Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http: //books .google .com/I
.,Google
'A'GICIDE, AND RODENTI-
1 Jt IMPORT AND EXPORT
NGS
(TNfENT OPERATIONS,
r,S AGRICULTURE
IIRICULTUEE
iSENTATIVES
(INGRESS
Lind H.R. 2482
('iniimllt«« on Agriculture
i-cTi^n omce
b,Google
FEDERAL INSEaiCIDE. FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTI-
CIDE AQ; AND PESTICIDE IMPORT AND EXPORT
ACT OF 1985
^
HEARINGS
RKPORK TlIK
I SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPAKTMENT OPEKATIONS,
I KB8EAKCH, AND FOREIGN AGEICULTOKE
orroc
> COMMTTEE ON AGRICTJLTTJEE
[ HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES
' NmETY-NINTH CXJNGRESS
KICUKU DULY: nnsT SESSION
ON
H.R. 1416, H.R. 1910. and H.R. 2482
APRIL 18. laSS
EPA WITNESS
tlAy SO. AND 21. 1985
Serial No. 99-7
PART I
b,Google
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTI-
ODE ACT; AND PESTICIDE IMPORT AND EXPORT
ACT OF 1985
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
RESEAKCH, AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICDLTUEE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-NINTH CONGRESS
nRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1416, H.R. 1910, and H.R. 2482
APRIL 18. 1985
EPA WITNESS
MAY 20, AND 21, 1985
Serial No. 99-7
PART 1
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
d by Google
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
E (KIKA) ra LA GABZA. TeiBS, Chairman
THOMAS S. FOLEY. WaBhington,
Viee Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ED JONES. Tenntwee
GEORGE E. BROWN. Jr., California
CHARLES ROSE. North Carolina
JIM WEAVER, Oregon
BERKLEY BEDELL, Iowa
GLENN ENGLISH. OklBhoma
LEON E. PANETTA. California
JERRY HUCKABY, Louiaiana
DAN GUCKMAN. Kansas
CHARLES WHITLEY. North Carolina
TONY COELHO. California
TOM DASCHLE, South Dakota
CHARLES W. STENHOLM. Texas
HAROLD L. VOLKMER. Minouri
CHARLES HATCHER. Georgia
ROBIN TALLON, South Carolina
HARLEY O. STAGGERS. Jr.. West Virginia
LANE EVANS, Illinois
ROBERT LINDSAY THOMAS, Georgia
JAMES R. OUN, Virginia
TMOTHY J. PENNY. Minnesota
RICHARD H. STALLINGS. Idaho
TERRY L. BRUCE, Illinois <
EDWARD R. MADIGAN. Illinois,
Ranking Minortty Uembtr
JAMES M. JEFFORDS. Vennont
E. THOMAS COLEMAN, Missouri
RON MARLENEE. Montana
LARRY J. HOPKINS, Kentucky
ARLAN STANGELAND. Minnesota
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BILL EMERSON. Missouri
SID MORRISON, Wuhington
STEVE GUNDERSON. WiKxmsin
COOPER EVANS. Iowa
GENE CHAPPIE. California
WEBB FRANKLIN. Missinippi
TOM LEWIS. Florida
ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Orsgon
LARRY COMBEST. Texas
BILL SCHUETTE, Michigan
Professional Stapt
A. Mabio Castilui. Chitf of Staff
Phillip L. Fhaas. Counttl
Chaklks HitTY. Minority Staff Dinctor
Bernard Brenner. Pros SKrttary
BERKLEY BEDELL, Iowa, Chairman
GEORGE E. BROWN. Jr., California
HARLEY O. STAGGERS. Jr.. Wsat Vi^inia
LEON E. PANETTA, California
CHARLES HATCHER. Georgia
TIMOTHY J. PENNY, Minneeota
THOMAS S FOLEY, Washington
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Miaaouri
PAT ROBERTS. Kansas
SID MORRISON. Washington
STEVE GUNDERSON. Wisconsin
COOPER EVANS. Iowa
LARRY COMBEST, Texas
' ETTective only for the firrt sc
I of the Ninety-ninth Congresa.
d by Google
CONTENTS
Apbil 18, 1985
Bedell, Hon. Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the Stat« of Iowa,
opening statement
Brown, Hon. George E.. Jr.. a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, prepared statement
de la Garaa, Hon. E (Kika). a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, remarks of
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas.
opening Htatement
Prepared statement
WiTNESB
Moore, John A,, Assistant Administrator, Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared statement
Submitted Material
Boothby. Charles L., executive vice president. National Association of Conser-
vation Districts, letter of May 21. 1985
Dietz, David H., proeram director. Pesticide Public Policy Foundation, letter
of April 29. 1985
Dvorak, Tony, owner, Gregersen Pharmacy, letter of April 26, 1985
Ferretti. Joan M., attorney, Lorchmont, NT, letter of May 30, 1985
Hannes, Edward H.. president, 707 Co., letter of April 4, 1985
May 20, 1985
H.R. 1416, a bill to protect the American public from consuming potentially
unsafe pesticide residues on imported foodstuffs; to foster prudent and
equitable regulatory requirements and standards for United States produc-
ers of agricultural commodities competing with producers in other coun-
tries in international and domestic markets; and to improve the interna-
tional exchange of scientific information on the properties, safety, benefits,
and risks of pesticide use
H.R. 1910, a bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act to provide that pesticides that are used in agricultural production do
not endanger human health
Report from U.S. Department of Agriculture
H.R. 2482, a bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, and for other purposes
Bedell, Hon. Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa,
opening statement
WixNEsara
Darling, Karen, Acting Assistant Secretary. Marketing and Inspection Serv-
ices, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
DeLay, Hon. Thomas D., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas
Dold. Robert J., immediate past president. National Pest Control Association ..
(lit)
d by Google
Dold, Robert J., immediate past president, National Pest Control Associa-
tion — Continued
Prepared statement
Duekin, Edgar W., executive vice president, Southern Agricultural Chemicals
Association
Freestone, Norman W., Jr., Ecology Sound Farms, Orosi, CA
Maslyn, Mark A., assietant director, national affairs division, American Farm
Bureau Federation
Menichino. Patrick T., executive director, People Against Chlordane...
Pinkus, Kay S., counsel, International Sanitary Supply Association, Inc..
Prepared statement
Prior, Liza Rooe, Langhom, PA ...
131
Ray, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia TO
Russell. Robert M., Orkin Pest Control 123
Prepared statement 178
Seiberling, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio 155
Prepared statement 209
Smigel, Marjorie J., chairperson. Ecology Committee, Springfield Garden Club
of Montgomery County. MD 83
Walesby, Jim, chairman. Farm Chemicals Committee, National Association of
Wheat Growers 159
SuBunTED Material
I Representative in Congress from the State of New
State Structural Pest Control Board of Texas,
May 21, 1985
Witnesses
Bramble, Barbara J., director, International Pn^am, National Wildlife Fed-
eration, and on behalf of the Institute for Public Representation
Prepared statement
Summary of remarks
Burmeister. Leon F.. professor. Department of Preventive Medicine and Envi-
ronmental Health, University of Iowa
Cline, Lloyd, vice president. National Cotton Council
Prepared statement ...
Collins. Harold, executive director. National Agricultural Aviation Aseocia-
Prepared statement
Drabble. Nancy, director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch, also representing
Consumer Federation of America and Public Voice for Food and Health
Prepii
Prepared statement ...
Prepared statement
E!arlJ^ Jack D., president. National Agricultural Chemicals Association...
Feldman, Jay, national coordinator, National Coalition Against the Misuse of
Pesticides
Prepared statement
Graham. Lawrence T.. executive vice president. National Food Proceesors
Association
Hasness, Robert, president, Pesticide Producers Association
Prepared statement
Heftel, Hon. Cecil (Cec). a Representative in Congress from the State of
d by Google
Hinkle. Maureen K.. director, agricultural polity, National Audubon Society...
Prepared statement
Horwitz, Charlea, Farmworker Justice Committee
Kellev, Richard D., environmental specialist, Iowa Department of Water, Air
and Waste Management
Prepared statement
Synthetic Organic Compound Sampling Survey of Public Water Supplies.
report
Meacham, Edith D., agriculture policy associate. National Audubon Society
Prepared statement
MeyerhofT, Albert H.. senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc
Prepared statement
Sheehan. John J., legislative director. United Steelworkers of America
Synar, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma .,
Prepared statement
Turner, Brian, director, legislation and economic policy, Industrial Union
Department. AFL-aO
Prepared statement
WasserTtrom, Robert, senior associate and project director. World Resources
Institute
Prepared statement
Wcinstein, Kenneth W., on behalf of Abbott Laboratories, Ciba-Gei^ Corp.,
EI, du Pont de Nemours & Co., Elanco Products Co.. FMC Corp., Monsanto
Co.. Rhone Poulenc Inc., Rohm & Haas Co., Stauffer Chemical Co., Uni-
royal, Inc., Velsicol Chemical Corp., and Zoecon Corp
Prepared statement
Ya^r, Milan P.. legislative director. United Fresh Fruit ft Vegetable Aasocia-
Prepared statement
SuBMiTTBD Material
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Reauthorization Issues
Before the 99th Congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Con-
gress, statement
d by Google
db,Google
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
RODENTICIDE ACT
thursday, april 18, 1985
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Research, and Foreign Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Berkley Bedell (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Brown, Penny, Volkmer, Roberta, Gun-
derson, Evans of Iowa, and Combest.
Also present: Representative E (Kika) de la Giirza, chairman of
the committee,
Stfiff present: Cristobal P. Aldrete, specieil counsel; Mark
Dungan, minority eissociate counsel; Glenda L. Temple, clerk; Ber-
nfird Brenner, Timothy J. Galvin, and Gary R. Mitchell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERKLEY BEDELL, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. Bedell. The subcommittee will come to order. The Subcom-
mittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agricul-
ture meets this morning to hear from the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency on issues related to the reauthorization of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The subcommittee
scheduled these hearings some weeks ago because we expected that
by this date, we would have before us an administration bill pro-
posing some changes in FIFRA. In fact, the hearings were sched-
uled for April 18 because EPA officials expressed to us their confi-
dence that a bill would be cleared and sent up here by mid-April.
Instead, EPA is coming before us this morning empty handed, al-
though I recognize that this situation is not primarily the fault of
officials at the Environmental Protection Agency. It certainly is no
surprise to those of us in Agriculture that neither the EPA or
USDA has a last word on what this or any other administration
sends up here to the Hill.
We could spend a lot of time this morning recounting past
pledges of cooperation from former Administrator Ruckelshaus and
others in helping the subcommittee to draft legislation that would
address issues that E^PA either will not or, for some reeison, cannot
resolve administratively. However, if we sit up here and sling
(1)
d by Google
arrows at you all day long. Dr. Moore, I don't think that would
help us to get these outstanding issues resolved and behind us.
Please make no mistake about this subcommittee's intention to
move ahead with FIFRA legislation. There are persistent issues
which must be faced and I think that we all have a stake in seeing
that the Committee on Agriculture succeeds in putting to rest
much of the controversy which continues to plague FIFTIA. The
only outstanding question, as I see it, is whether EPA is going to be
a partner in that effort or only em observer. I would certainly
rather work with you during this process and I would like to hear
from you this morning on the amount of cooperation and assistance
which you think you can offer.
The subcommittee had originally scheduled 2 days of public hear-
ings for next week on FIFRA. However, since we wemt to keep the
focus of those hearings on specific legislation, the hearings have
been rescheduled for Monday and Tuesday, May 20 and 21. Those
hearings would have been scheduled earlier, but a very full farm
bill Eigenda in the committee made an earlier date impossible.
In any event, I fully intend to move ahead with FIFRA this
spring and this schedule change should give everyone sufficient
time to review various proposals, perhaps even to find areas of
agreement, and to prepare their comments.
Mr. Brown, do you have a statement?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have an excellent statement here,
which I would like to insert in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
d by Google
Mr. Chairman, although the pecepectlve is somewhat different
fro« this chair than it was from your chair, the ecene is one
vbich le all too familiar. Just as Persephone rlees from Hades
to bring Spring to the upper world, PIFRA rises from those Harae
nether regions every year at this time to offset whatever joy I
feel at Spring's arrival. My fervent wish is that this b* the
last Spring that this subcommittee has to spenfl debating FIPRA
' I sense that this time around there is a better chance of
achieving consensus and getting a comprehensive reauthorization
passed. Faith in EPA has been restored, some of the Interest
groups are involved in negotiations, and same of the past
problems haue been settled in court or by administrative action.
W* have a host of legislative proposals being discussed, a list
of which seems to grow by the hour, indicating a keen interest In
finding legislative solutions to the remaining, difficult
problens with regulating pesticides.
The one chilling element In all of this is the failure of
the AdBlnlstratlon to come up with a legislative proposal. This
failure comes after repeated promises by former Adnlnlstratot
Kuckelshaus to advise the subcommittee of those Issues on which
EPA needed statutory guidance end assistance. This failure comes
after Mr. Buckelshaus reestablished the EPA pesticide advisory
conittee, called the Administrator's Pesticide Advisory Committee
APACl , and put that committee through protracted discussions on
possible legislative Initiatives. This failure comes after
extensive EPA discussions and even drafting of legislation only
to have this entire effort quashed by those who set
Administration policy at the Hhlte House and OHB.
I am quite disturbed by the failure of this Administration
to develop legislative proposals. Now, I want to make clear that
I am not directing my comments at Dr. Moore or his staff, who are
not the villains here. Rather I an annoyed by a pattern of
avoidance, deception, and downright dishonesty which I have
endured from this Administration since this subcommittee began
Its inquiry into FIF8A in June of 1981. 1 have tried to be t^en
and forthcoming with all parties Involved in this Issue and have
taken a moderate course during the deliberations over the last
four years. 1 am now in a position of having to question my past
I want to see this issue settled in a way that adresses the
nagging problems in this area and in a way that reassures the
public at large that this committee can discharge its
responsibility fairly and justly. 1 am prepared to follow the
gyre of this issue one more time in a hope that we can find the
center point which will hold and produce a bill at last.
d by Google
Mr. Brown. In large part, it supplements what you've already
said about my disappointment that EPA has not been forthcoming
with a draft of legislation and our desire to addreBS that as effec-
tively as possible.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much. Before I call on Mr. Roberts,
I would like to express my appreciation for the work that you have
done in the past in chairing this subcommittee. I would also like to
express thanks to Mr. Roberts for the help that he's giving me as
the new chairman of the subcommittee. I can tell you, as chair-
man, I rely upon you two to a great extent for what we do with
FIFRA.
Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. Mr. Cheurman, I want to thank you for your leader-
ship in holding these hearings. Like my colleague from California,
Mr. Brown, has indicated, I have an above avereige statement.
[Laughter.]
I would like to ask permission, at this point, to insert the state-
ment in full.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, they will both be entered.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Roberts. I would like to say we do have a difficult task. We
have really wrestled with the FIFRA issue and I would offer the
opinion that those efforts could be best described as low calorie, at
best. I think the members of the subcommittee will recall that the
EPA did agree to take a look at the Pesticide Program and to try
to sort out the issues that could be addressed from the standpoint
of administration, and then to report back on what was needed to
make the program function.
I know we don't have a bill here from EPA and, while I share
my colleague's concern in that regard, I want to commend you, Dr.
Moore, because you have taken very significant and positive steps
from that standpoint that I was talking about in terms of adminis-
trating the program to restore confldence in the pesticide regula-
tory process. I think you should be commended for that. I look for-
ward to hearing from Dr. Moore today on what he believes is
needed in terms of legislation to make FIFRA work and to meuti-
mize the very limited resources that are available to EPA in the
regulation process.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that we also bear part of that responsibil-
ity in terms of forming and addressing this legislation. 1 think it's
time for this subcommittee to start to address the issues and con-
cerns raised over the pesticide process. It is time for all concerned
to concentrate on a bill, not an issue, I would like to repeat that
phrase, if I could, Mr, Chairman, for all present. It is time to con-
centrate on a bill and not an issue. It's an easy thing to have an
issue and headlines and to send out your reports to your mailing
list. It's not an easy thing to get a bill. It's time for all concerned in
agriculture, industry, Government, special interest groups, to be
part of that process, as far as I'm concerned. I have very strong
feelings about that.
d by Google
If that is not the case, it is my opinion that all parties concerned,
not just the EPA, will end up in a legislative penalty box. With
that, Mr. Chairmein, I theuik you again for holding these hearings.
[llie prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
d by Google
Statement of Honobable Pat Robebts
HR rHfllRHAH: I commend you for calling this hearing today- Thts
Subcommittee is faced with the task this year of reauthorizing
THE Export Title, Research and Extension Title of the Farm Bill-
However, AS DIFFICULT AS THE TASK OF WRITING A FARM BILL MAY
SEEM, COMPARED TO THE TASK THIS SUBCOMMITTEE FACES,
RE-AUTHORIZING FIFRA, IS EQUALLY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT- ThIS
Subcommittee has truly wrestled with FiFRA and the fruits of
those efforts could be best described as a low calorie at best-
Members of the subcommittee will recall former Administrator
ruckelshaus agreed to take a look at the pesticide program and
sort out the issues that could be addressed administratively and
to report back on what was needed to make the program function-
Today the EPA, and more specifically, Dr- Hoore, are to be
COMMENDED FOR THEIR EFFORTS- ThE AgENCY HAS TAKEN SIGNIFICANT
AMD POSITIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS TO RESTORE CONFIDENCE IN THE
PESTICIDE REGULATORY PROCESS-
I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM Dr ■ MoORE TODAY ON WHAT HE
BELIEVES IS NEEDED IN TERMS OF LEGISLATION TO HAKE FIERA WORK AND
TO MAXIMIZE THE LIMITED RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO EPA TO REGULATE
PESTICIDES.
!t IS TIME FOR THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND
CONCERNS RAISED OVER THE PESTICIDE PROCESS- It IS TIME FOR ALL
CONCERNED TO CONCENTRATE OH A BILL, NOT AN ISSUE- It IS TIME FOR
ALL CONCERNED--AGRICULTUflE, INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT, AND SPECIAL
INTEREST .GROUPS TO BE PART OF THAT PROCESS- IF THAT IS NOT THE
CASE, IT IS MY OPINION, ALL PARTIES CONCERNED WILL END UP AND
DESERVE TO BE IH A LEGISLATIVE PENALTY BOX -
d by Google
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts. We're privileged
to have with us the chairman of the full Agriculture Committee,
Chairmeui de la Garza. Mr. de la Garza, do you have any statement
to make?
REMARKS OF HON. E (KIKA) de la GARZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a state-
ment, but would like to eissociate myself with all the statements
made by you three gentlemen. I appreciate your leiidership and as
chairman of the committee support your efforts. I am particularly
supportive of the statement of our colleague, Mr. Roberts, when he
said that we need to sit down and work tc^ether on this issue. The
sooner we do it, the better off all of us will be.
