The cardinal error in the Surgeon General's report was his assumption that all parts of this country should reach the same conclusion when weighing the hazards of substitutes which may be toxic to humans, against the continuation of the destruction of our environ

ment.

While in much of the country the effect of phosphates in detergents may be limited, in Great Lake States the effect is great, and the result of weighing alternative evils may be very different.

Just as the detergent industry sold high phosphate detergents with equal passion in hard water and soft water areas, without consideration of the amount necessary in each area, and without considering the location of the area relative to bodies of fresh water, so the Surgeon General has reached one conclusion for the whole country.

In areas like Detroit, with relatively soft water and adjacent to large bodies of fresh water, I believe that the additional risks of caustic substitutes is worth taking.

Rather than give the detergent industry a green light for continuing use of phosphates, this Government must impose deadlines for its elimination, at least in areas which by common objective consensus are seriously and negatively affected by the use of phosphorus in detergents.

I will pass over the next three paragraphs in the interest of time. They set forth the confusion which followed the Surgeon General's remarks.

The two newspaper headlines in Detroit were, "Use phosphates, U.S. urges," in one paper, and in the other paper, "U.S. changes its stand on phosphates."

All types of substances are accepted by this society, although they are toxic and dangerous when misused. Hair dyes and sprays, furniture polish, bathroom cleaners, aerosol cans of all kinds, and on and on, are all potentially hazardous to children. If this country is willing to accept the risks of possible harm to children from materials chat keep our hair in place I can't speak for myself in this case-or our underarms smelling pretty, or our furniture polished, we should be more willing to accept such risks where the future of our environment is at stake.

The present administration, if accurately symbolized by the Surgeon General, has decided to slacken up on the fight to save our lakes, rationalizing its decision under the guise of protecting children.

The pressure from the detergent industry is relentless. (This is the same industry which so strongly opposed both phase I, the 8.7-percent level, as well as phase II of Detroit's ordinance, but which now runs full page ads in our papers stating that their 8.7-percent detergents "still give you the kind of cleaning power you'll be proud of.")

Within 24 hours of the Surgeon General's remarks on September 15 the Detroit Free Press reported the following occurred:

Public Relations representatives for one of the largest manufacturers of detergents, Proctor & Gamble, visited Detroit newspaper offices Thursday urging press support for repeal of all phosphate bans.

The letter with their package of press materials said: "News stories, columns and editorials may help convince the state Legislature, the Detroit Common Council, and suburban councils that bans on phosphate detergents are contrary to the public's interests."-Detroit Free Press, Friday, September 17, 1971.

Before I give you my conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that Detroit is looking to Washington. We may have an ordinance with two steps, but that ordinance is under challenge in the courts.

The future of our ordinance is in doubt because of those court actions, particularly in light of the Surgeon General's remarks.

In conclusion I would urge these points upon this committee: First, impose a deadline for the total elimination of phosphate from detergents, at least in areas such as the Great Lakes.

Second, continue to press for clear warnings on detergent boxes, be they phosphate or nonphosphate-since both kinds are potentially harmful to children, as admitted by the Surgeon General.

Third, impose strict packaging standards so that all packages containing substances which are potentially hazardous to children are made "kid proof."

I greatly appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee today.

Senator SPONG. I thank you very much, Mr. Levin, for the benefit of your testimony here today.

Are you familiar with S. 2553 introduced by Senator Griffin of Michigan?

Mr. LEVIN. Somewhat, your honor.

Senator SPONG. Would you care to comment on the bill or would you like to reserve your comment for the record?

Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to comment based on my knowledge of the bill.

It is the same as phase I of our ordinance. It sets the limit at 8.7 percent. That already exists in the case of one major manufacturer, and as has been indicated today, is already acceptable to the other major manufacturers.

It, therefore, makes no headway over what already exists or what will soon exist in the marketplace even without the existence of that legislation.

I certainly support 8.7 percent as a first step. But it is only the first step. The bill should include deadlines. That is the key, deadlines for the elimination of all phosphorous, at least in areas such as the Great Lakes.

