are going to put labels on the phophate detergents and labels on the nonphosphate detergents, she cannot wash.

As I said once before, I hope our developments will solve the problem and will make the improvements in the nonphosphate detergents. Sir, what I am saying today was stated here 2 years ago before the House of Representatives Rules Committee.

Senator SPONG. Dr. Eldib, you have painted a glowing picture of the materials you have developed as phosphate substitutes, and I suppose an obvious last question should be: why have not the detergent companies accepted your product and marketed it?

Dr. ELDIB. Well, let's put it this way, the detergent companies do their own thing, and in the scientific field there is a factor called NIH. It means not invented here. That just shuts out everybody else who comes in with an idea. I know that the research director of a big company told me, you are threatening my job. He said I cannot go to my boss who has been paying me thousands of dollars every year for the last 25 years and tell him, listen, here is Eldib from the outside coming here telling us what to do.

You have to be a scientist to appreciate that, but this is a very important factor. It is a human factor.

Senator SPONG. There is some similarity with politicians there. Dr. ELDIB. Is there?

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much.

Senator Hatfield.

Senator HATFIELD. No questions.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much for your testimony.
The next witness is Dr. Farley Fisher.

Dr. Fisher.

STATEMENT OF DR. FARLEY FISHER, OF THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen: My name is Farley Fisher and I am a chemist associated with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a private, Washington based, scientific group concerned with consumer and environmental affairs. I hold a Ph. D. from the University of Illinois and have served on the faculties of Texas A. & M. University and of Bucknell University. I am presently directing a study of household chemicals, including detergents, which was started last spring.

I wish to thank you for the invitation to present some of my views on the detergent problem to you.

In my statement, I will attempt to make three major points: (1) manufacturers should shoulder greater responsibility for demonstrating the safety of new or existing products; (2) for an environmental protection act to be effective, its enforcement must be obligatory, not discretionary with the administration; and (3) since environmental conditions vary around the Nation, we must have the flexibility to impose regional as well as national restrictions on chemicals, and must permit States and localities to deal with situations too restricted geographically to warrant attention by the Federal Government.

The statement and press conference held by administration officials on September 15 was unnecessarily alarmist and defeatist. There is little quarrel with the substantive parts of the announcement, namely a continuation of the Surgeon General's moratorium on the use of NTA in detergents and the announcement of an "intensive," if belated, study to identify eutrophiable waters. But these were presented in a context that gave the impression that there are no safe alternatives to phosphate detergents and that these products do not contribute to eutrophication.

The drastic change in the nature of a body of water which is called eutrophication can occur for natural reasons. But it is quite clear that the activities of man can induce this process as well, and, in fact, are doing so in several parts of this country. The immediate cause of the change may vary from one locale to another, but one widespread trigger to eutrophication is the chemical phosphate in urban and industrial waste. Various estimates of the contribution of detergents to the total phosphate give values of 50±20 percent-always appreciable and sometimes dominant. Furthermore, detergents offer the best chance of eliminating or controlling a phosphate source. Other sources are human and animal body wastes and garbage from foodstuffs.

Phosphate-triggered eutrophication is an imminent threat in many areas of our country. While it may be true that a majority of Americans live in areas where this is no problem, the minority that is affected is very appreciable, probably including between one-fifth and onethird of the population. People should be concerned about this in Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Seattle, and numerous other cities and towns across the country.

Using phosphate-free detergents will not make this problem disappear. Treatment of sewage is imperative if we are to regain whatever measure of control man can exercise over natural waters. But