We need patience, charity, imd a little bit of sacrifice. Possessing
those qualities and working with EPA and the members of this
subcommittee, I think we can move forward in a positive, construc-
tive way, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly appreciate
your interest in this issue and your contribution toweird legislation
in this regard.
Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. I have no comments at this time.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much. We will now hear from you.
Dr. Moore, and any of your people you want to have with you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MOORE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have an opening
statement and I ask, in the consideration of your time, that my full
statement be entered into the record, and I will just highlight <xr-
tain parts of the statement in my opening presentation this mom-
Mr.
. Chairman, some 18 months ago, in November 1983, EPA's
Administrator, WilliEim Ruckelshaus, testified before this subcom-
mittee, and he stated that many of the problems with the Pesticide
Pr^ram could be addressed administratively and pledged that
EPA would vigorously pursue improvements without waiting for
changes in the law. I can report to you this morning that I uiink
EPA has made good on that promise.
When I became Assistant Administrator for Pesticides emd Toxic
Substances shortly after Bill testified, the Pesticide Program
needed to restore credibility to the regulatory process by improving
the timeliness and the scientific quality of its decisions, and by in-
suring that the decision process itself was conducted in an open
and impartial manner.
The last 18 months have been very active ones, and the program
has made great strides in accomplishing these goals of timeliness,
scientific soundness, and openness of decisionmaking. Permit me to
briefly illustrate how progress has been made in these areas.
With respect to timely review and decisions on existing pesti-
cides, rer^istration of all previously registered pesticides is the
d by Google
most complex task that is assigned to EPA under FIFRA. For a
number of reasons, the data bases for meuiy of these pesticides are
woefully inadequate, and the existing data have not been evaluated
by modem standards. Thus, I place the highest priority on getting
rer^stration moving.
Of the 600-odd pesticide chemicals potentially subject to reregis-
tration, the Agency has reviewed and issued r^istration standards
for 98. Forty-seven of these standards have been completed in the
last 2 years. We are now proceeding at a rate of about 25 standards
per year and will continue at that pace, giving priority to high
volume and food use chemiceds and to those which may pose spe-
cial problems, such as ground water contamination.
To insure that the key data are available when we evaluate a
pesticide, we have accelerated the pace of the Data Call-in Pro-
gram for chronic health effects data on food use chemicals. In addi-
tion, a special Data Call-In v/as issued in 1984 to require environ-
mental fate data on about 100 pesticides preliminarily identified as
potential ground water contaminants.
A third major Data Call-In Pro-am is now being developed to
ensure that the Agency has precise information on the chemical
composition of each registered pesticide; that's somewhere around
49,000 products. We've also initiated a new Data Call-in project in
which registrants of 31 nonfood use pesticides are themselves iden-
tifying and then filling any significant data gaps.
I'm hopeful that tlus approach will work so that it could be ex-
panded in the future and we can bring the Data Call-in eispect of
reregistration to a rapid close with a minimed amount of manpower
required.
We've also begun to closely monitor each registrants progress in
meeting their commitments to develop such data when asked.
When a registremt makes a commitment to develop needed data by
a certain date, we expect that commitment to be kept. When a r^-
istrant fails to keep these commitments, we are exercising our au-
thority to suspend their product registration until the data are sub-
mitted.
The composite effect of these various efforts will result in sub-
mission of a large amount of new data on these old pesticides. The
first large influx of data is expected this year. To ensure that the
A^ncy can keep abreast of the most significant of these data, we
will be proposing the new rule that requires r^istrants to high-
light those portions of these data which meet certain spediled risk
criteria.
Special review is that portion of reregistration where there is an
intensive risk benefit evaluation on those roistered pesticides
which may be posing unreasonable risks. In the last 18 months, 25
decisions have been issued — including 10 new special reviews — 4
proposed positions issued for review and comment, eind 6 final deci-
sions published. Two decisions resulted in returning the pesticide
to the regular registration process Euid there was one voluntary
cancellation.
We have just recently published proposed rules to revise the pro-
cedures and criteria for special review. These proposed changes re-
flect my commitment to improvii^ the timeliness of special review
decisions by determining up front whether an intensive risk benefit
d by Google
' is appropriate and by vigorously pursuing the data needed
to resolve any outstanding questions.
On the topic of sound scientific basis for decisions, I have placed
great empheksis on the importance of insuring the scientific sound-
ness of pesticide regulatory decisions. The Agency has issued good
laboratory practices r^ulations and pesticide assessment guide-
lines, and has also instituted an effective laboratory and Data
Audit Prc^rsun.
The number of pesticide data audits has been increased from
about a dozen in 1982 to a target of 76 in this current fiscal year.
Comprehensive standard eveduation procedures for use by EPA
staff are also being developed. Various measures to improve inter-
nal quality control of data reviews have also been implemented.
Our concern for data adequate to support decisions is also reflected
in our policy of not granting emergency exemptions under section
18 of FIFRA to allow the use of old chemicals for unregistered uses
when the supporting data base for that chemical is inadequate.
This policy has resulted in a significant dropoff in the number of
section 18 applications received — from 638 in fiscal year 1983, to
444 in fiscal year 1984— as well as the numbers that have been ap-
proved by the Agency — which dropped from 590 to 320 in those
same 2 years — this more stringent approach has been incorporated
into the proposed rules just published on April 8 which would for-
mally revise the procedures and criteria governing these exemp-
tions.
An adequate basis for r^iilatory action is also addressed in the
recently proposed rule to revise procedures and criteria for con-
ducting special reviews. This proposed rule will improve both the
credibility and the efficiency of the process by ensuring that re-
source intensive reviews undertaken address potential real-world
risk situations, for which preliminary exposure estimates are avail-
able.
The administration realizes that EPA's regulatory process must
provide for participation by all interested parties, including the
general public, in order to justify confidence in the complex and
far-reaching decisions we are called upon to make. We have taken
steps to encourage equiteble participation by interested parties in
Agency decisions and also to make information on pesticides more
widely available.
In particular, we have published a comprehensive description of
the date required to register pesticide producte. We have made
available to any requestor factsheets summarizing the available
date and regulatory status of specific pesticide chemicals. We've
also published three proposed rules to provide additioned opportuni-
ties for participation in the registration standards, specif review,
and section 18 emergency exemption processes.
In summary, the foundation has been laid for a Pesticide Regis-
tration and Reregistration Program in which the public can have
trust. Our decisions are based on sound science and are made in
the open on a timely basis. However, it would be less than candid
to suggest that there are no problems to be dealt with or that the
job is basically done. Pesticides and other toxic substences are
being found with greater frequency in the Nation's water supplies.
We are developing a ground water strategy for pesticides as part of
d by Google
10
the Agency's overall ground water protection strategy. We are also
just now beginning to take a look at inert ingredients in pesticide
products, some of which are just as biologically active as pesticide
active ingredients, and most of which have not been extensively
evaluated. Of course, we have many years of effort still needed to
complete review of existing pesticides. In short, we've accomplished
much, but these are but the first steps of a very long march.
One of our biggest assets in meeting the challenges is the FIFRA
itself. Having now carried out its legislative mandate for a year
and a half, I know it is a fundamentally sound environmental law.
The FIFRA risk benefit balancing standard gives the Agency the
criticfd flexibility needed to make decisions which can both protect
public health and the environment and assure the benefits of pesti-
cide use. FIFRA provides the authority to require data needed to
make sound decisions; the authority to take stringent action when
necessary to prevent unreasonable risks; the authority to metke
new pesticides and new pesticide uses available when they're
needed; and, the authority to effectively regulate whole new types
of pesticides as they are developed.
As you know, the administration did earlier send to Congress a
bill which would reauthorize FIFRA in its present form for 2 more
years. While the Agency has spent the last 2 years implementing a
number of administrative changes in the Pesticide Progreuns, we
have also remained alert to current FIFRA language that may
limit our efiiclency in implementing our statutory mandate.
No statute is perfect, particularly one as complex as FIFRA. The
Agency has sought the advice of various groups on ways that the
administration of FIFRA can be changed to provide proper [)esti-
cide use while affording the greatest degree of public and environ-
mental protection.
In 1984, the Administrator established a Pesticide Advisory Com-
mittee, or APAC, to advise us on major policy issues. One issue
raised by APAC was the need to improve the timeliness of the spe-
cial review process. There was general agreement that the current
process should be speeded up. Proposed improvements in r^ula-
tions notwithstanding, we must find a way to make the process less
cumbersome.
The second issue which was discussed with the committee, and
on which that group reached general consensus, was that of shar-
ing data with other governmental entities, particularly State gov-
ernments. The groups agreed that providing EPA the ability to
share data with States who have protection for CBI equivalent to
that provided under FIFRA, would be a desirable thing.
Another data issue is the need to assure that the data the
Agency relies on is of the highest quality. While we have made a
start in this area, issues have arisen that we have not yet ad-
dressed. Among these is EPA's inability to inspect pesticide testing
facilities to insure they are following good laboratory practices. In
addition, the violation of GLP regulations is not an unlawful act.
Another issue has arisen over what action the Agency can take
where the pesticide data base for an already registered product is
found to be of unacceptable scientific quality.
A fourth area where I think legislative attention is merited con-
cerns restricted use pesticides. Inis is an area that the Pesticide
d by Google
11
Advisory Committee considered in depth emd is of particular inter-
est to me. One of my key goals in regulation of pesticides is to de-
velop a flexible progreun in which potential problems are attack^
with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Classifying a pesticide as re-
stricted use is an essential tool in achievii^ this goal. We must
look to see if anything further can be done to ensure that restrict-
ed use pesticides are properly used by persons whose knowledge
and qualifications are commensurate with the degree of risk posed
by that particular use.
A key element in any regulatory program is the ability to en-
force statutory and regulatory requirements. The Agency is looking
hard at this area and, in fact, has established a cross-media task
force to specify ways to improve the enforcement provisions of al\
of its environmental statutes.
I also believe EPA needs to find ways of integrating its actions
under FIFRA with those of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
Another issue the Pesticide Advisory Committee has discussed in
depth is inerts. After a long period of neglect, the Agency has
begun to focus on inert ingredients used in pesticides, particularly
those where we sdready have some evidence for concern. There are
a number of scientific, legal, and economic complexities involving
inerts which will take significant time and the best efforts of all of
us to resolve. The Agency is now considering the possibility of
using labeling to identify inert ingredients which may pose signifi-
cant risks to human hesdth and the environment.
Finally, I would like to mention two funding issues: First, the
current scheme of indemnification emd disposal may be flawed. No
other environmental statute or health law provides this form of
Federal bailout for the manufacturers of chemicals or drugs that
are shown to be unsafe. The second funding concern deals with the
issue of r^istration fees. There appears to be considerable senti-
ment, both within and without the administration, that registrants
should be responsible for paying the costs involved in the Federal
Pesticide Registration Program. While the administration believes
it does have authority to recover all costs, we are currently explor-
ing methods to assess and collect fees in a most efficient manner.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in concluding
my testimony this morning, let me assure you that the Agency re-
medns ready to serve you so that FIFRA reauthorization processes
can be constructive, taking into account the concerns of all those
affected by the regulation of these products. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much. Dr. Moore. Many of us have
a great many questions of you because of the complexity of this
issue. Unless there is objection within the subcommittee, we wiU
abide by the 5 minute rule and then we will make as many rounds
as we need to under that rule. Is there any disagreement with that
proposal?
The Chairaian. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would indulge me
for one statement euid then I won't have to tcuce time for questions.
Mr. Bedell. We would be glad to give the chairman of the com-
mittee whatever time he wishes.
d by Google
12
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I've discussed the issues
of pesticides informally with Dr. Moore and have sent the EPA Ad-
ministrator a letter. Eh*. Moore, I would hope that our conversation
on this issue will result in some positive information soon.
Mr. Moore. Congressman, my sense is, in discussing it with some
people in the program as well as some of the officials at FDA, that
we would hope to be able to have a definitive decision within the
next week or so. What data we do have looks good. We can expect
setting the tolerance fairly shortly.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I theuik you for your in-
dulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Moore, it's a pleas-
ure to have you here, of course. Let me just comment first with
r^ard to the matter of a bill and the need to have a framework
from the administration. It has been the views of the committee
that this was actually for the protection of the administration as
much as anything else. The scenario that I foresee is that we could
take a strsiight extension. We're going to find, as a result of the
very well known and obvious defects that exist, that there will be
e^orts to amend the bill on the floor and that it will substantially
get out of control of the committee. There may well be amend-
ments offered which sure undesirable from the st^dpoint of the ad-
ministration and we will not be in a good position to protect our-
selves because we have not devoted any efforts to analyzing these
things in the committee.
Of course, the legislative process is always uncertain and some-
times flaws can be corrected at subsequent proceedings in the proc-
ess, but it's far preferable to give acknowledged, necessary changes
the thorough consideration that they deserve within the committee
before they get out to the floor.
I wanted just to meike it clear to you that that's the reasoning
behind our putting pressure on you. You are under some restric-
tions to not present the text of the bill, but I want to commend you
because you have laid out here pretty much what the bUl should
contain. I think if I were to go down the list and ask you about
some of these things and ask you to provide lemguage, you could
pretty much write a bill for us based on what you've said in your
statement.
I won't have time in 5 minutes to do that, but we may want to
pursue something along that course as we proceed.
Let me get down to an issue that bothers me a great deal and
that is the slow pace of rer^istration. I think you are doing a
better job now and I want to commend you for that, but I'm still
concerned that at the rate at which you are proceeding with rereg-
istration, you've got an agenda that is at least 20 years long. Are
you able to suggest any way in which we can do that? Is that strict-
ly a function of your budget? Do you need more staff and resources
to speed that process up?
Mr. Moore. Congressmem, the reregistration process and all of
its various ramifications is a very labor-intensive effort. Indeed, it
is resource responsive.
Mr. Brown. In other words, given an increase in resources ap-
plied to that particular job, you could speed up the timetable. You
d by Google
are improving the process. You are enhancing the quality of the
data and subjecting it to more competent analysis and so forth, so
that we are gettii^ a better result out of this. We're just getting it
very slowly. Am I correct? You're nodding your head 'y©8, ' but say
yes for the record.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir; I agree with your statement. Something we
have done, which I think helps, is that, by accelerating the Data
Call-In process for chronic data, we are at least going to be in a
position that, as we address a particular active ingredient, we hope
we will have a relatively full data set as contrasted to 5 years ago
where it was often a codification of what was still missing.
We're still missing things as we get into the standards process,
but it's much better. The other thing that is happening as a result
of the aggressive Data Call-in is we are finding out up front those
registrants who never had any intention of investing the money to
develop the necessary data. 'To the degree that we identify those,
we get them off the market faster. There have been some examples
of t£at sort in the last 12 or 15 months; for example, our aggressive
Data Call-in for the grain fumigants.
Mr. Brown. One other thing on this round, at least. Yesterday,
before Einother committee, a representative of the EPA testified
that, with regard to the development of biolc^cfdly engineered or-
ganisms, EPA didn't need any new l^islation just like they don't
on FIFRA, and that they have the situation well under control.
There's no threats posed by the possibility of an inundation of ap-
plications for biologically engineered organisms used for E^ricultur-
fd purposes, and that you could hfindle it. How can that possibly be
when you're not handling the chemical end of this problem?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, to the d^ree that there was an inun-
dation of new applications for products that are developed through
biotechnolt^, I suspect it would stress our system. We have no in-
dication, at this stage in time, that we are going to be inundated
with a large proliferation of biotechnology applications of one sort
or another.
Mr. Brown. How msiny laboratories have you gone into where
they are preparing products to come on the market as quickly as
possible?
Mr. Moore. It's a very aggressive area right now within a varie-
ty of laboratories in this country.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Brown. We will go around ageun for
as many times as we need to in order to see that everyone has an
adequate opportunity. Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chfdrman. I have a number of
questions and some of these questions are repetitive in regards to
the testimony you have presented, Dr. Moore. In our e^orts to
come up with a legislative compromise, I'm going to go aheeid and
ask some of these specific questions. They are going to be very im-
portant to me as we try to pull together.
Over the last several years, this subcommittee has heard many
witnesses testify over the problem caused by the misuse of pesti-
cides. Many folks testify over the problems caused by the current
statutory language on restricted use pesticides and the interpreta-
tion of under ttie direct supervision.' How can we make sure that
d by Google
14
the restricted use pesticides are used only by highly trained and
competent applicators?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, in looking at that issue, there seem to
be three things that tie together. One is the possibility of trying to
come up with various tiers of restriction of various pesticides as op-
posed to what we have right now, which is restricted or not re-
stricted, all leading toward the construct that we must come up
with a mechanism whereby we can tie one's ability to use that pes-
ticide with demonstrated knowledge.
That infers that one has to have a certification process, or maybe
a recertification process, that is a^ressive, and, indeed, under
some of these restricted use categories, we may change the degree
of supervision that is required. The current statute says under the
direct supervision, which can infer that the person doesn't have to
be present.
If we get into restricted categories, we may say for this particu-
lar pesticide for these uses, the person who is supervised must be
the only one that can use it, rather than under the general super-
vision. One way that that could be done is to strike the words
"under direct supervision" in the statute, and leave it to the Ad-
ministrator's discretion to outline a program which may well tie
the degree of supervision to the hazard p^ed by the use of the pes-
ticide.
Mr. Brown. Would the gentleman yield, just briefly?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Mr. Brown. The gentleman's question listed the kind of bill writ-
ing that we need to have here and I commend him.
Mr. Roberts. Moving right along. [Laughter.]
Are we ready to go to markup on that one, George?
Mr. Brown. I'm ready.
Mr. Roberts. That's what I was eifraid of.
Along the same line, if we allow the Administrator the discretion
to specify the degree of supervision required to use a restricted use
pesticide as you have outlined, I wtuit to know how I can make
sure that we won't be placing a very heavy and unfair burden on
the family farmer who is going through a very tough time right
now, that uses these kind of restricted use pesticides in the normal
course of their farming operations. Let me point out — any kind of
large scale infestation by any critter that I can dream up at this
particular time, is just going to spell havoc in farm country. We
are going through a very difficult time, at best, without those kind
of problems, and I hope and pray we don't have them, not only
from the farmers' standpoint, but from the standpoint of public
safety, as well.
Mr. Moore. Congressman, one thing that we would like to pre-
serve in any change is a distinction between the farm use of par-
ticular pesticides and other uses, which can include disinfectants,
structural pest control, or commercial applicators which may well
be working in the farm environment. We would certainly be sensi-
tive to preserve that area.