It is the deadlines for reaching zero percent which is the issue, not the 8.7 percent.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testi

mony.

Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

(The following information was subsequently received for the record :)

CITY OF DETROIT,
COMMON COUNCIL,
November 8, 1971.

Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator SPONG: On October 29th, I had the privilege of appearing before your Sub-Committee on the Environment. I greatly appreciated the opportunity to appear before you and the courtesies shown me.

Prior to testifying, I did not have a copy of Senate Bill 2553, introduced by Senator Griffin. When you asked me about that Bill, I indicated that I felt

it was weak, in that it set an 8.7% maximum for the amount of phosphorous, but did not impose deadlines beyond that for the total elimination of phosphorous from detergents.

Upon reviewing Senate Bill 2553, I have discovered that there is a Federal preemption clause (Section 8A). This clause is the most important part of the Bill, because it would prohibit communities like Chicago and Detroit, which have established deadlines for the total elimination of phosphorous, from carrying out those deadlines. Because the industry has substantially accepted the 8.7% requirement already, the basic question now is the timetable for the total elimination. By prohibiting communities who have set such a timetable from carrying them out, Senate Bill 2553, with Section 8A included, becomes an anti-environmental Bill rather than a pro-environmental Bill.

The Bill as presently written, gives at least two of the top three detergent manufacturers precisely what they want. They have already adopted the 8.7% requirement, but want to knock out the deadlines for total elimination, and the Bill gives them exactly that.

In other words, the real issue now is Step 2, the total elimination of phosphorous. The issue is no longer the 8.7% Step. Therefore, Senate Bill 2553 is retrogressive on the real issue, unless Section 8A were eliminated from the Bill. If it is possible, I would appreciate a copy of this letter being printed with my Testimony before the Committee.

Thank you again for your courtesies.

Sincerely,

Senator SPONG. Dr. Commoner.

CARL LEVIN, Councilman.

STATEMENT OF DR. BARRY COMMONER, WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS, MO.

Dr. COMMONER. Thank you.

Senator SPONG. We are pleased to have you with us today, Dr. Commoner.

Dr. COMMONER. Thank you for inviting me. I appreciate the opportunity to be here because I think that the detergent problem is not only enormously important in itself, for the Nation, for the housewife, and for industry, but I think that it represents a very important item for the development of the Nation's approach to the overall problem of turning back the environmental crisis. I am willing to say that, if we can't solve environmental problems created by detergents, I think it will be a bad sign for our ability to solve any of our environmental problems.

I am concerned with solving the environmental crisis and I have spent some time looking into the detergent problem as an example. I would like to submit for the record a paper which I prepared on the problem generally that deals with this. But here I would like to make a series of specific comments about the origin of the environmental problem caused by detergents.

Senator SPONG. We will receive your paper in its entirety and you may testify as you will.1

Dr. COMMONER. Thank you. First, the introduction of detergents was not to produce a novel utility. Cleaning is a very old thing. People have been doing it for a long time. The first point I would make is that the industrial significance of detergents is that it has displaced soap. The data are very clear and they are in the paper that I will submit. The introduction of detergents has been pound for pound, accompanied by the suppression of the production of soap.

1 See p. 798.

In other words, detergents are a substitute for soap. Now, we have to ask ourselves what reasons can be adduced for this substitution. You have already been told that soap has difficulties in hard water.

Soap is also difficult to use in acid conditions. Without becoming very elaborate about it, I want to say, however, that the opinion of the author of a very prominent chemical engineering textbook holds that— and I am quoting:

There is absolutely no reason why old-fashioned soap cannot be used for most household and commercial cleaning.

This is from the textbook by Dr. Stephenson of the University of Connecticut published a few years ago. This is in a book dealing with the properties of soaps and detergents.

Without arguing the point very much further, I simply want to say that detergents represent a substitute for the function of soap; namely, cleaning. In most cases, soap will clean as well as detergents in the opinion of chemical engineers who really ought to know.