Mr. Roberts. What is EPA doing to make sure that the various
State certification programs are consistent and meet some sort of
minimum requirement in regard to trsiining?
d by Google
15
Mr. Moore. We do specify minimum areas of requirement. We
have, just in the last several months, gone through and taken a
look at five-odd State programs to see what degree of consistency
there is or there isn't. As one may expect, there is no consistency
across the States. That isn't necessarily all bad. Some of these
States have different problems compared to others because of geog-
raphy and as a result, do have a legitimate approach to this issue
that might be different from a sister State.
What we are doing is looking at possibilities of talking with some
of the State pesticide applicators, as well as individuals in USDA
who often are responsible or are the mechanism for our getting in-
formation out as far as training, to see if we can come up with a
mechanism that outlines what is the core information needed for
the proper use of pesticides.
Mr. RoBEBTS. If I might be permitted one more question, Mr.
Chairman. One issue that the subcommittee has grappled with for
a number of years is the use of the data that has been submitted
by a company in the r^istration package. Some States would like
to have access to this information. I understand that the Advisory
Committee reached an understanding on the issue of releasing this
data to States. Do you have the authority to release the data to
State governments and, if not, what would you surest to clarify
this situation?
Mr. Moore. Our current understanding of the statute is that it
does not distinguish between private individuals or corporations or
State governments, with respect t« access to confidential business
information. They are equally restricted. As you know, the States
are a key element in making sure there are effective pesticide reg-
ulations since they are the ones that are out there with the delega-
tion for enforcement and compliance.
To correct this problem, I think FIFRA could be amended to
permit EPA to share data with the States, provided that those
States have a comparable authority in place that will protect the
Intimate confidential business information. I think it could be as
simple as that.
Mr. Roberts. I appreciate your testimony. Dr. Moore, and we'll
see you during round two.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Moore, on page
12 of your testimony, you indicate that we are developing ground
water strate^ for pesticides. I assume that means you're in the
process of developing a ground water policy. Could you elaborate
on exactly what that direction might include?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, as I've pointed out, we do have In
place requirements for the registration of new pesticides that data
be provided that gives some sense as to whether or not that chemi-
cal has the potentifd for being a leacher into ground water. We also
have required similar data on some of the old pesticides that have
been out there, so that we can have this data base.
Once those data are in, we hope to take a look at it in some cir-
cumstances, and it may require active monitoring in field circum-
stances of some of them to make sure that our preliminary infor-
mation is correct. The long outcome of all of this is going to be that
we will end up identifying that, in some circumstances, we just run
d by Google
16
a very high probability of this materia! leaching and possibly get-
ting into ground water. The outcome of that may be that one could
end up barring the uae of that pesticide in that particular circum-
stance in a particular geographic locale.
For example, soil type and rainfall and time of the year that a
pesticide is applied are all critical to how fast it may well percolate
through a soil. In places where we have a sandy soil with a very
high water table, certainly that's going to suggest different possible
controlled uses as opposed to other soils where the water table is
maybe 30 feet down emd it's a heavy organic soil and it's applied in
the summer months where just the consei^uence of normsd biota in
the soil and temperature will speed up its degradation and pose
much less of a risk.
What I don't think the Agency ever wants to get into is a cir-
cumstance of trying to regulate pesticide use on a county-by-county
basis across the United States. I just think that would be an impos-
sible circumstance. 1 can see, in the long term, that we will have
identified what information is needed to make an appropriate de-
termination of uae in a particular geographic locale, and make sure
that information is available and then have some ^ency more
proximate to the locale where the appropriate factors can be con-
sidered in reaching the appropriate conclusion.
Mr. GuNDERSON. For the most part, you're anticipating State or
local r^ulations then, as the result?
Mr. Moore. Either State or local regulation or State or local ap-
plication of the information as to its appropriate use.
Mr. GuNDERSON. On page 11, you indicate quite a bit about the
disclosure of the data to the public, public participation in the
whole process, et cetera. If you were to judge the progress that's
been made thus ffir, do you see this as facilitating the How of
health and safety data? Do you see it as being well received by all
parties, or do you see a lot of work yet to do in the area of resolv-
ing this controversy as to what data ought to be made public, and
how?
Mr. Moore. I still think, while progress htis been mfide, that
there are segments of the American community that feel frustrated
in this area. For example, in order to come into possession of
health and safety data, they still feel there are long delays associat-
ed with their requests being granted, because of the fact that we
have to go through in any particular request and make sure that
there is no CBI data that are somehow inside of this material. This
can be corrected.
The other place, I think, is of greater concern to some people and
that is in some of these processes of pesticide review, they still
have limited rights and they would like to see those changed.
Mr. GuNDERSON. Has the release of data under section 10, to
your knowledge, harmed a registrant?
Mr. MOOHE. I'm not aware of any registrant that has been
harmed.
Mr. GuNDERSON. You're not aware of any at this point?
Mr. Moore. No.
Mr. GuNDERSON. I guess I'm about out of time, Mr. Chairman,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you. Mr. Combest.
d by Google
17
Mr. CoHBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moore, I know in a
lot of States, and certainly in Texas, we are experiencing a lot of
concern about the way that the State is also regulating and looking
at pesticide uses. What would you recommend we do in the future?
We've got a problem, of course, from all sorts of variations and reg-
ulations on labels of pesticides relative to reentry time and all this
now that EPA has gone through — in the labeling of the product.
Are there other things that we can do to try to have some type of
cooperative effort so that once a farmer is aware of the fact that
we're dealing with a pesticide under a certain way that it is ruled
under EPA, that the regulation doesn't change in midstream. I re-
alize that they have their own jurisdictions and authority areas but
c£in we do something to further build that cooperation so that we
don't continually have to be concerned about 50 different State
rules and r^ulations r^arding the same thing you're rulii^ on?
Mr. Moore. Congressmem, I think to the degree that we can
more easily share data with the States, States may well feel more
comfortable in being able to check for themselves whether or not
what EPA is suggesting makes sense to them. We also have to be
very ^gressive in our ability to communicate with the State, to
keep them up to date. I think putting together a task force called
SFIREG a couple of years ago has gone a long way toward making
sure States are fully participatory in many of the issues that are of
concern to them or one of concern to the agency.
Couple that with more interaction from an education standpoint,
including USDA, I think we can go a long way toward trying to
minimize some of these concerns.
Mr. CoHBEST. So, your budget is still under what it was in 1980.
Do you anticipate tliat, given additional workloads, with somewhat
limited resources and funds, that will curtail or aifect your activi-
ties? Do you think that you're going to be adequately set up to do
those things within the act?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, our budget for the last couple of years,
as you know, is basically level as regards to pesticides. I think Lee
Hiomas would be upset if I wasn't always bugging him for more
resources of one sort or another. On the other hEuid, I do think we
have resources to mtiintain a credible program. That isn't to say
that some people might not argue that certain things should go
faster or slower or whatever the case may be. Given the competing
priorities of the Agency, I think it's a prc^ram that I can live with.
Mr. CoMBEST. Currently, regarding the Supreme Court on the
Union Carbide case, supposetUy to be decidol some time soon —
what could you enlighten us on about what's happening there and
what might you guess the outcome to be?
Mr. Moore. As you know, the Court heard that case just several
weeks ago. These suits of this sort not only affect the private party
seeking data compensation, but also, in some instances, severely
limit the Agency's ability to carry on some of its day to day oper-
ations. For example, with the suit that you mentioned, the Agency
has no particular interest in whether the arbitration procedures
Uiat are being discussed are subject to more extensive review or
not.
However, if the Supreme Court could decide that more extensive
review is required, it could do it in a way that simply struck the
d by Google
18
limitation that they find objectionable in the current statute.
There's also a slim possibility that the court could strike the entire
provision. If that was to happen, we could end up agsdn with dis-
ruption of our current pesticide process.
I think one should watch closely the outcome of that case; the
decision, I believe, will probably come out in several months, and,
depending on how they rule, be attentive to the need for possibly
making a change. FIFTIA, for example, could be amended to pro-
vide for full judicial review as part of the arbitration process,
which is what I understand is the basic complaint of the plaintiffs
in this case. They feel that they are being deprived of some of their
beisic rights: That is, they are being forced to go into arbitration
and forced to accept what the arbitrator decides without any abili-
ty for seeking relief of that. They feel that's unconstitutional.
Mr. CoMBEST. Rather than the elimination of the indemnification
fund due to the express purpose of it when it was first put in, do
you think it might be wiser to find some other funding mechanism
for it so that it really wouldn't interfere with the decisionmaking
process of the Agency by removal?
Mr. Moore. That certainly is an option, Coi^ressmein. I will ob-
serve that, from my current vantage point, it just doesn't work or
isn't setup to work very well. In Uie circumstances of EDB, there
was a suspension of uses whereby there were indemnification
claims being filed with the Agency for which we were forced to use
existing appropriations to meet those needs. These dollar values
that we are talking about are not trivial. They are meeisured in the
millions of dollars, and sometimes it's very difficult to try to come
up with several millions of dollars out of existing appropriations
and keep on with the management of a progreim that you've prob-
ably worked very hard to craft through the appropriation process.
"There isn't a mechanism created to provide for funding when
these circumstances come up without disrupting the normal budg-
etary process. I would suggest we get rid of the whole thing — one
or the other. I think it's broken right now; it needs fixing.
Mr. CoMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Combest. Dr. Moore, you say you
think it's broken; it needs fixing. With limitations on your budget,
I can see where this could be a problem to you. Do you have specif-
ic suggestions as to how we should fix it?
Mr. Moore. We could strike it.
Mr. Bedell. Is that your recommendation?
Mr. Moore. I think so. We could just strike the whole process. As
I do point out, the indemnification process, as I understand it, is
peculiar to FIFRA. We don't provide, with other laws, similar pro-
tection in the drug area or things of that sort. So, it's not an im-
plausible suggestion, I think, to strike it.
Mr. Bedell. I didn't catch exactly your answer to Mr. Roberts'
question. You need legislation in order to give States access to the
information they need?
Mr. Moore. Yes, it probably would make sense to do that by
clearly identifying that, if a State had the ability to protect the
confidentiality claims that are legitimate to the information that
we are going to share, we could then share it with them.
d by Google
19
Mr. Bedell. You said that ground water was a serious issue and
that States should address the ground water issue. Did I under-
stand you correctly?
Mr. Moore. We re still in the process of evolving a policy in this
r^ard, Mr. Chairman. In the longer term, I really think that, for a
policy to work best, somehow there's got to be a decisionmaker or
an adviser closer to the scene making the decision, rather than a
bunch of people sitting in Crirstal City, across the Potomac.
Mr. Bedell. I wouldn't have any trouble with that, but I guess
the question I would ask you is if one State doesn't do much of any-
thing about ground water contamination and we found massive
ground water contamination in a State, would you not expect that
that State would come to the Federal Government for financial
help in order to help solve their problem?
Mr. Moore. That s certainly a common outcome of it. There are
a couple of things that we certainly could do with some of these
pesticides. We can restrict their use. In the process of restricting
use, if we state why we've restricted the use it does put the pesti-
cides in the hands of somebody who supposedly is more fully in-
formed of the consequences of misuse.
Some other things that we may well do is to identify geographi-
cal restrictions for certain pesticides. What comes to mind is sever-
al years ago there was a problem of contamination of the water
supplies on Long Island, not because of any peculiar use of the ma-
terial in that area, but more as a function of the soil type and the
high ground water circumstances.
You can look from Long Island into other areas of this country
that have similar soil types and high water tables and you C£m
almost predict that there's going to be ground water contamination
of a consequence of the use of some of these materials.
Mr. Bedell. Have you looked at the possibility of what might be
included in leg^lation to make it possible for some type of a coop-
erative effort in which the States would have the flexibility to
better monitor this depending upon the individual problems, but
that the Federal Government would have some type of oversight
responsibility or authority so that the States did not particularly
ignore this responsibility and then come to the Federal Govern-
ment for money to take care of problems that they had not proper-
ly addressed earlier.
Mr. Moore. Congressmem, you identify a very legitimate area
and it's an area that we're not as far along with speciiic solutions
to some of the legitimate concerns you raised as we are in maybe
some of the other areas that we've looked at. Clearly, I think there
is legitimacy to your concern that somehow there still might be a
mechanism of oversight retained at a Federal level in some of
these ground water concerns.
Mr. Bedell. Is the reason that you're not further along because
of Ifick of stafi* and ability and money, or is it just that you haven't
bothered to do it?
Mr. Moore. We work on ground water and it's just a matter of
there's just so msmy hours in the day for these people to focus on
certain activities. It's certainly an area that we intend to stay
abreast of and it's an area that s of concern in the Agency, not just
in the Pesticide Prc^am.
d by Google
20
Mr. Bedell. So, your answer is that you just don't have the staif
time and capability to do it. Is that accurate?
Mr. Moore. Again, it's amenable to resources.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Let's pursue the ground water situation a little bit,
Dr. Moore. Firet of all, it's not something that stems exclusively
out of the Pesticide Program. It's a major concern in the generaj
toxic waste area. Is that correct?
The fact is that pesticides probably represent the largest volume
of chemicals that pose a threat to ground water. I'm trying to get
this correct. I understood that, in terms of chemicals into the envi-
ronment, agricultural chemicals probably represent a Icirge frac-
tion— 80 percent — am I somewhere close to correct?
Mr. Moore. I don't know the percent. I certainly will agree with
you that pesticides represented in agricultural chemicals are used
in great volume in the environment, and by the nature of the use,
has a good potential for getting into ground water. We certainly
have anecdotal examples of where that has come to pfiss.
A particuleir concern fissociated with them is that a pesticide, by
its very nature, is a biologically active material and it maybe that
their presence in ground water, under some circumstances, may be
in the abstract more of a concern than maybe other chemicals.
Mr. Brown. You have identified, in the Agency, umpteen thou-
sand toxic chemical dumps around the country which pose hazards.
Many of these are illegal dumps put there with no regard to the
possible contamination of ground water. The classic case in my own
district, the Stringfellow Acid Pit, was put into a properly licensed
l^al repository. Geological surveys were taken that had shown
that it was over an impervious granite basin and they were wrong.
It's now leEkking into the ground water. If that can be done with a
l^ally licensed site in an impervious situation, then all of these
thousands of illegal sites are even worse.
The question that I raised in earlier years is the quality of the
monitoring being done. Now you made reference to a national and
regional monitoring. The fact is there is no national and regional
monitoring at the present time. Am I correct?
Mr. Moore. You re correct, Congressman. If I could expand upon
that just for a minute. We have been working with the Office of
Water trying to devise a program specific for addressing pesticides
in ground water. We have a variety of instoncea where we've iden-
tified a problem but the date doesn't readily lend itself to extrapo-
lating to a national circumstance with some d^ree of confidence.
We are in the final stages of trying to develop a study that would
do just that. We proposed to look nationally and woi^d take sam-
ples from several thousand sites and analyze them for somewhere
zu'ound four dozen pesticides which we have reason to believe are
the best candidates for possibly making it into ground water; these
results would give us a construct of what circumstances are of
greatest concern.
Mr. Brown. What you have done is to identify those chemicals
which pose the greatest threat because of their solubility and so on
and you have probably included that information on the labels, in
some ceises. What happened in the case of BDB was that it was ac-
d by Google
21
cidentally detected in the ground water with no monitoring pro-
gram at all. Probably that happened with Temix, too, didn't it?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. In most other cases, also. You can alert the users to
the hazards but the fact is there isn't even, on a local basis, sound
knowledge of the dynamics of ground water in the region. That
needs to be corrected. Someone suggested that the Agency m^ht
come up with a scheme to address that problem. You're still work-
ing on that, £u-en't you?
Mr. Moore. Yes; the scheme for this monitoring plan is going to
be finished sometime in August or September.
Mr, Brown. Could you keep the committee informed of your
progress on that? I would very much like to see us emerge with
some sort of a national monitoring scheme that would be reason-
ably adequate to address the problem it faces. It's an interstate
problem. Many of our largest aquifers cover several Stat«s, particu-
larly in the Midwest. We need a multistate approach to this prob-
lem. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. Do we have to call it a scheme?
Mr. Brown. Call it what you will.
Mr. Roberts. How about a plan. Dr. Moore, on numerous occa-
sions there has been concern expressed before this subcommittee
on the fact that some foreign governments do not have access to
our health and safety data. I know this is a very sticky wicket, es-
pecially in regard to the Communist bloc countries and how we can
adequately protect that data once it is given to those countries. Do
you have any suggestions on how we could set up some sort of
mechanism for releasing data to foreign governments? What crite-
ria.
Mr. MooRB. Congressman, you do correctly identify an area that
has posed some problems in the past, and may still. As far as our
ability to share data, I think FIFRA would need to be amended to
allow us to do this in such a way. Several things come to mind that
may well be criteria that would identify those circumstances in
which we would go ahead and share data with a foreign govern-
ment. For example, one might say that a bilateral e^eement had
to exist between the United States and that country for the sharing
of such data, that EPA had gone through a process of notice and
comment whereby you alert the public as well as the registrants of
the possibility of entering into such an agreement emd have the
benefit of their comments on that as part of the decisionmaking
process, and then maybe determine that the sharing of such data is
in the best interest of the U.S. Government.
Conversely, if we are in a position of sending data to a foreign
government for their benefit, we also should have some language
in there that would allow us to explicitly state that we could pro-
vide appropriate protection for any data we might receive on the
reciprocal end of such an ^reement.
Mr. Roberts. If 1 could followup on that, I think Mr. Gunderson
and I would etgree that we also make it mandatory that those coun-
tries buy our dairy products and our wheat products, but I won't go
into that.
d by Google
22
With those criteria that you mentioned, aren't we going to bring
the State Department in as a player? I always live in mortal fear
with the State Department and what it does to eigriculture. Is that
going to cause yet another agency to look over your shoulder and
slowup this process or get into more kinds of problems?
Mr. MooR£. I think that's always a theoretical possibility that
anytime we enter into any kind of agreement with a foreign coun-
try that the State Department would claim it has some legitimate
purview or chance to comment on the process.
Mr. Roberts. I don't know of anything on the whole laundry list
of activities that the State Department doesn't claim some legiti-
mate interest in, but go ahead.
Mr. Moore. It's my understanding that our ability to interact in
areas of pesticide interest with foreign governments or internation-
al organizations have not been in the main generally hindered by
any advice or interaction by the State Dep£u1;ment.
Mr. Roberts. So, you don't think that's a problem?
Mr. Moore. No, and my colleagues confirm that.
Mr. Roberts. I see some nodding heads. In the situation where
the regulator in a foreign country is also a producer of the pesti-
cide, how would the regulatory system propose any kind of safe-
guards for the data?
Mr. Moore. I eissume you're referring to the — restate that again
for me, Congressman.
Mr. Roberts. In the situation where the regulator in a foreign
country is also a producer of that pesticide, how would the regula-
tory system you propose safeguard the data?
Mr. Moore. As I understand it, some of the concerns people have
on sharing of data with foreign governments is that they would
come into receipt of data that would then allow them to go ahead
and produce that pesticide. In other words, the fact that they re-
ceive data allowed them to be able to go about producing it. To
the degree that they are alresidy producing that pesticide in that
circumstance, I don't think that would become a mtgor issue.
Mr. Roberts. I want to mention the IBT situation in regard to a
question here and I'm talking about where you have a situation
where some data has been submitted in support of registration and
later proven to be false. If the Agency is granted authority to
cancel a registration based on the submission of false and mislead-
ing data, how would you handle the situation where that person
who actually did the submitting doesn't know that the data is
false?
Mr. Moore. I think you hit on a point that is important in trying
to correct what may be an aberration in the current statute — that
is, somehow the Agency should have to factor into its decision as to
whether it v/as going to cancel the registration or not the culpabil-
ity of the registrant. Indeed, in the IBT circumstance that you al-
luded to, in addition to the Agency maybe being duped with falsi-
fied data, the registrant, in most instances, also was unaware that
the contract lab that was doing the work was just flat falsifying
data.
Mr. Roberts. If I might be permitted one more question, Mr.
Chairman. I would like for you to submit for the record to the sub-
committee a complete update on the IBT chemicals. We went into
d by Google
23
that in great length during the last session and it is still a point of
real concern for the subcommittee and to this member. If you could
submit that for the record, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Moore. I would be glad to.
[The information follows:]
d by Google
status of IBT Studies
EPA has revieMed all the IBT studies which deal with
tiedltti effects critical to regulatory decisions, such as
cancer and other long-term or reproductive effects. Then
are 724 studies In this category. As of April 1985:
"460 others do not require replacement for a variety
of reasons. Either the IBT studies were found to
be valid, or the pesticide involved Is not registered
In the U. S. , has been cancelled, or the type of study
Is not required for registration.
"50 replacement studies have been received and are under
Attached Is a list of the specific studies which hai
not yet been finally accounted for through either final
acceptance of a replacement study or determination that
d by Google
. i
e s e I
s E I £
i I i i
db,Google
n
iPii
m p n
~. ..--.-. f{fflill31
Eiiii^^:^
^fifniiiifiii
i.f.i,
itiiitiiitiiii
ifi[i[ifiif[|[|jiyii|lll|iii[f[ilfi|i|i|i!|ilt|!!|l|f
.. '~!'n!ii!liiiilillll>i<!iS>:;ilt!a!<:iill!!!-h!;!:l
i
^5.:.iiSciii:::K;-^S*i-;.i:.r^?;Ks:!fis-„ii;r:iR;i:s-s::lit
d by Google
, hiHhiilirJlihihiii-lli!i-<iiiliiliiiii!ifili3n^i
jiliiliillliiililiifiiiliilliilillliliil
:: I nil!ll.i..,pi! = ||iJi«llllillH .|l
. ll!i:>!!>!>'>!l!S!-s:!!rii!lil"!i!ii>iiil:S!!!!:ii>ii!
!i ilM„, s
l':Ji.iii5iiiiili:=:4iHPHii|-^^^iill------ — -!i
K^;S8f|8ri!K sfts?;.. sj;ts.„T£::lss3f:isJ*?£!iss|!T'.; s;s
ST-«e 0-86—
d by Google
, nihiiisijiiiilihillihlllflh-iuiiililiihl
JiiiiyilffifiliiiiiiHiiiiiiii
ifflllliiifgMgMiiilsflUGEsljlplillinyiyi
d by Google
Mr. Roberts. Themk you.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. GuNDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chainnein. Dr. Moore, in the
last session I was the ranking member on the subcommittee with
jurisdiction over OSHA and I notice in your testimony that you in-
dicate that there ought to be better cooperation and interaction be-
tween OSHA and EPA as it regards the various uses and disclosure
of r^ulations, et cetera. Can you elaborate on exactly what you
are suggesting?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, as you may be aware, the current cir-
cumstance is that any action that EPA may take to control work-
place exposure under FIFRA preempts OSHA from taking any
action in that same area. This has led to concern that FIFRA label-
ing sometimes minimizes worker expwure levels and may prevent
OSHA from setting a maximum permissible exposure level, for ex-
ample, even though there may be no inconsistency between the two
actions. There are examples where we had proposals of things to
put on the label which we were led to believe would probably pre-
empt OSHA's ability to finally promulgate and enforce a permissi-
ble exposure limit. I think they could do a better job than we could
in this area so far as the objective is to achieve worker protection.
In that circumstance, their mechanism would have been better
than ours. A simple solution is to maybe amend the statute so that
EPA actions do not preempt OSHA, provided that OSHA's actions
are not inconsistent or unnecessarily duplicative of what EPA may
have done on a label.
Mr. GuNDKESON. If we do something like that, whether it be leg-
islatively or through regulation, I have to plead with you as I have
done with OSHA. The working man and woman in this country
could care less what formula you put on labels because they don t
understand them anyway. If we are going to do labeling, for gosh
sakes do it in a way where the average person can get some benefit
out of that label. If we aren't cognizant and concerned about that,
the whole effort is going to be futile.
Since we're talking labeling, you mention on peige 16 that the
Agency is now considering the poaeibility of using labeling to iden-
tify inert ingredients which may pose significant risks to human
health and environment. If I read section 2(1) of FIFRA, you al-
ready have the authority to r^ulate inerts, is that correct?
Mr. Moore. The Agency does maintain that it has au^ority now
to require the listing of inerts.
Mr. GuNDERSON. Does that include labeling, in your opinion?
Mr. Moore. Yes. Chie thing that would help is that some people
may not f^ree with our interpretation and may well contest it. I
might suggest that an amendment could cleuify our authority in
the area and clearly demonstrate EPA's commitment to the proc-
ess.
Mr. GuNDERSoN. If you would indicate to us at some point in
time what kind of clarification you fee! is necessary, I think that
would be helpful.
Could you clarify just what is the Agency's cross media enforce-
ment bill and what that has, or does not have, to do with FEFRA?
Mr. Moore. I believe it was last year the Agency concluded an
effort where we tried to look at what the compliance and enforce-
d by Google
ment activities were in each of our statutes with the intent of
achieving better consistency of the penalties and the requirements
across them. In essence, it identified that there is great variance in
certain circumstances between various statutes.
For example, the TSCA statute, which I have responsibility for,
is very aggressive in its penalty requirements compared to FIFRA.
What we would suggest that one could do is to take a look at the
penalties, make some adjustment in FIFRA penalties to bring them
up to date, still keeping the dichotomy between agriculture and
commercial firms, and also look at recordkeeping requirements for
some degree of consistency in this area, as well as inspection au-
thorities. As I mentioned, we do not have authority to inspect a
laboratory to see if they're in compliance with good laboratory
practices.
Mr. GuNDEBSON. You would like that authority?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr, GuNDEHSON. Concerning the special review process — and I
think everyone from the industry to the environmental community
is always interested in that issue and the procedures that are
used — you've talked about streamlining the special review process.
Could you elaborate exactly on what you are anticipating?
Mr. Moore. As I mentioned in my testimony, we do have some
proposed changes in regulations which will allow us to maybe
streamline the current system. I maintain that the current system
needs to be looked at. You can only go so far in making a silk
purse out of a sow's ear, if you will.
The problem with the system is that a tremendous amount of
effort goes into getting all the information on the record. When
we've issued the final decision as the outcome of this process, if
somebody disagrees with it, they have the right, under the current
statute, of eisking for a judicatory hearing process. In that adjudica-
tory hearing process, we beisicEilly stiut all over itgeiin because ev-
erything that we have built during this PD1,2,3,4 system is almost
nonexistent. We get into cross examination. We have to start build-
ing the case. I just think it is one of the reasons why the Agency
may not be as efficient as it could be in addressing some of these
concerns. Certainly I think it's one of the main reasons that I think
erodes the public's credibility in the process. By the very nature of
saying this is a special review, we announce to the world that here
is something that is a particular concern to us and we're going to
look at it with great scrutiny. Then years later, we still have a
process that, after we've come out and the Agency has decided to
do something, we start all over again and the public says well I
guess the Agency decided but nothing seems to happen because it's
now going to go on for a couple of more years. Then we can appeal
that and msike the Administrator review it, and if we don't like his
decision, they can go to the courts.
I just submit that this may be a bit overbearing. We might be in
a better position of getting rid of that process and go to a process
t^at is more akin to what is done in most of our other statutes
which is the informal notice and comment rulemaking. At the end
of that if somebody is still upset with the outcome of that rulemak-
ing, they can take the additional course of going to the courts.
Mr. GuNDERSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
d by Google
31
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Gunderson. Mr. Penny, Mr. Roberto
has requested that he go next, without objection. Mr. Roberts is
going to go over and see that we get adequate poHce protection, afi I
understand it, and we all feel that is very Important.
Mr. Roberts. Lord knows, any Member of Congress, with the
statements we make around here, needs a certain amount of secu-
rity. That's to be understood.
I would like to foUowup in regard to Mr. Gunderson's question
£uid I appreciate my colleagues letting me go out of order. This is
on the informal rulemaking process. I don't see anybody in the au-
dience with brown overcoats and Sam Brown belts taking notes but
I am a little concerned about 0MB scrutiny and opening up the
special review process to 0MB scrutiny — I am pausing there —
that's everybody's favorite four-letter word in this town. At any
rate, could this tie up your agency even more? Welcome to the hot
seat.
Mr. Moore. By going from the current process we're in to infor-
mal rulemsiking, one clearly would be in the circumstance where
the appropriate Executive orders would have us submit the rules
for OMB comment to a much greater degree than in the current
process.
Mr. Roberts. It's not the comment that I worry about from
OMB, it's the proposals. They not only saddle the horse, they tell
us which way to ride or even if we're going to get him out of the
chute. I have some real problems with that, but that's another
matter.
Since the subcommittee last held hearings on FIFRA, the Agency
has begun a negotiated rulemeiking process in regards to section 18
emergency use provisions. Are there any other areas that this type
of process could be used to address some of the contentious issues
in FIFRA?
Mr. Moore. That section IS negotiated rulemaking was a first for
the Agency, particularly in the area of pesticides. As it related to
the outcome of section 18, we were basicEilIy pleased with the out-
come of that process. That's not to say it wasn't contentious and
everything else to get such a diverse group with very strong opin-
ions to agree on what that rule should be. Hopefully it will allow
us to have anticipated what some of these comments may be and sb
the end result be able to get the final rule out feister. 1 don't think
negotiated rulemaking will work in every circumstance. Given the
success that we've had under section 18, we're certainly eager to
stay attuned to those circumstances in which it looks like it would
have success.
Mr. Roberts. Your Agency has undertaken a rather ambitious
prt^am on Data Call-In. How will your Agency handle the project-
ed workload that I would predict will happen?
Mr. Moore. Basically, we have been putting together what we
call our flaging criteria that we will be requiring the registrants to
employ. The short of the flaging criteria is that we will have identi-
fied to all registrants, in advance, certain types of data that should
be brought to our attention. Indeed, the obligation will then be on
them that when those circumstances are net, they flag for us that
here is a data set that fits your criteria that you say you want us
to alert you to.
d by Google
The hopeful outcome will be that we mininiize the possibility
that we miss a very significant data piece and only get to it as we
wade through the stack. Indeed the data of greatest concern will be
flaged to us so that we can address it in a priority manner.
Mr. Roberts. There is one question that Mr. Combest of Texas
wanted to ask, but his schedule does not permit him to be here. If
the FIPRA requirements on data compensation are amended to
Eillow for full judicial review, what impact will this have on the
Agency?
Mr. Moore. Our feeling is it would have little or none to our cir-
cumstances. Where we are right now is that, because people are
frustrated with the current system, they go into court and try to
get restraining orders, et cetera. Then, we are held up In being able
to roister some products because of the claims that you can t use
my data or things of that sort.
Mr. Roberts. Mr. Chairman, I, again, want to thank the subcom-
mittee members for allowing me to ask these questions out of turn.
I appreciate very much your patience and your answers, Dr. Moore.
Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Mr. Penny.
Mr. Penny. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Moore, would you de-
scribe the considerations or the criteria that you use in placing
these chemicals on your priority list for reregistration.
Mr. Moore. Several years ago, the Agency developed a scheme
whereby the chemicals that would come up for review first are
those chemicals that are food use pesticides, and, as a result, are
likely to pose a circumstance of large use and great potential for
exposure should something eidverse be found with those chemicals.
Those are coming first.
The practical outcome of that is that we're in the current process
of reviewing the existing chemicals that represent some of the
chemicals that are in very heavy use in agriculture right now.
Mr. Penny. That does represent heavy use in agriculture.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir. Things that would fall behind the food use
category would be chemicals that are nonfood use. We have just
made a conscious decision that they would be of a secondary priori-
ty.
Mr. Penny. When you indicate that you have reregistered 98
chemicals, what exactly does that mean?
Mr. Moore. The 40,000-odd r^istrations that we have of pesti-
cides basically represent some 600 active ingredients or combina-
tions of active ingredients. When we talk about registration stand-
ards, we talk about those 600 chemicals. We have completed 90-odd
of those standards. Some of the early standards that were put to-
gether several years ago, in some respects, reflect a collation of
what was missing as well as a review of what data were there.
Now, at the time we are reviewing a chemical, we will have what
we consider to be some of the key data in hand, rather than say it's
C' ig to be coming in another year or whatever the case may be. It
been a shifting circumstance leading up to the stage whereby
we will soon be basically reviewing a data set that is equivalent for
chronic data to that required to get a new pesticide on the market.
Mr. Penny. How are you handling inert ii^tredientB?
d by Google
Mr. Moose. With difficulty. We have come up with a set of crite-
ria for the 1,200 inerts that exist, whereby we have looked at those
inerts to try to identify those that are of particuljir coDcem. We
have submitted our process on how we are going to review these to
the Science Advisory Panel which is a part of the FIFRA mandate
that we have a scientific review board. In addition, they have
agreed with the process. Just this week, at their meeting 2 days
ago, we showed them those 40-odd chemicals that are of greatest
concern to us. Our intent is to identiiy those chemicals tmd to also
possibly consider the requirement that those chemicals be listed on
formulations that contain them.
p£irt of our hope is that in the process of identifying these inerts
of particular concern, many registrants will voluntarily quit using
those inerts to the degree that's possible.
Mr. Penny. I have one other question in regeu^ to inspections.
Do you set the standards on chemicals or the amount of residue of
chemicals that will be allowed on imports and, if so, who actually
conducts the inspection?
Mr. McxjRE. Residues are set under the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act. EPA has the responsibility of identifying the level of
residue that would be allowed for a particuleir pesticide. In essence,
we do that and then it's FDA's responsibility to enforce or to moni-
tor and enforce.
Mr. Penny. Are you satisfied that there is a close enough work-
ing relationship there that we are catching thii^s that we ought to
catch?
Mr. Moore. I'm very comfortable with the relationship that we
have with FDA jn this area. One thing that we are very active in
right now is going through the list of old pesticides that have been
cancelled for a variety of reasons over the past number of years
and either eliminating those residues or lowering those residues to
the decree that is possible so that American agriculture is not at a
disadvantage. Otherwise it could still be used in a foreign country
and we import it because our residues will allow it. We are in the
process of dropping those residues or eliminating them to prevent
this from happening. Aside from the disadvantage to agriculture, it
also makes no sense to allow it to be coming in on imports, from a
public health view.
Mr. Penny. Yes, I tend to agree with that. Do you have any ex-
amples of where we've actually shut down imports based on either
a chemical pesticide that we don't allow used here that was in evi-
dence on imported commodity, or where the residue standards were
in excess of what we allow?
Mr. Moore. There are examples. One that comes to mind oc-
curred last fall whereby we were in the process of importing some-
thing in the nature of a fresh fruit in which there was no tolerance
set in this country. As a result, we held up those shipments. FDA
seized the shipments. I could provide for the record examples of
where this occurs.
Mr. Penny. I think that might be helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
[The information follows:]
d by Google
iBports In V1[
The subcommittee
maj
ority of -
binstlons
-iolation.
for whIcV
; no^uls! ?o[en
cular
ns involv
"try, or |
quent, but
for other
\ng pest1<
]est1e1det
t they do
de Is reg 1 s tc n
■ commodities.
:1des not regtsi
, tnat wc have
tered
■ the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) detects
lues in foreign comrnodlties and prevents the
m entering the country, either because residues
for any use 1
cancelled, ir
FDA, rather than EPA, compiles records of these actions
on Inports, but the following recent actions are noteworthy.
Within the last year, FDA detected residues of BHC and DDT
tolerance levels. After two shipments were found in violattt
no further HeiUan cabbage was allowed to enter the U.S.
unless the shipper could produce a valid certificate of
analysis showing that a shipment did not contain Illegal
residues of BHC or DDT. In recent months, FDA has also
because EDB was detected at levels above our Interim tolerant
of 30 parts per billion for EDB on mangoes. Pineapples from
Mexico have also been detained because shipments Mere found
to contain residues of carbaryl . which until recently had no
EPA has sent copies of its policy statement on Revocatti
of Tolerances for Cancelled Pesticides, published In the
Federal Heoister September Z9, 1982, to all Codex member
nations, including Mexico. The Agency has also circulated
its proposals for specific tolerance revocation actions to
Codex members for comment. As you may know, EPA has recently
proposed revocations of tolerances for several cancelled
pesticides, Including DOT and BHC. This exchange of informal
with other countries is Intended to help ensure the cOBpliani
d by Google
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Penny. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Moore, in regard to the foreign use of pesticides
and chemicals, I'm not sure I understood your answer because on
those chemicals that are prohibited from use here in the United
States, my understanding is that they can be used in foreign coun-
tries on products that are imported here into the country if there's
not a residue found. Some of us feel that is quite unfair to our pro-
ducers in that our producers are not simply required to say there
isn't any residue. They are told they can't use it. Is there any incli-
nation toward any changes in this policy or would you have any
recommendations in legislation we pass in regard to those policies?
Mr. Moore. I don't know how we could enforce
Mr. Bedeu,. It would be pretty easy to enforce it. All we would
have to do is say that we would prohibit the importation of any
products into these United States from a country which permits
the use of any chemicals that are prohibited in our country.
Mr. Moore. I think that would imply the necessity for some
agent of this country to be in that country to see if there was no
residue.
Mr. Bedeix. Not at all. It would simply depend upon somebody
checking the laws of that country to see whether that country per-
mitted the use of that chemical, or whether they didn't.
Mr. Moore. You'd make the assumption if it was registered for
that use you would presume it was being used for that purpose.
Mr. Bedell. Sure. We prohibit it here; therefore, if they wemted
to import into our country, they would have to prohibit it there.
We would operate on equal terms. Would you be supportive of that
or opposed to that or have an opinion as to such a proposal?