Now, you have already heard a good deal of testimony about the importance of considering differences in hardness of water in various parts of the country. I won't go into that any further. It is also very clear that water softening can be taken care of by various means. I am told, though I don't have data, that it will be possible to build water softener cartridges into washing machines which would eliminate this problem totally.

What I am concerned with is the reason for displacement here. The argument is made that one reason for displacing soap by detergents is that the country was running out of fat for making soap. I am afraid that the facts simply won't support that position. I have here some numbers extracted from the Agricultural Department statistics on grease, tallow, and fat, oil and fat production.

Let me make the point very simply. As you know, in 1946 essentially no detergents were produced. Now, the cleaner market is more than two-thirds detergents, one-third soap. Now, in 1946 we used about 1,700 million pounds of oils and fats for the production of soap.

Let's allow for the increase in population between 1946 and say 1966, when I have the latest statistics. That means that in 1966 we would have needed 2,448 million pounds of fat to provide enough soap to maintain the per capita use of soap as it was in 1946. Now, in 1946 we exported 780 million pounds of oils and fats. In 1966 we exported 6,662 million pounds of oils and fats.

In other words, between 1946 and 1966, the export of oils and fats increased 6,000 million pounds, and all we needed to make up for the increase in population was about 2,000 million pounds.

In other words, I simply cannot support the argument that the country doesn't have enough oils and fats to produce soap. The evidence is and it is very clear-as soaps were replaced, we simply exported the excess. Well, again, we have to explain why the displacement took place.

I am going to come to that toward the end of my testimony. Before I do that, I want to take up another question concerning hardness and toxicity in the environment.

Now, the environmental problem as has been discussed, shows the problem to be that phosphates in detergents stimulate growth of

algae. When the algae die, they release organic matter to the water, and this puts a stress on the system which leads to loss of oxygen, and breakdown of the self-purifying cycles. This is called eutrophication. Now, there is a problem with this that almost no one has paid attention to which may end up as a very serious medical problem in the country. We normally think of eutrophication as overstimulation of growth of algae. But it is also clear we stimulate the growth of bacteria in surface waters through eutrophication because many grow on organic matter. Now, why is that important? It is important because there is a serious source of medical danger to human beings in the pathogenic bacteria that live in the soil.

A typical experiment is this: If you take a pinch of soil and put it in a bacterial medium and allow the bacteria to grow and then inject the bacteria into a mouse, it usually dies. There are many, many pathogenic organisms in the soil which grow on organic matter in the soil. Normally, we don't come down with those diseases because our contact with the soil is limited. It is difficult for the bacteria to get into body orifices, and so on.

On the other hand, our contact with the water is intimate. We go swimming, you get it in your nose, water spray, and so on. The question comes: Why is it that the disease-producing bacteria in the soil don't move through the water and affect people when they go swimming?

The reason for it is that the natural water will not support growth of the pathogenic bacteria that enter the water from the soil, because they require a high level of organic matter. When the organic matter level of water is raised, the barrier that fresh water represents between diseases carried in the soil, and human beings breaks down. Now, the bacteria in the soil may invade the organic-rich water, grow there, and begin to infect people. Now, this is all hypothetical. However it is unfortunate, but I am afraid I have to report there is some evidence that this may be beginning to happen.

About 5 or 7 years ago, a new disease was discovered, I think in Florida, essentially in the Southern States. Fortunately, it is rare. It is called meningyo encephalitis. Typically, it arose in children that went to the swimming hole for a day. They would come home and that day they had a headache; by the next day they were in the hospital; and in 3 days, they died.

Now, this has been ascribed to an amoeba, a protozoan, a common one found in soil. It apparently was invading the water because bacteria which are the food for amoeba were growing in the water and this is the new disease. The point I am making is that entrophication is not simply a matter of green scum, not simply a matter of smelly messes or even a matter of a breakdown of the self-purifying systems in the water. It may represent a breakdown in the ecological isolation between the reservoir of disease in the soil and human beings.

This is a very important thing to consider when one talks about health matters.

Senator SPONG. Doctor, I wonder if you would indulge me while I go vote on the floor. I will be back in a matter of minutes.