Mr. Moore. I think the Agency would not have any strong opin-
ion on that one way or the other if that is what the law would re-
quire. We certainly would enforce it. I think the issues that might
be raised in that regard wouldn't come out of EPA; they would be
comii^ out of other parts of the administration that were con-
cerned about trade barriers. That's an area that EPA doesn't want
to get in the middle of.
Mr. Bedell. OK, I think you've got a few problems already. You
gave an answer to Mr. Roberts in regard to culpability where false
data had been used and you were going to determine whether it
was intentional or not. Would there be any type of appeal or re-
course if anybody felt that your ruling had been unjust in their
case?
Mr. Moore. I think we'd fUways think that it's appropriate that
due process be aveulable as appropriate in any circumstance, this
one included.
Mr. Bedell. This is a recommendation that you had. If you were
to furnish such a recommendation, you'd also recommend that
there be come type of appeal process. Is that correct?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bedell. That gets into the next question. Your testimony
has been very helpful and very specific and we are very pleased. I
weint to commend you for your statements, as well. The people on
this subcommittee know that's not too common for me as chair-
man, frankly.
d by Google
Mr. Moore. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Cein we get cooperation and help from your staff if
we attempt to draft legislation? You've got a lot of knowledge over
there of things that could help you to work better. Can we have
your assurance of the cooperation and help from your staff if we
try to draft our own legislation in these areas?
Mr. Moore. Ycb, Mr. Chairman. We certainly are willing to pro-
vide technical assistance as appropriate euid as requested.
Mr. Bedeli- Mr. Gunderson talked to you about changes in the
system and you had some recommendations which sounded to me
to be very reasonable and most helpful. Then when Mr. Roberts
asked you if FIFRA requirements on data compensation were
amended to allow full judicial review, and what effect you would
see on your Agency, you implied that you didn't think it would
have any effect because you already have all this judicial review. If
we were to change the legislation as you recommended to Mr. Gun-
derson, then I assume that this would have a substantial effect, am
I correct? I thought your recommendation to Mr. Gunderson would
get away from all of the requirements that you duplicate your ef-
forts for judicial review on these matters.
Mr. MooRE. As it relates to special review, if we were to change
and go into informal notice and comment rulemaking, it would
then eliminate the adjudicatoiy part of the process and basically
take it through the normal rulemaking process and then into tJie
court of appeals if somebody was concerned about the equity of
that.
Mr. Bedell. In your answer to Mr. Roberts where he asked if the
FIFRA requirements on data compensation were amended to allow
for full judicial review you said you felt it would not be any great
deterrent to your ability to move more quickly.
Mr. Moore. I understood Mr. Roberts question to deal with the
Union Carbide case that's currently before the Supreme Court.
That dealt only with the arbitration decision. The current statute
requires binding arbitration to which there is no appeal. The case
is basically arguing that you've taken away from me the due proc-
ess of appeal. The current system is causing us problems because of
the registrants disliking the systems and saying it's unconstitution-
al. This situation holds up our ability to roister somebody who is
willing to compensate somebody else who developed data £is is ap-
propriately set by an arbitrator. To the degree that's in the courts
and there are restreiining orders associated with it, we can't do
business.
Mr. Bedell. I think there was a misunderstanding on Mr. Rob-
erts' question. Can I read you his question as he had it eind from
which he read it?
I fully appreciate that the Agency from time to time has been
tied up by numerous court decisions. If the FIFRA requirements on
data compensation are amended to allow for full judicial review,
what import would this have on the Agency? I think that is the
question he meant to ask.
Mr. Moore. On a day in, day out basis as far as our involvement
in any dispute, it would have no effect. A practical consequence
may well be if it was changed to allow judicial review after this
arbitrator had set a judgment, I would presume that registrants
d by Google
37
that were unhappy with the arbitration results would not e
ily tie up the whole process while they're seeking relief if they had
some mechanism to insure that they would get compensated in the
end.
Indirectly, if we made this change, it would help us. We are not
direct participants to any of this.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you. Mr. Brown,
Mr. Brown. Let me just take amother crack at a couple of items
here. Dr. Moore. You indicated in connection with the amount of
resources available to you that it had been approximately level and
that you expected to cope with that problem. I have the figures
from your budget submission and they re somewhat less optimistic
than that. I'll read these and if you have any problems with them,
I wish you would correct me. This is the section on pesticides, spe-
cial r^istration, and tolerances and it shows that for registration
the total goes from $15.9 million to $13.7 million in 1986, a de-
crease of $2.2 million and that's around 7 or 8 percent in dollars.
For special registration, the figures are $2.2 million in 1985, and
$1.9 million for 1986, again a decrease of about 10 percent. For tol-
erances, $3.2 milhon in 1985 and $2.87 million in 1986, a decrease
of a little over 10 percent in dollars.
The figures for permanent work years are equally bleak. The
total work years in each of the three categories go down by
amounts which range from about 3 percent for registration, about 5
percent for special registration, and about 7 percent for total work
years on tolerance. This indicates to me that both your dollars and
your permanent total staff are dropping at a time when you're
milking good progress and doing an admirable job. You're still
faced with backlogs that run up to possibly 20 years.
I haven't misstated these figures, have I?
Mr. Moore. You have a more detailed breakout of my budget
than I brought with me this morning. I have no reason to quarrel
with your figures. What I can refer to is that if we set eiside the
R&D component of the pesticide 1986 budget request, what we have
for the r^ular operations — I'm not disputing the decrease in num-
bers that you are talking about, but what has happened is that we
are basically reorienting some of those numbers. For example, the
generic chemical review part of the budget in fiscal year 1986 has
gone from 250 FTE's in 1985 to 260. There are internal shiftings.
Mr. Brown. The categories that I was reading were the ones I
indicated.
Mr. Moore. I don't dispute your figures.
Mr. Brown. Back to the monitoring, you have enforcement
powers under both FIFRA and the Clean Water Act and the Clean
Air Act. The monitoring problem is the same for all of those. We
have stories of pesticides being blown by the atmosphere from
Texas to the Great Lakes and contaminating the fish in the Great
Lakes and producing cancers in people eating fish. A monitoring
problem has to cross all media or all of the different programs, at
least. The question I have for you is in looking at the monitoring
situation, if you're looking at it broadly or just on the ground
water situation. If so, how do you justify this in view of the inter-
media impact?
d by Google
Mr. Moore. We're clearly looking at it from a water standpoint
with particular interest on ground water as opposed to surface
water and we're doing that in conjunction with the Office of Water
within the Agency.
With r^ard to air programs, they are starting a new monitoring
program and they have asked us to participate in putting together
a process. I would say based on that that we are behind.
I do get a sense in the Agency that there is much greater inter-
est and willingness of the various fiefdoms to realize that these are
cross-media issues.
Mr. Brown. I think we have always known that but there are
problems just because of the way it's organized and authorized.
You have too many laws over there.
May I ask you to provide the subcommittee a little progress
report on how you're doing in the monitoring field. You anticipate
a report in the fall, but I would be interested to know just how
broad a scope your plsaiB include and what you're contemplatii^
doing.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
National Honltoring Plan for PestUtdes
The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has prepared a
report entitled the National Pesticide Monitoring Plan, -hleh
and related activities In the context of regulatory decision-
making. The plan reflects OPP awareness that monitoring data
on the occurrence and effects of pesticides In all environmental
actions. The scope of monitoring activities described 1s
very broad, and Includes nonitorlng for pesticides In
ground and surface xater. air, food and feed commodities.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. VoLKMEH. I do have a couple of questions. You have touched
on funding on enforcement not being adequate, is that correct?
Mr. Moore. Our funding for enforcement is basically level.
Mr. Volkmer. Is that sufficient?
Mr. Moore. Some people have questioned that if we become more
aggressive in a restricted use cat^ory and in testing for proficien-
cy and knowledge for becoming a certified applicator, that would
put a greater burden on the States which they would be very hard
i to realize with the current level of funding.
d by Google
Mr. VoLKMBR. The question I have is about a review of the oper-
ation of some of the independent labs and your being able to moni-
tor their work and approve or disapprove. What about the funding
for being able to do that?
Mr. Moore. I'm fairly comfortable that we have a critical mass
in that area. As you know, we did promulgate good laboratory
practices a year and a half ago. I also integrated the good laborato-
ry practice data audit functions of the Office of Toxic Substances
and the Office of Pesticide Programs. So often they are going to the
same laboratories. Their approach at looking at data is the same.
I also have been much more aggressive in interacting with FDA
as well as the National Toxicology Program who ^so conduct
GLP's and data audits, so that we get broader coverage by knowing
what each other is going to be doing. I'm reasonably comfortable
with the critical mass in that area.
Mr. VoLKMER. In reviewing the testimony, I note that you say
you are trying to administratively find ways to speed up the special
review process. I was wondering if you or your staff have reviewed
the present legislation in effect as to whether there's any impedi-
ment in the law that delay any of the registrations that could pos-
sibly be changed without impinging on the scientific level and
making sure that everything is sound.
Mr. Moore. We've looked at some of those things and have pro-
posed or instituted a few changes. We are now proposing in the
changes to the existing regulation that we will not enter something
into special review until we have some exp(»ure information to tie
in with what is usuedly first available which is some hazard data
that suggest some type of toxicity. Those two pieces are critical in
risk assessment. You can't do risk assessment with just one piece;
you need both pieces.
We're trying to have those pieces aveiilable so that when we do
move forward, we can possibly do it in a move expedited fashion.
Mr. VoLKMER. Are you telling me that you see no need for any
change in legislation in r^ard to this?
Mr. MooRE. I think the change that possibly is needed is to get
us out of the process whereby we go through this special review
and then are subject to going to adjudicatory review and then sub-
ject, theoretically, into further review by the Administrator, and
then remedies into the courts. We would suggest that there's got to
be a faster way of doing that. One way that hfis some appeal to us
might be to change the whole process that we currently have and
conduct this through informal notice and comment rulemaking,
with the outcome being that, if anybody is still upset, they can go
directly into the court of appeals and will eliminate this adjudica-
tory segment of the process.
We probably would also identify that we don't want to throw
away the option of using the other mechanism. There may be bene-
fit once you've done a rulemaking on an active ingredient, as you
treat the dozens or several hundreds of registered products that
contain that ingredient, one might best go through those, possibly
using the adjudicatory hearing process.
Mr. Bedell. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Volkmer. Yes.
d by Google
40
Mr. Bedell. I think Dr. Moore indicated in questions by Mr.
Gunderson that they do believe there needs to be some cheuiges in
legislation and that they would work with us in r^ard to such
cheinges to streamline that process and make it more rapid for
them.
Mr. VoLKMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Dr. Moore, you mentioned that you have 25 stand-
ards a year now. Will you explain what standards zire.
Mr. Moore. In the process of rer^istration of existing chemicals,
we basically go through a process whereby we review all of the
data that's in the file pertaining to the registration. We review it
for accuracy and value by today s standards even though it might
have been submitted 15 or 20 years ago. Is it still acceptable in
1985? Also, what's missing. Using our pesticide registration re-
quirements, we look at what's missii^? It's common that we may
have a study that assesses a chemiceil's possibility for causing birth
defects in one species. Our current requirement is that you have to
do that in two species. We would then identify that we still needed
a second study by 1985 standards.
The outcome of it is that it's a twofold process as we're currently
realizing it. One, we're still identifying what data pieces may yet
be missing and it also is a full review of what data we have as to
its adequacy. If the data are adequate, if we find no particular con-
cern, we then move on. To the degree that we find something that
is inadequate or something that is of concern which we would like
to explore further, we might require additional data through the
process. If the nature of the data suggests some adverse effect of
some priority, we will then put it into special review.
An example of the specifd review criteria may well be when
we've got studies that assess ability to cause cancer that are posi-
tive. Something that may be acutely toxic is another criteria, lliose
criteria have been outlined in a regulation as to what those criteria
are. The composite of £ill of this effort basically is a registration
standard which is the Agency's way of announcing to itself as well
as to the rest of the world, this is what we know about that active
ingredient; this is what we're comfortable with; this is what we're
asking for more information on.
Mr. Bedell. I was afraid that would be your answer. So, the re-
ality is that by having those standards does not meim that you
have necessarily completely tested and satisfied yourself that uiat
chemical is something that can be registered and used. Is that cot^
rect?
Mr. Moore. Correct.
Mr. Bedell. You've got 600 potentially subject to registration
and right now you're doing 25 standards a year. I'm not as knowl-
edgeable about all this as I wish I was, but u that was my businesB,
I would say at my age you're not going to get done with what you
have right now if you don't get another one for the rest of my life.
That's a pretty terrible problem, Dr. Moore. I realize the restric-
tions, but I don't understfind how you keep from tearing your hair
out.
Mr. Moore. You have hit on what I think is the Achilles heel of
the Pesticide Program as it currently operates today or as it is per-
ceived to operate as far as credibility with the public. That is the
d by Google
41
inability of the Agency to have completed a review of all of these
old pesticides that were registered decades ago. That review must
be done under new criteria.
Mr. Bedell. Do you think the criteria are too restrictive then?
Mr. Moore. No.
Mr, Bedell. What the devil are we going to do? We've got a ter-
rible m^ on our hands.
Mr. Moore. I think the best answer I can give you is that given
the resource that we have available for doing this, we have tried to
prioritize the approach to it by picking those pesticides that are the
most important and doing them fiTBt. Also, to make sure that
nobody is theoretically getting a free ride by thinking that they are
not going to come up for review for einother 10 years — and as a
result they do nothing toward getting the data that we are going to
require — we're aggressively trying to issue all of the Data Call-In
requirements for these products so that the company up front must
commit to the investment of that data.
If we then put flaging criteria on the data, it then will allow us,
as these materials come up, to have the registrant flag for us those
data sets that are of particular concern to us so that we can get to
them on a priority basis.
Mr. Bedell. You have had some legislative proposals that you
have worked on. I presume this is one of the major things that you
would look at is how the devil you get out of the problem you're in
with the limited resources you have. Will you submit to us what-
ever si^gestions you have? I don't think you ought to be bashful
about whatever those suggestions are to help solve what would
appear to me to be a terribly diflicult problem.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bedell. You say the large influx of data is expected this
year.
To insure that the Agency receives all the data it needs and to insure that we can
keep abreast of the most significant of the new data, we will be issuing a final inter-
pretative rule this spring.
That's just additional work, is it not, Dr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bedell. With no additional help. You say here that the
Agency has remained alert to current FIFRA language that may
limit our efficiency in implementing our statutory mandate. Will
you give us recommendations as to what this implies?
Mr. Moore. Some of those I have articulated this morning as a
response to a number of the questions that have been asked, but,
yes, I would be glad to provide that.
Mr. Bedell. T^e special review process, I guess we reviewed that
quite completely. You recommend some major changes in that, as I
understand it.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bedkll. Will you give us language as to what you think you
need for better enforcement?
Mr. Moore. We would be willing to provide you with technical
assistance as well eis a general outUne of where we think penalties
may warrant consideration for maybe updating to current day's
standards.
d by Google
Mr. Bedell. As I said, at least for me, this session has been most
informative. I appreciate your candor and straightforwardness. I
appreciate the help you've promised us in terms of staff assistance
as we try to move forward.
In spite of the great disappointment that we had over the fact
that we thought we were going to have a bill from you and now do
not have one. I hope we can forget what heis happened and move
forward now with legislation. It appears to me that there are great
deficiencies in our current legislation that need to be corrected if
you're going to operate as efficiently as you possibly could. I think
it would be our desire to make the necessity chamges.
Mr. Moore. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will ad-
journ.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee recessed to recon-
vene at the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
d by Google
STATBHENT OF JOHN A. NOORE
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PESTICIDES
AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
U.S. EHVIRONHENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE SUBCONHITTEE ON
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, RESEARCH AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
U.S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON O.C.
APRIL 18, 1985
Gciod morning Hz. Chairman and nenbaira of the Subcoimltte«.
Eighteen months ago. In November 1983, EPA's than Adnlnlsttatbt,
Mllliam □. Ruckelshaua, testified before thla Subcoiunittee.
Though pesticide regulation has always presented difficult
social policy issues, the program at that time was embroiled
in controversy. Numerous parties felt that only major legislative
changes could set the pesticide program on the right course.
However, Mr. Ruckelshaus argued that many of the problems
with the pesticide program could be addressed administratively,
and pledged that EPA would vigorously pursue improvements
without waiting for changes in the law.
I can unequivocably report to you that it has made good
on that promise. I have implemented Mr. Ruekelshaus' coennltmont
to improve the program; clear policy guidance has been given
which has led to significant progress in addressing long-standing
problems facing pesticide regulation. Lee Thomas and I will
continue to provide the firm direction needed to protect public
health and Che environment and at the same time assure that society
i«ay enjoy the social and economic benefits these products can
offer.
d by Google
Whan I becama Assistant Adninlstrator foe Paatlcidas and
Toxic SubstancBs shortly after Mr. Ruckelshaus tsstlCiad.
the pesticide pcogran needed to restore credibility to the
ragulatciry process, by improving the timeliness and scientific
quality of Its regulatory decisions, and by ansuring that the
decision process Itself was conducted In an open and impartial
manner. The last 18 months have been very active ones and
the program has made great strides In accomplishing these
goals of timeliness, scientific soundness, and openness of
decision making.
Even with these great strides, I believe there are areas
where FIFRA could be improved to assist ePfi in Implementing
Its statutory mandate. After briefly discussing the principal
administrative initiatives that have been implemented, I would
like to outline for you the areas whore I believe significant
Improvements could be made in the management of FIPRA.
' ASSURE TtMELY REVIEW AND DECISIONS ON EXISTING PESTICIDES
Roreglstration of all previously registered pesticides
is the most complex task assigned to EPA under PIPRA. Por a
number of reasons, the data bases for many of these pesticides
are woefully inadequate and the existing data have not bean
evaluated by current standards. Thus, I placed the highest
priority on getting rereglstratlon moving. The Agency now
has an aggressive reteglstratlon program underway.
d by Google
Of Che 600 p*Bticlds chvnlcals potentially subject to
EeregiBtration, the Agency has cevlewed and issued cegtatra-
tion standacds foe 98] 47 t/t these standards have been coiqtlated
in th« last two years. Ha ace now doing 25 standards a year
and will continue at Chat pace, giving priority to high
volume and food use chemicals and thos* which aay pose special
problems such as ground water contamination.
To ensure that the key data are available when we
reevaluate a pesticide, ve have accelerated the pace of the
existing Data Call-in pEogtam for chronic health effects data
on food use chemicals. These key health data Include chronic
toxicity studies, two year cancer studies, studies to assess
the potential to cause birth defects, and fertility and
reproductive studies that span two generations. By the end
of this fiscal year, we will complete issuing this data requirement
for all food use chemicals. This represents a total of 403
chemicals, 226 of which have been issued in the last two
years. In addition, a special data call-in was issued in
1984 to require environmental fate data on over 100 pesticides
preliminarily identified as potential groundwater contaminants.
A third major call-in program is now being developed to ensure
that the Agency has precise information on the chemical
composition of each registered pesticide (over 49,000 products).
db,Google
The Agency takes Its recegistcation lesponslbillty quite
seticiusly and expects pesticide registrants to be equally
connitted to cattying oue thelt cesponslbllltles. N* have
Initiated a new data call-in project in which registrants of
31 nun-food use pesticides are themselves identifying and
then filling any significant data gaps. I hope this approach
will Motic so that it may be expanded in the future.
progress in meeting theit commitments to develop data.
Basically, vhen a registrant mahes a commitment to develop
needed data by a certain time, we expect the commitment to
be kept! extensions will be granted only when the schedule
has been delayed for reasons beyond the registrant's control.
Mhen a registrant falls to keep these commttments, we ate
exercising our authority to suspend their product registration!
until the data are submitted.
The composite effect of these vartoue efforts will
result in the submission of a large amount of new data on
these older pesticides. The first large influx of data is
expected this year. To ensure that the Agency receives all
the data it needs and to ensure that we can keep abreast of
the most significant of the new data, we will be issuing a
final Interpretive rule this spring. This rule will emphasize
d by Google
and clarify every ceglattant's re aponat bill ties foi: subnittlng
adverse effecta daCa to the Agency promptly. We will alao
propoae a new rule that requires registrants to highlight those
portions at these data which meet certain specified risk
While rereglsttation Is the overall ptooesa of reevaluating
existing pesticides. Special Reviews (or RPARs ) single out
for Intensive tlak/beneflt evaluation those registered pesticides
which nay be posing unreasonable risks. This part of our
program la quite active again after a period of virtual
dormancy. For example, in fiscal 19B3, no new Special Reviews
were initiated, and only 6 decisions issued, including 2
decisions returning chemicals to regular registration and one
voluntary cancellation. In the last IS months, 25 decisions
have been Issued, Including 10 new Special Reviews ( PD I'aJ,
4 proposed regulatory positions Issued for review and comment
(PO 2/3's) and a final decisions puOllshad ( PD 4's)! 2 declaiona
returned pesticides to the tegular ceglatration proceas, and there
was one voluntary cancellation. He expect that about 6 to 8
new Special Reviews per year are likely.
The Special Review process is now more fully integrated
with the Registration Standards program. The reviews and
call-ins of data for Standards development are the primary
d by Google
means fot identifying chenlcala for Special Revleo, Hovevsri
a Special Revlaw can be, and has b«*n Issued bafor* a Standard
is davelciped, when the evldenca of potanclal hazacd wacrants.
The Agency has just published proposed rules to revise
the procedures and criteria for Special Rsviews. Among other
things, the revised procedures include provisions for expediting
Special Reviews. He are conmltted to Improving tha timeliness
of Special Review decisions hy determining up-front whether
an intensive risk/benefit review la appropriate and vigorously
pursuing the data needed to resolve any outstanding questions.
Revoking the tolarancss for pesticides which have been
cancelled for use in this country Is another area that is
being aggressively addressed. When tolerances or legal
residue levels for cancelled pesticides remain In effect,
these pesticides can be used on food comnodtties grown abroad
and Imported Into this country. Because of this, dietary
exposure continues, undermining what is often the principal
purpose of cancellation. This Is the so-called *circle-of-polson"
Issue. Another adverse result Is that this often clearly
works to the detriment of American agriculture. For exanplet
foreign producers of food commodities imported into the United
States may benefit in terms of increased yields from the use of a
particular pesticide, possibly of low cost, that can't be used
by American producers because Its use has been cancelled here.
db,Google
Wa at* now In tlttt piocess of revoking tol«tance« for 14
peaCicidas which waE* canceltsd In the 19T0's. Host raprassnt
the vacy long-lasting chlorlnatad hydrocarbons such as DDT,
BHC, aldrin/dlaldrln and chlordane/haptachlor. Tolerance
revocations have baen proposed for 8 pesticides so far and
proposed revocations for the other 6 will be issued in Hay of
this year. In nost cases, it ia our intention to replace
the existing tolerances with lower, discretionary residue
levels which can ba adjustad downward over time as the
background levals of these pesticides in the environment
decline. It ia EPA policy now to consider the need for
revoking the tolerances for a pesticide during the decision
process for determining whether registrations will be cancelled.
These actions will help to ensute that imported food commodities
are held to the same standards for pesticide residues as
domestic products.
* ASSURE SOUND SCIEHTIFIC BASIS FOR DECISIONS
I have placed great emphasis on the Importance of ensuring
the scientific soundness of pesticide regulatory decisions.
There are two aspects to this goal. first, we must ensure
that data submitted to EPA in support of registrations are
valid and meet today's scientific standards. Second, we need
to ensure that Agency decisions which authorize the use of a
pesticide ace based on sufficient valid data to assess the
effects of the pesticide. A number of important steps have
db,Google
Th« Agancy has issued Good Laboratory Ptactlces (QLP>
ragulationsi and Pastlcld* A8s**sm*nt Guldciln**: thaae
Inform poitlcld« registrants and the laboratories which
conduct p«stlclde testing of tho acceptabla procedures for
developing data.
To assure the quality of th« actual studies submitted
to the Agency, EPA needs an effective laboratory and data
audit program. The audit program has been reorganized to
include audits for toxic substances testing as veil as pesti-
cides, and to broaden Che types of testing subject to the
audit process, i.e., ecological effects as well as health
effects. The number of pesticide data audits has been increased
from about a dozen in 1982 to a target of 76 for Fiscal lear
1985.
Ha are now coordinating out audit program with the Food
and Drug Administration and the National Toxicology Program.
Our goal is to use federal resnurces effectively to avoid
duplication, to Implement consistent approaches to inspection
and audit procedures, and to ensure that laboratories conducting
health and environmental effects testing are regularly
Inspected and audited.
Comprehensive Standard Evaluation Procedures for use by
EPA staff are being developed) various measures to Improve
Internal quality control of data reviews have been implemented.
d by Google
Data SubnlssLon Guidelines ta InCom registrants cit tha
BPA-prsCercod format and content oC thair subtiis* iona are
also being developed. These standardizing measures should
improve Agency efCtciency in handling submissions and
facilitate any £utute reviews of submitted data.
Our concern Cor adequate data to support decisions is
also reflected in our policy of not granting emergency
exemptions under section IB of FIFRA to altov the use of new
or old chemicals for unregistered uses when the supporting
data base is Inadequate. This policy has been in effect
since last year and has resulted in a significant drop-off
in the number of section IB applications received {from 638
in FY 1963 to 444 in FY 1984) and approved by EPA (from S90
to 320.1 This more stringent approach to data available to
support section IB exemptions is also incorporated into the
proposed rules just published on April 8, which would formally
revise the procedures and criteria governing these exemptions.
The proposed criteria call for evidence of progress toward
regular registcatlon for repeated exemption requests.
An adequate basis for regulatory action is also addressed
in the recently proposed rule to revise procedures and criteria
for conducting Special Reviews. One of the most Important
lessons EPA has learned in conducting the Special Review
process is the Ln^ortance of having both toxicity and exposure
d by Google
daCa. It takes valid evld«nc« of potential effects, which
is gsnttcBlly labOEatoty generated toxicology datSi a* well
as information on the likelihood of actuol hURUtn and environ-
nwntal exposure in order to assess the risks posed by pesticide
us«. Congcess, In amending the PIPRA in 1978, also affirmed
the need to consider both types of evidence by specifying
(section 3(c1(8)) that Special Reviews be Initiated only on
the basis of validated tests or other significant evidence
of unreasonable risks to public health or the environment.
The proposed cule Incorporates •xposure considerations
Into the risk ctltetla which trigger Special Reviews. This
will Improve both the credibility and efficiency of the
Special Review process by ensuring that resource-intensive
for which at least preliminary exposure estimates are available.
• OPENING UP THE REGULATORY PROCESS
This Administration recognises that EPK's regulatory
pEoceases inust provide for pattlclpatton by all interested
partiesi Including the general puhlic, in order to justify
confidence in the complex and far reaching decisions we are
called on to make. We have taken steps to encourage equitable
participation by interested parties in Agency decisions and
also to make Information on pesticides more wlilely available.
db,Google
In 1984( th« Agency publl9h«d a conpr«h«naiva dascrlptlon
of the data required to raglBter pesticide products. This
infoEMation la priaarily to Inform reglstcants of thalt
obligations, but It la also the first publicly available
detailed listing of the studies required to register products.
Making infomation available about specific pesticide
chemicals Is an Important aspect of facilitating participation
in the regulatory process. Thus, the Agency is now making
available to any requestor pesticide information fact sheets
Bummarlzing the available data and regulatory status of
specific pesticide chemicals. These fact sheets are prepared
for each Registration Standard issued, and also for the
registration ol new pesticide chemicals. EPA is also publishing
notices of applications (or new chemical registrations and
significant emergency exemption requests.
The commitment to public participation opportunities is
also reflected in 3 recent Agency tule-maklng activities.
ePA published proposed rules (March 27, 1985) to provide
additional opportunities for public participation in the
development of Registration Standards. These procedures
include establishing a docket, or publicly available record
of relevant documents i including correspondence and records
of meetings between gpa and any party Interested in the
particular Standard. Similar public access provisions are
also Included In the recently proposed rules concerning
Special Reviews and Section IS emergency eKemptions.
d by Google
Th* aaction IB tul* pcoposvd on Apcil 8 la a pacticulctly
*lgntflCBnt *tttiTt at opanlng up the daciaion process.
This rule was nagotlatadi in the sense that EPA invitad
lapraaantatlvas at interested pactiaa In govecnaent. Industry,
labor and envlronaental ocganizationa to sit down vlth the
Agency and work out a rule acceptable to all. This has been
a very successful exercise In opening up the decision process.
Since the resulting rule already incorporate* principles
agreed upon by the various interests directly involved. w«
can expect effective lap tenant at ion of thasa changes.
In Buawary, tha foundation has been laid for a pesticide
registration and reregiatratlon progran in which the public
can have trust. Our decisions are based on sound sclencei
nade in the open, on a tlnely basis. However, it would be
l«s* than candid to suggest that there are no probless to be
dealt with or that out Job Is basically dona. Increasingly,
concerns are being ralsad about pesticides in the nation's
ground watec. Ma azt developing a ground water strategy for
pastlcldas, as part of the Agency's overall ground water
protection strategy, that Includes national and regional
•onitoring. Identification of pesticides which are potential
ground water leachets, and the davelopnent of a nationwide
survey ol drinking water tron groundwater sources. These
ate but the first steps of a long march. Ne are just now
beginning to take a look at Inert ingredients of pesticide
products, some of which ate just as biologically active
as pesticide active ingredients and most of which
db,Google
hav* nevar b«an avaluated. In Ihort, v* have accon^lLshad much,
but hav« auch Boca to do.
On« of our biggest assats In naotlng theaa challanges la
the FIFRA lt8«if. Having now carEled out Its leglslatlva
DUindata for a y*ai and a half, I know that it is a fundamental ly
sound envltonnantal law. The FIFRA risk/benefit balancing
standard gives th« Agency the critical flexibility necessary
to make decisions which can both pcoCect public health and
the environment and assure us the benefits of pesticide use.
FIFRA provides the authority to require data needed to make
sound decisions, the authority to take stringent action when
necessary to prevent unreasonable risks, the authority to
make new pesticides and new pesticide uses available when
they're needed, and the authority to effectively regulate
whole new types of pesticides when they are developed.
As you know the Administration has sent to Congress
a bill which would reauthorize PIFRA in Its present totm for
two more years. While the Agency has spent the last two
years implementing a number of administrative changes
in the pesticide programi the Agency has remained alert to
current PIFRA language that may Unit our efficiency In
Implenentlng out statutory mandate. Ho statute Is perfect)
and carrying out a statute as complex as FIFRA is a difficult
task. That is why the Agency has sought the advice of various
groups on ways that EPA's administration of FIFRA can be
changed to permit it to carry out its responsibilities to
provide the greatest degree of public and environmental
protection possible.
d by Google
In 1984, the Admin IsCrator •stabllehad a Pastlcld*
Advisory ComnltCes (APAC) which advises the Agency on majoc
policy Issues of pesticide E«gulatlon. The Committee Includes
representatives of Industcy. academla, labor, and enviconnnntal
organizations, and haa provided a valuable forum for dialog to
explore pesticide Issues from all points of view. This group
has brought to the surface several potential problems with the
way certain issues are being addressed under PIFRA. EPA is con-
tinuing to examine the various suggestions of APAC members,
exploring their desirability, and assessing the potential for
addressing then through the adninistratlve process.
One of the issues raised by APAC was the need to
Improve the timeliness of the Special Review Process. There
was general agreement that the current process should be
speeded up. Me must find a way to improve the process and
make it less cumbersome. As mentioned earlier, we recently
published a proposed rule to make the process more efficient.
He also solicited comments on the overall effectiveness of
the Special Review process,
A second issue which was discussed by the pesticide advisory
was that of sharing data with other government entities,
particularly state governments. The group agreed that providing
EPA the ability to share data with states who have protection
for CBI equivalent to that provided under PIPRA would be a
desirable thing.
Another data issue that was discussed by the Admlnlstratcir 's
Pesticide Advisory Committee is the need to ensure the data
the Agency relies on is of the highest quality. As I stated
d by Google
eacllar, BPA has Lsauad GLP ragulatlona and Pcstlcldal AsaftssDMnt:
GuldalinsB that claarly spell out how to conduct valid paatlcLda
tasting. Raglatranta should hava no doubt about how to pioduca
tha reliable, scientifically sound data needed foi cegulatory
declsion-fflalclng. For naw studies, subjact to the GLP ragulations>
registrants muBt, In fact, either cartlfy that these studies
weire conducted In accordance with the regulations or identify
precisely how the studies deviate froni then.
While we have mads a start In this area, issues have arisen
that wa have not yet addressed. Aaiong these is EPA's inability
to inspect pesticide testing facilities to ensure they are
following Good Laboratory Practices. In addition, the violation
of GLP regulations is not an unlawful act. Another issutt
has arisen over what actions the Agency should take where
the data base tor an already registered pesticide la found
to be of unacceptable scientific quality.
While on tha topic of data. I would like to mention briefly
one other Issue. As you know, the Supreme Court has before it a
case concerning judicial review of data compensation awards.
WhilB the issues involved do not directly partain to the health
and safety avaluatlons EPA performs, the final decision of the
court could have a significant impact on the Agency's ability
to run Its registration programs. If tha Court were to rule
against the Government, your prompt attention to this matter might
prevent confusing and costly disruption.
A fourth area which EPA is looking at concerns restricted use
pesticides. This is an area the Administrator's Pesticide
Advisory Conmittee considered In depth and is of particular
d by Google
Interasc to n«. On« oC ny key goals in Cha lagulation of
pesticides Is to develop a flexible regulatory program In
which potential problems are attacked with a scalpel, not a
sledge hammer. Classifying a pesticide for testtlcted use
is an essential tool in achieving this goal. The Agency
Is looking to see If anything further can be done to
ensure Chat restricted use pesticides ate properly used by
persons whose knowledge and quallClcatlons are coranensutate
with the degree of risk posed by the pesticide.
A key element in any regulatory program Is the ability
to enforce statutory and regulatory requirements. The
Agency Is looking hard at this area and, tn facti has
established a cvoas-medla task force to specify ways to
Improve the enforcement provisions of all environmental statutes,
I also believe the EPA needs to find ways of Integrating its
actions under FIPRA with those of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Another issue the Admlsistrator's Pesticide Advisory Commlttet
has discussed in depth la Inerts. After a long period of
neglect, the Agency has begun to focus on ineEt ingredients
used in pesticides, particularly those where we alceady have
evidence of concern. There are a number of scientific,
legal and economic complexities Involving Inerts which will
take significant time and the best efforts of us all to
resolve. The Agency is now considering the possibility of
using labeling to identify Inert ingredients which may pose
significant risks to human health and the environment.
d by Google
Finally, I would like to Hwntlon two funding it8u«s.
Pltsc, tha current schora* of indannlf ic«tion and disposal
nay be flawed. No other environmental or health law provides
this form of federal "ball out' for the nanufactuceca of
chemicals or drugs that are shown to be unsafe. EPA is
studying the need to ellialnate this provision.
The second funding concern deals with the Issue of registra-
tion fees. There appears to b« conslderabl* sentlnent both
within and without the Administration that registrants should
be responsible for paying the costs Involved in the federal
pesticide registration progran. While the Executive Branch
has authority under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act
to collect user fees, it is unclear whether that authority
is broad enough to collect fees for all pesticide activities
such as Special Review, While the Adnlnlstration believes it
does have authority to recover all coats, w« are currently ex-
ploring methods to assess and collect fees in the most efficient
effective nanner possible.
Hr. Chairman and ineinbers of the Subcommittee, in concluding
my testimony this morning, let ma assure you that the Agency
renains ready to serve you so chat the FIFRA reauthorization
process can be constructive, taking into account the c
of all those affected by the regulation of pesticides.
d by Google
The Hi
norsb
e B*cklu
lete
1
Chi In
un, S bcanlUie
on
)epar
«nt Ope
Resttrch
Agr
cult
Agric
Uure Conn
1301
Ih House Off 1c
Bui
ding
Hash!
gton.
DC fOBli
Dear
ongre
MOUl
tnn Bedel
ke
nt of JO
r tine to prese
nt t
e N
Assoc
of Conserr
Dii
ews on the Fede
us*
tic
Fungi
1de.
nd Rodent)
Ide
Act
ou tie for
your suBcoimit
me
Uy r
ght 1
Ino
NAC
favors
■eauthorl ration
of t
egi
AgrI
an lute
ral part of pre
fen
FIFRA 1s
ceded to
ensure t
It the chenic.
h
a»r
ble f
r use and
i(e
for
Kitfi tne
onfe
■w p
bli
H/ prinirj concer
it
tnis
ttue is Mke sure that a
1 D
th
e in
psrti
i giv
their ful
efitl
nges
1 f«
the 19B5 F
t11
B6 Budget »rt going
oni
Df the
enemies t
ne 0
congres
ional steff, th
e Co
gressne
and the public. Perm
t wo
Id be more prudent to e«
tend
the
pre
legls
ition
for t yesr
enO
fomulat
tubs
in:
reJis
OM t
n BB6 ohen t
ose involved ca
n gi
IC
subje
t the
Th.nk
ou for all
t d.
me
HACD'i vte« 0
s 1
ssue
1 -og
d bt
app, to di
cus
thi
Sincere
-ithyou or you
r St
cLj^ 'i- . /l-«t^
n. (202] 3*;-sess
db,Google
April 29. 1985
Bernley Bftdall
Subcogmlttee on Dsparbient Cfsntlmi,
Researcn aixl Farel^i A^lcultun
House of Repraaantatlvea AgricuHunCoiBlta*
2A40 Raybum, H3B
WBohliigtm, O.C.
Daar ClBlnnn EMtll:
It* haUdda Public Policy Fouxktion (JFP) la > ctBlltloi ol
urban/auburten paatlcida uaar Intorasta. Ilie coalltlm liEludta
'graan Induatry" rapraaantatlvaa (ArtxMlBts, lAun cars, birf ,
lanJacapa, soil oouraa, ate.) aa wall aa paat oontml opera tora.
3PF akvportara nnber aore Van 2,500 Indlvlduala, bualnaaaaa and
aaaaciaUciu localad tbroustnut tha thltod Stataa.
3PF appreciates your ccunlttBe's dealn to ccniirehanBlvaly
tmview FlfM during the reauttiorliatlai pnxasa. FlfHA Itoell la 1
dynanic Inetnnsit and prograa, tfts raiad to aaaeu batti ttn
InsCnnslt and tiv buccsbb of Us progna la aalf-avldant*
hlle our oodMrs
recognize
ttila need, m are .
aiKsmed 0»t
aitB ma
tne revlev pcooess By set
■ perceptlm Uat
changing PIfRA
cnly«Bunaf
a auooaaaful review. We do i
ut belirra ttat
acandard of am:
lUTBDnt Is
naoesary or desli
raabla.
ItBt la nt to ay ttnt ve oppoaa any aamding of FTFRA. In
fact, ve wuld aCnxigly aupport language vlthln the atatuta «m%
clearly reatataa tm Ccngreaslonal Legislative history of 1972
re^rdlng a state'a politioal subdivisions' regulatory auttiorl^. A
plain reading of that history atmi ttet Ccngress raatrvad to tta
IMaral Oavemnent, th> atates and territorial aiklnlstratlaaa Hie
authorlQ to regulate pesticides. Even tte grant of authority to
Qe atataa and terrltorlaa ws Halted.
In Bplte of this plain reading, a growing nuober of cltlea,
towns, eountlas and other local govemaints era or are atta^itlnc to
enter the pesticide regulatory field. If very nany of this natlcn's
nearly 80,003 local govamiBnts elallarly Involved tr
tnis regulatory area, ctaos would result.
db,Google
Han. Barkl^ Bntell
April 29, 1Se5
□Oiar iuuas, utora policy trands or oamion aanaa
for Changs, aay also l" liJantiriad in tin revUw procw
an BoiBlttad to vlawlng such Ibousb In an sbjactlva at
A good aia^ila of tbla atUtuda la Hm currant ragiilatxry raqulimant
for uaa of raatrlctsd uaa paatlcldBi undar tha dlract aivarvlalcn of >
oartlflad applicator. ■Olract' la daflnad to nean that svarvlolcn my ba
oCf-alte indar csrtaln clrctBatances. Thia recopiizu Itiat peattclda usa
condltlvia vary aarkadly and da^uid regulatory flaxlbill^.
Thar* hsa baan aow augsaaUon «iat thia flaiUilllty ba allMlnatad;
that aEvUcatlan of natrlctad uaa paatlciilBB ta UmIM to oartlflad
appllcstora cnly. Cila approacii, in nir alnda, fails Is racopiliB tilat la
practically naoasaary.
Obviously, It la highly daslreable to assun the afest possible uss
of mtrlctad uaa peatlcldas. But, Just as oCvlaizly, eurrsit use [lattsRia
do not aifipart tha Idea ttst aipilf iiant abuse of the ailatlng regulatOTT
To cun occasional abuses of Ha "mder direct si^iarvislcn"
raqulrananta nay not naceaaltate aainteBit of Finu at all. Tha cure algM
bettar ba prascrltied tnrough oore adaquan finding to tlia atataa for
tnlnlng, certiflcatlizi and Inspection.
a wtat is practically
M Aopa, during the FIFAA nvlaw procvaa, to bring to bear aiallar
attitudes of wtiit Is possible or naoesaary as various issues arise. Our
vlaupolnt Kill ba scnevtBt inique In this regard as our }PF asAsrs deal
wltn people's haalth and envlronaant protectlcn neails in, largaly, urtan
and auburtui aituatlcna. Our anafnrn are ttua acutely aiara of tte naad to
mim^ rlak and mlntaln Oie hlf^st of profaaalotal alandarda.
Hr. CtBlriBn, its difficult for us to ta aora praclaa at tttt maant.
l»itil your axB<tBe has tad furtMr opporUnlty In datlne the scope of
your revlev, ve aiqily wanted to Indicate ifhat wa hope are araas cdT Bttuat
Intarest and plad^ our Hllllngnesa to provide aaalstancs as you oay naad.
db,Google
aoa. Btrklar BKkll
April 29, 1585
lino Ul
:your
ully focia
itellbcratiir
paatlcldaa i
rlalt«lon.,
m ttM iwa 0
il run
IB. nirUar, ti
>ra racoffilzad
StttulBry and/or n
ur0i U>t tha many
"8^J°'T
ma iBwkd t;
Il llllllllll
3PF thanKs you for your ocnsldanUm and attantlai.
_Iu^jC^ -A^,
db,Google
Rep. Berkley Badsll, ChairBBn Subcon
House Airlcultural Conltte*
House of ReprtaentativcB
Vasbtnitoa, D.C. £0515
rings regarding the PI PEA
) Job In controlling
larlaa H. Veat, Exec. Vice Praddent, HAKD
irwyn J. WllllBma, Exec. Conlttee, HARD
]■ teaplie, Eiec. Director, IPA
ip. Ligbtfoot
d by Google
ROBERT M. LUSTBERG
JOAN M. FERRETTI-
AtlcHnayi il Law
Hay 30, 19B5
Hr. Tim Galvln
Subcommittee on Department Operations
Research and Foreign Agriculture
n.S. House of Representatives
1301 Longworth Office Building
WBflhington, D, C. 20515
Be; Proposed Awendmants to FIFRA, 7 D.S.C. 136
Dear Hr. Galvln:
On behalf of People Against Chlordane, a non^-profic
citizens* group based in New York state, I submit the following
proposed anendinents to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Bodenticide Act CFIRFA*) for your consideration.
1 . The maximum civil penalties assessable for
violations of FIFRA provisions should be increased, to make them
equivalent, at a minimum, to those assessable under the Clean
Hater Act and Clean Air Act. The continuance or assumptioi
2. Sections 26 and 27 of FIFRA (7 D.S.C. $136 wl-2)
should be amended to provide that EPA has enforcement authority
which is co-extensive with the various states, and to eliminate
all pre-conditions for EPA enforcement except notification to
the affected state.
3 . Provision' should be made to decrease practical
restrictions on public access to records submitted in support of
registration and in support of policy decisionst in particular,
to increase the free flow of materials as is already provided at
FIFRA, SIO (7 U.S.C. 13eh(d)).
d by Google
Mr. Tin Galvin
4. To amend FIFRA S3(c)(5), (7 D.S.C. S136llil) byi
(a) expressly providing that the burden of proof as to all
pre-requi sites for registration lies on the applicant} (b)
deleting the word 'shall' and inserting the word 'may', such
that the first sentence will read: 'The Administrator may
register a pesticide ....' Con^jare 33 U.S. CSS 1342 and 1344t
and (cl add new subsection (eTI "that when used for the purpose
for which It is Intended or In which it Is conimonly used, it
will not cause unreasonable risks to human health or property.*
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours.
. '^JiAAlZlc
\ H. Fttcretti
d by Google
ISIO STILLWILL AVENUE • IRONX. N. V. I04«l
In considering reuat
Insecticide act (TiF
horizati^^of^the J^ecal^
regisCeted with EP*.
»nd protective. Th
regiBtrstions by eac
icidea in America have to be
Their standards are strict
ere is no need tor duplicated
I ask Chat in reautt)
nave to decline Order
s not made by Jar
5 in a State.
^St^i^.
db,Google
db,Google
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
RODENTICIDE ACT
monday, may 20, 1985
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Research, and Foreign Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in room
1302, Longworth House Ctfflce Building, Hon. Berkley Bedell (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Brown, Penny, Volkmer, Morrison,
Gunderson, Evans of Iowa, and Combest.
Also present: Representatives Ray, Seiberling, and Del^ay.
Staff present: Phillip L. Freias, counsel; John E. Hogan, minority
counsel; Mark Dungan, minority eissociate counsel; P^gy L.
Pecore, clerk; Bernard Brenner, Timothy J. Galvin, and Gary R.
Mitchell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERKLEY BEDELL, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. Bedell. The Subcommittee on Department Operations, Re-
search, and Foreign Agriculture meets this morning to begin 2
days of hearings on legislation to amend the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. llie subcommittee has pending
before it three bills which propose to make changes in FIFRA: H.R.
1416 by Mr. Heftel; H.R. 1910 by Mr. Seiberling; and H.R. 2482 by
Mr. Roberts and myself
Additional legislation is expected in the near future. Although
we expect to receive a good deal of testimony directly on these pro-
posals, the witnesses are free of course to comment on other issues
arising under FIFRA.
I am hopeful in the course of these hearings that we can identify
those areas which need to be addressed and feishion legislation
which, on balance, will find eicceptance among those concerned
with the availability and safe use of pesticides. It is my intention to
keep process on track so that we can report a bill to the House this
summer.
All witnesses have been eidvised to keep their oral presentations
to 5 minutes or less. I ask for your complete cooperation in adher-
ing to this request so that we can maximize the time available for
questions and still hear from the manv witnesses we have sched-
uled for these 2 days. Unless there is objection within the subcom-
(69)
d by Google
70
mittee, I will ask the clerk to keep time for the witnesses and we
will advise the witnesses if their time has expired.
I don't know of a better way to start out this beautiful week than
with 2 full days of hearings on FIFRA. I want to welcome all of you
to the Bubcommittee here this week. I suppose we would be out
fishing or something if we didn't have the opportunity to discuss
FIFRA here.
[The bills, H.R. 1416, H.R. 1910, report from U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and H.R. 24S2, appear at the conclusion of the hear-
ing.]
Mr. Brown.
Mr, Brown. No.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. No statement.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Combest.
If not, we are privil^ed to hear from our colleague Richard Ray,
first. We are glad to have you here, Richard.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD RAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Ray. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify
before your subcommittee here, and I want to compliment you on
your nomination and support and election to this committee. I
have worked with you on the Small Business Committee through
the last term, and I know the committee will be served well by
your chairmanship here.
Mr. Chmrmfui, distinguished members of the committee, and
others who will offer testimony here this morning, I want to thank
you for edlowing me to appear before you today, and I want to com-
mend you for holding these hearings.
I know that we all share a common goal of wanting to make sure
that the public receives all the benefits from the miracle of chemi-
cal technology, which helps to produce our food and fiber and
which helps to make our environment safer.
Mr. Chairman, we are also genuinely concerned that we have in
place a system of regulations and safeguards necessary to enjoy
and take full advantage of chemical science without endangering
our society.
I come before you today as a small businessman who, for the flrst
few years of my adult life, made my living as a farmer who depend-
ed on fertilizer and chemicfils to produce crops. I am one of those
broke farmers in the fifties. I have taken my lumps and I sympa-
thize with the farmer of today and the problemB that they are in-
curring.
In Eiddition, Mr. Chairmfui, for 23 years after I left farming, I
was in the business of providing protective pest control service for
homes, industry, and agriculture.
In this CongreaB, the 99th, we have two people from this profes-
sion, the gentleman from "Texas and myself, and that compares
with only one medical doctor that we have in the House of Repre-
sentatives. So I think we are gaining.
This service included sanitation inspections and consultations for
food manufacturing plants to assist them in preparing for Federal
d by Google
71
inspections and to help them put in place programs of good sanita-
tion practices and chemical safety.
For 9 years, I served on the Structural Pest Control Commission
of the State of Georgia, and for 2 years served as its chairman. I
mention this background, Mr. Chairman, only to emphasize that I
testify this momii^ with some knowledge of the pest control indus-
try and my involvement in it.
Through the years, as a staff person for a U.S. Senator and now
as a Member of the House of Representatives, I have worked with
EPA and the various chemical companies and industries to shep-
herd FIFRA l^islation into law. I believe that this l^islation has
ably Eiccomplished its objectives and has focused on the safe manu-
facture, distribution, and use of pesticides.
In the pest control industry, we must have chemicals that will
control insects and other noxious pests, but they must be used care-
fully and without endangering the safety of the technicians apply-
ing the chemicals as well as the genered public.
The F[FRA l^islation, in order to ensure the utmost sfifety, has
created a certified applicator's system for private and commerdal
distributors, applicators, and farmers. These certiHed applicators
must be properly qualified by State law before they can use or su-
pervise the use of restricted use pesticides. Restricted use pesticides
are those pesticides which have been classifled by EPA as poten-
tially haz^^ouB.
The EPA carefully considers the benefit-risk equation before de-
cidii^ whether or not to place a pesticide in a restricted use catego-
ry, and it is my observation that this system works very well.
FIFRA was wisely designed, recognizing that the characteristics
of pesticides and their ejects on the public and the environment
require that they be regulated and properly controlled and that
those people handling these pesticides must be highly competent.
Therefore, it is necessary that workmen tmd techniciems be thor-
oughly trained and supervised.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the FIFRA legislation, which has
been so carefully crafted by Congress and the Agency, along with
strong input from industry and concerned citizens, has worked
well.
The committee certainly should review and evaluate the work-
ability of our pesticide application laws, and we must always be
ready to reevaluate, rework, update, and improve the industry's
ways of handling the application of these chemicals. I also agree
that EPA must carefully and scientifically examine each pesticide
for its benefits as compared to the risk it might pose te the public.
As this committee evaluates FIFRA to determine if there is a
need for change, I feel conftdent that it will do so with the most
commonsense judgment and fairness.
It is my own judgment that the current Federal and State sys-
tems are functioning with a minimum of problems, and I sincerely
hope that, if the committee decides there needs to be some fine
tuning, such change will be accomplished with minimum disturb-
ance and expense to our Government and to our citizens.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your sub-
committee tmd look forward to workii^ with you in any way that I
can in the future.
d by Google
72
And, if you would permit me to do so, as we go down through the
panel, your No. 4 category, a gentleman who I have an extreme
amount of respect for, Mr. Robert M. Russell, vice president for
Government Relations for Orkin Pest Control Co., in Atlanta, a
man who I worked with for many years, is very expert in this par-
ticular field and will bring some expert testimony to you.
I thank you for letting me appear before you today.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much, Mr. Ray.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Let me just ask you one question, Mr. Ray.
We are fortunate in having a Member of Congress who has long
professional experience in this field. In your experience, have you
encountered any serious hefilth problems resulting from the use of
pesticides on the part of those members of your profession who are
engaged in providing this service?
Here, I am not asking for scientific studies or anything, but
merely your general impression from working in the industry as to
whether or not it has been conducted in a safe manner without
hazards to the individuals involved.
Mr. Ray. Mr. Brown, I was actively involved for more than 23
years. In the beginning years — being forced out of the agriculture
and farming business into a business that I really didn't know
much about, and having to take short courses and all kinds of gen-
eral courses to learn the knowledge and to become certified. I have
worked for 23 years, and during that period of time had as many as
up to two dozen, in the early years, and finsdly 300 people working
directly under my supervision, and I never had any particular indi-
vidual that I know of that suffered from hazards from the applica-
tions of chemicals that were used — chlorinated — hydrocarbons, and
other types of chemicEils.
We, however, did make sure that periodically people took blood
tests and examinations to be sure that tolerances weren't building
up in their systems. While I know there have probably been ad-
verse situations — I, in my lifetime, have not had any personeil expe-
rience in dealing with any of them.
Mr. Brown. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. EVans.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ray, we are certainly pleased to have you here this morning.
You were a certified applicator?
Mr. Ray. Yes, I was. I went into the system when the State of
Georgia enacted a law in 1955. Actually, my certification was No.
1, all the time that I was in the industry. And later on I became
the chairman of that commission and served two times over a
period of 9 years, Eind helped to activate that law, write that law,
to enforce that law; then was an active participant in it.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. You had a number of technicians working
under you who did apply the chemicals who were not certified ap-
plicators; is that correct?
Mr. Ray. That is true. Eventually, you would have one or two
that would be certified. But certification fell back on the responsi-
bility of the certified. It is the enforcement of the law.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. You were not involved in the application of
agricultural chemicals when you were in the business?
d by Google
73
Mr. Ray. Yes, I was. I also worked in the agriculture area dis-
tributing, treating stored grains, applying herbicides to control
weeds in crops. I never got into the air application, but I did work
very much in agriculture chemicfds.
Mr. E]vANS of Iowa. One of the problems that comes up from time
to time in my part of the country is a technician who is not certi-
fied in application of chemicals to crops, and will from time to time
do something that is rather stupid.
Mr. Ray. That is right.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. How do you suggest that the committee ap-
proach that kind of a problem? Should we certify everybody?
Mr. Ray. I think, Mr. Evans, it would probably be almost impos-
sible to do that. In all facets of life, you have got to have a capable
supervisor in charge. I think we have to control everything that we
do, including the application of chemicals, through an appropriate
certified individual who tightly supervises and controls the people
who work for him in whatever endeavor they are in.
I think you will stall down most einy industry if every technician
had to be totally certified by the State or Federal Government.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. Do you think that a certified supervisor,
then, should have some responsibilities in the sense that he is
liable, to some extent, for the actions of those that work for him?
Mr. Ray. I think the certified — the one who is certified must be
accountable, yes, sir. Of course, most industries that I am involved
in have to be certified with various types of insurance smd bonds to
protect that individual in case he gete off track.
Mr. E^'AN8 of Iowa. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ray. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. Thank you.
Mr. Ray, you make an excellent witness because of your under-
standing of the industry, having come from it.
Did you deal also in the application ofpest control in homes?
Mr. Ray. Yes, sir, I did very much, lliat was the major part of
my business.
Mr. Combest. We are findii^ in Texas that there are under con-
sideration a lot of new regulations on pesticides and this type of
thing that are just now coming under State jurisdiction that previ-
ously have been pretty well directed by the Federal Government.
Did you find in your business in the State of Georgia, a discrep-
ancy between the control of pesticide use or chemiceds by the State
versus that of the Federal Government's control?
Mr. Ray. Not really. The State of Georgia tried to not only pat-
tern its regulations along the lines recommended by the Federed
Government, but to Mtually exceed those regulations. And I found
that in EPA it is — I think the Environmental Protection Agency in
Georgia has probably stricter and stiffer regulations than the na-
tiontd regulations, ^d in the State, in my experience with it, we
had no serious conflict with the Federal Government.
From time to time, of course, we had meetings and arguments of
varying kinds, trying to prevent unreasonable regulations from
being enacted that would make it just Ein unworkable situation; in
fact, would not be commonsense regulations.
Mr. Combest. From the State level?
d by Google
74
Mr. Ray. Yes, sir.
Mr. CoMBEST. But in most instances where there was discrepancy
in exactly the handling of the clwmicals, regulation was more
strict by the State of Georgia than it was from tiie Federal Govern-
ment?
Mr, Ray. That weis my experience.
Mr. CoMBEST. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson, do you have any questions?
Mr. Gunderson. No.
Mr. Bedell. We are certainly delighted, Mr. Ray, that you have
this knowledge, and I would hope that we will be able to draw
upon it Eis we go forth with our legislation.
You mentioned there is another Member from Texas. Is that
public knowledge?
Mr. Ray. Tom DeLay. He has just been elected in the 99th Con-
gress.
Mr. Bedell. He has had similar experience?
Mr. Ray. He has had extensive experience.
Mr. Bedell. My understanding is that at this time the Bnriron-
mental Protection Agency says that it depends upon the chemical
whether you will have to be a certified applicator to apply it, or
whether you can assign that to other people.
Is that the way it was when you were there; do you know?
Mr. Ray. No, sir, the certified operator — you have to understand
I have been out of this business 9 years, over on the Senate side as
a Btafl' person and over here my second term in Congress, so there
is a little lapse of time. I am not quite up to date on what is hap-
pening right now.
Back in the time that I was very active, the certified operator
had the jurisdiction to apply federally approved and State-approved
chemicals.
Mr. Bedell. Now there are some chemicals that you can have
your subordinates apply, and some chemicals that, as I understand
it, you are required to have a certified applicator apply.
Do you feel comfortable having EPA making that decision as to
what chemicab could be applied by others?
Mr. Ray. I do know that toxics, some fumigants — 10-80, which is
very deadly; a rodenticide chemical that is used — I think that
ought not to be totally dispersed to people who don't have
Mr. Bedell. You feel the present proposal is probably a reasona-
ble one?
Mr. Ray. Not knowing the exact particulars, I would \ean in that
direction.
Mr. Bedell. We are certainly delighted to know of your knowl-
edge in this area. And, as you indicated, I worked with you on the
Small Business Committee and I felt you were a very, very help^
member of the Small Business subcommittee that I chaired; and we
will certainly be looking for your help as we proceed and be check-
ing with you informally, if not formally.
Mr. Ray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. If there are no further questions, our next witness
will be Ms. Karen Darling, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Market-
ing and Inspection Services, USDA, Washington, DC.
d by Google
We understand that she is accompanied by Charles Smith, De-
partmental Coordinator for Pesticides and Pesticide Assessment.
And I guess there is someone else?
STATEMENT OF KAREN DARLING, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRE-
TARY, MARKETING AND INSPECTION SERVICES, U.S. DEPART-
MENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES SMITH,
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATOR, PESTICIDES AND PESTICIDE
ASSESSMENT, AND WILLIAM HELMS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY AD-
MINISTRATOR, PLANT PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE
Ms. Darling. This is Bill Helms from the Animal and Plant In-
spection Service.
Mr. Bedell. We would ask you to hold your testimony to 5 min-
utes, if you possibly can. We have an awful lot of witnesses today,
and it would be most helpful if you could do so.
Ms. Darling. Thank you. I won't even take 5 minutes this morn-
ing, but I do have two experts with me in case the questions are
technical in nature.
The one thing that I would like to say, on our coordination with
the Environmental Protection Agency lately, is that we seem to be
cooperating, coordinating in a better degree that I have memory of
before. The Environmental Protection Agency has been quick to co-
operate when we do have an emergency need for an exemption on
a pesticide, say like during the Mediterranean fruitfly episode in
California in 1981. EPA did cooperate by giving us an exemption
on ethylene dibromide. That exemption helped on the quarantine
for export purposes, even though it will disappear in September.
I am Eilso glad to see that EPA is looking at their rulemaking
and so forth from an administrative point to try to streamline as
well as make more timely both the registration and cancellation
thereof The Agriculture Department seems to be a constant inter-
vener in most cancellation proceedings, and perhaps with the
streamlined system we will find that we won't find ourselves con-
stantly before an Administrative Law Judge or in court.
I do compliment Mr. Ruckelshaus and Ms successor, Mr. Thomas,
in going ahead to try to streamline some of the clumsy procedures
under FTFRA. They have asked us on numerous occasions about
^e loss of certain chemicals and ^riculture production business.
As you all know, we are quite dependent on pesticides these days,
and we find that if it gets down to harvest time and EPA might be
about ready to cancel a pesticide on us, it causes nothing but havoc
in the agricultural realm.
They have been much better in the last couple of years, letting
us know one of those cancellation proceedings might ensue so the
affected industry working with the manufacturer of that chemical
might be able to meet any data drop requirement.
The only one concern that I might address is in the specieilly
used chemicals. We find numerous problems because of the new ex-
emptions that we might encourage here, and maybe there could be
a cat^ory formed for the smfill specialty use. The chemical compa-
nies seem somewhat loath at having to comply with the great
extent of data submission to EPA when the usage of a particular
pestidde might be very small, and I think that might be one thing,
d by Google
76
Mr. Chairman, as your hearings proceed, that we might want to
look at a little more closely.
We haven't specifically addressed the three bills in question.
With your bill just being introduced, it seems to cover a very vast
array of different sections under the FIFRA. We do look forward to
working closely with the committee as you develop the bill smd
renuiin available and open to tmything that we, from Agriculture,
m^ht be able to provide.
That is all I really have to say this morning, except thank you
for including us in your witness list.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Darling appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. I have no questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; yes, I do.
You mentioned the small usage chemicals in the new category.
Could you give me some examples or an example of the type of use
and type of chemicals?
Ms. Darling. Like, as you well know, many other countries
demand certain chemicals applied to our products before export;
and, as one example, celery. Most importing countries of our celery
ask that it be treated with a chemical called triguard, a somewhat
of a fly controller. And each year we are back over to EPA asking
for an exemption on trigueu'd small use celery.
I don't know what it might be used on. It always seems to come
up in the case of celery. Perhaps those apeciidty small use could be
somehow viewed in the same kind of light.
We are encouraged with the risk management approach that
EPA seems to be taking rather than just the hazard approach, be-
cause of — certainly for our export purposes and looking at all the
studies with time and dissipation of a chemical.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. Ms. Darling, you mentioned relative to the emer-
gency exemption remeuning available — I agree with you completely
that they would need to, in certain instances. The question I would
have, for example where you had used the nonlabeled pesticide for
the Mediterranean fruitfly eradication, when those situations
appear and there is an emergency exemption declared, is the
actUEil use of that chemical to curb that emergency. Can these
cases be used in testing or in the process of labeling? Or can they
be used — research data coming from the actual application rather
than strictly from research? If you are going to go in and actually
use them, can that information be used for specific data for the
permit process, the labeling process that particular chemical might
be undergoing?
Ms. Darung. Mr. Combest, that would depend upon what the
Environmental Protection Agency would demand of such cause.
Mr. Combest. I didn't hear what you said.
Ms. Darling. For an exemption like EDA during Medfly, or
maybe like Larva Dex. During that we used — during the flu eradi-
cation program in Pennsylvania and Vii^nia last year where there
d by Google
77
was — it was a product that had been on the market, EPA had tar-
geted it for a chemical that might come out of society because of
the emergency nature of the Eradication Program — we were per-
mitted to use Larva Dex in the chicken houses, in the chicken
coops, during the Eradication Program. And I am sure that any
data, any resultant data from people using it or being around it
were taken into account by EPA, because I know that they did not
cancel Larva Dex.
Mr. CoMBEST. Thtuik you.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Do you expect participation by the Department of Agriculture
will be taking a sepeu-ate fuid specific position on one of the bills in
front of us in the future? Is it your intent to allow EPA to, quote,
"channel the administration"?
Ms. Darung. It is hard to tell. I certainly think that the focus
from some of the rest of our colleagues in the administration wUl
be to focus upon EPA; and yet, if there are things like in Mr. Be-
dell's bill or so, we in Agriculture feel that we al»olutely could not
live with, I have a sense that we will probably be up here arguing
about that.
Mr. Gunderson. Would any of you be willing at this point in
time to tell us what you think, from the Department of Agriculture
perspective, some of the basic most essential changes required in
the reauthorization?
Ms. Darling. Well, without a good analysis of the new l^isla-
tive
Mr. Gunderson. I am not asking you to comment on any bills
that are introduced. I am saying, if you were to sit down today and
determine what are the most basic changes, revisions, modifica-
tions needed from an Agriculture perspective to better serve the
needs of American agriculture, regulation of chemicals, what would
they be?
For example, you mentioned in your second paragraph the time-
liness of actions to pesticide applications for approval, the decision-
making process. Is that the most essential neeid we have from an
agricultural perspective, or is there something else?
Ms. Darung. It certainly is an important one. My view would be
a lot different today than it would have been 6 months ago, by
seeing the administrative thrust to try to clarify and streamline
the procedures. We have the same thing as regulator? in Agricul-
ture that we became a little bogged down by our own rulemakii^,
or our own proceedings. And I think that we have come such a
long way in the chemical business that perhaps — not necessarily
looking on a case-by-case basis in some of these pesticides, but per-
haps more in a generic sense — I think that EPA is trying to make
an effort to see that our specialty crop efforts, as well as the large
crop efforts, are met.
We have become so dependent upon being regulated as regula-
tors, being regulated by other regulators, that no matter what EPA
decides on anything, it does affect the agricultural community. And
I would hate to see anything happen to the section that permits us
to intervene, and I think it is important that we hold that.
d by Google
78
I think also that the section 8 for the exemptions — or 18 — I think
if we were to lose our exemption ability, that agriculture would be
in real trouble.
Mr, GuNDERSON. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Ms. Darling, do I interpret your testimony correctly in that you
are indicating that the cooperation with EPA and their work with
you is improving, and that you are working quite well tc^ether
now? Is that what you are telling us?
Ms. Darling. Yes; I am.
Mr. Bedell. I didn't understand something about one concern
you had. You think sometimes they are more concerned about
management or hazard or something.
What do you mean specifically by that?
Ms. Darling. To view a chemical from a risk management view-
point rather than just from a hazard that that particular chemical
might have.
Mr. Bedell. What do you mean specifically, though. I don't un-
derstand what you mean.
Ms. Darung. To manage the chemical, or to look toward manag-
ing the chemiceil, rather than hazard or risk benefit; but the over-
all on the potential use of that chemical, be it a pesticide — the po-
tential use of that and the management of that pesticide.
Mr. Bedell. Management of the application; is that what you
mean, how you apply it?
Ms. Darung. l^at, as well as not just looking for the hazard
that that pesticide m^ht threaten the society with.
Mr. Bedell. Do you think they do too much of one or the other—
I didn't understand your comment.
Ms. Darling. Well, I think their law is pretty specific. They will
look for hazard. We look for the benefit, or more from the manage-
ment standpoint on, if this pesticide is used, what might be the
benefit of using that pesticide; not just the hazard of using that
pesticide.
Mr. Bedell. You think there should be more concern over the
mcmagement and less over the hazard? I didn't understand what
your point is. What is it you think should be different? I didn't un-
derstand.
Ms. Darling. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. My point being that in
not just looking on the risk side but also taking into consideration
some of the societal benefits of using a p£ui.icular pesticide.
Mr. Bedell. Oh, that was your point.
Ms. Darling. Yes, sir; that is my point.
Mr. Bedell. I am sorry that I didn't understand.
Any further questions?
Mr. Brown. Ms. Darling, there is one area that I would appreci-
ate getting your views on. In some of the proposals that will be
before the committee, there is proposed to put additional restric-
tions on agricultural chemicals which have been canceled in this
country, but can be exported to other countries where there is no
similar cancellation or regulation of the chemicals.
Now, sometimes these banned chemicals, banned in this country,
there is a good market for them in other countries; they are used
d by Google
79
in those countries. And on some occasion at least they come back
in as ingredients on some of what we import, some of the agricul-
tural products.
Does the Department of Agriculture have any particular point of
view with regard to the need to modifying the restrictions on the
export of chemicals which have been canceled for use in this coun-
try?
Ms. Darunq. Mr. Brown, what usually happens is that we in Ag-
riculture end up looking at products for any residue of a chemical
that has been banned in this country.
Mr. Brown. You have to inspect ttie imported material?
Ms. Dahung. That is correct. And we implement what, say, EPA
has set forward, be it by tolerance — or if FDA can keep its action
levels from an action level. We spend a lot of time looking for resi-
due in products, and yet we find — what seems to happen after this
country has banned a particular chemical — that it doesn't take too
terribly long before the rest of the world has. With international
communities setting standards and looking at chemicEiIs, I think we
will see more worldwide decisions on what chemicals should be in
society and what should not.
I think that there is a responsibility among countries back and
forth that perhaps if there is something of an eminent and extreme
hazard, that we wouln't necessarily want to see it out there, either.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Are there further questions?
If not, we appreciate very much your being here. We look for-
ward to working with you as we move forward with our particular
legislation.
Ms. Darling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Our next witness will consist of a pemel: Liza Roob
Prior, Patrick T. Menichino, and Mfujorie J. Smigel.
Again, I will ask you to try to hold your testimony to 5 minutes.
We will first hear from Ms. Prior.
STATEMENT OF LIZA ROOS PRIOR, LANGHORN, PA
Mrs. Prior. My purpose for being here today is twofold. First, I
want to refute the notion that pesticides and lawn care chemicals
present little or no danger to the public health. Second, I hope to
impress upon this committee the importance of registration for
chemicals edready in use, aa well as for new chemiceds. I am not
here to testify as an authority on law or toxicology. I am here to
relate the protracted and eigonizing death of my husband, and why
I believe his death was the direct result of exposure to a pesticide.
During the summer of 1982, my husband, Lieutenant George
Prior, frequently played at the Army-Navy Country Club in Arling-
ton, VA. Just before Labor Day weekend, he took time off from
work to polish up his game. Within 20 days, he died from Toxic
Epidermal Necrolysis, a disorder which burned the flesh off his
body from the inside out and caused each of his internal organs to
fail. After an unusually thorough autopsy and extensive research
by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the Naval Re-
search Laboratories, it was concluded that my husband died from
d by Google
exposure to chlorothcdonil, a fungicide which is used to prevent
brown spots on lawns.
George was a perfectly healthy, athletic 30-year-old Naval Flight
Officer. He had flight physicals regularly and was in top physical
condition when he became LLl. The illness began with a headache
that started while he was still playing golf. By evening, he had de-
veloped flu-like symptoms, including a fever and nausea. Within 2
days, a sunburn-like rash began to appear on his abdomen and
arms.
We became sufHciently alarmed that I took him to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. After several hours of examination, he was admit-
ted with a 105-degree fever. Within 24 hours, the rash grew to
cover most of his body and then turned to baseball-sized blisters
that hung, filled with fluid, from his arms and back. When these
blisters burst, the skin came off in large sheets leaving raw skin
exposed. This layer of skin was so tender that the weave of the hos-
pital bedsheets felt razor sharp so that he was unable to lie on
them.
Pour days after plajdng golf, his kidneys started to faU. His
whole body began retaining fluid causing severe bloating. This
buildup of body fluids caused Geoi^e to develop aaperation pneu-
monia. At this point, the Navy doctors told me that the pneumonia
would probably kill my husband within a couple of hours. Howev-
er, George was so physically fit that his lungs survived.
Now, in addition to causing physical suffering, the illness began
to isolate my husband from those around him. He couldn't speak
during his last days because a respirator was in his throat. He
could not write because his arms were so swollen. He couldn't see
because his eyes had begun to blister. He also v/aa receiving a drug
which was probably causing deafness.
Although George was becoming increasingly cut off from his sur-
roundings, he was still very much aware and alert, and in great
pain. Finally, after 14 days, George went into a coma and, merciful-
ly, died on September 16, 1982. T^e course of this illness turned the
bright, normal, heuidsome person I loved into a hideously disf^-
ured, swollen shell. We buried him at Arlington with full military
honors soon edter.
Since Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis is often caused by exposure to
chemicals, we started to look for the culprit while George was still
alive. I was hoping that finding the cause would be helpful in the
treatment of the illness. I called the golf club first because that is
where he became ill. The groundskeeper at Army-Navy told me
that they had sprayed twice during the week George had played
there with a fungicide called Daconil, or Chlorothalonil, produced
by the Diamond Shamrock Co. Unfortunately, knowing that this
was a possible cause could not alter the progression and outeome of
the disease.
After Geoi^e died, a Navy pathologist. Dr. Jonathan Lord, was
assigned to try to solve the mystery of George's dramatic deteriora-
tion and death. Dr. Lord received Eissistance from scientists at the
Navy Research Lab. Tc^ether, they did a thoroi^h autopsy and in-
vestigation which far exceeded what would normally be done. Dr.
Lord and his associates examined George's workplace, home, and
d by Google
81
car, in addition to the golf course, in a search for potentially toxic
Weeks of research led them to conclude that the chemical agent
responsible for George's death was, in fact, Daconil — the golf
course fungicide. The evidence for this conclusion included aerial,
infrared photography of the fairways, which showed Daconil to be
present in large quantities. Daconil was also found on my hus-
band's golf clones, his equipment and on his shoes. In all. Dr. Lord
determined that deorge's body had reacted violently to inhalation
of and dermal exposure to chlorothalonil.
Pesticide poisoning is an insidious and usually anonymous killer.
Symptoms of pesticide poisoning can be as diffuse and seemingly
innocent as headaches, rashes, irritability, coughing, fatigue, anxie-
ty and other mild complaints. Since my husband s death, I have
become aware of many other cases of acute chemical sensitivity.
Many are seriously injured, and many others are dead. The differ-
ence between these victims and my husband is that they don't have
the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology researching their case. It
is my belief that George's death is unique only in that the cause
was so thoroughly investigated.
Several months after receiving the pathologist's report, I sued
the Army-Navy Country Club and Diamond Shamrock for the
wrongful death of my husband, for his pain and suffering, and for
my loss. The suit is almost 2 years old right now, and we are still
in only the discovery phase. My attorneys have formally requested
specific information from the EPA several times. They have yet to
receive any response whatsoever. They are now forced to file suit
under the Freedom of Information Act so that the EPA will be re-
quired to acknowledge their requests.
I have in my possession several documents obtained for me by
concerned persons in the environmental movement. One of these
documents is the new registration standard for chlorothalonil. This
chemical has been on the market for almost 20 years without a
formal registration standard. The new label requirements are more
severe than when George was killed. Perhaps others may not meet
George's fate if they are adequately warned of the dangers of chlor-
othalonil.
If this committee concludes that we need stricter, faster and
more thorough registration of pesticides, and that the public has a
right to Government information about these chemicals, then I will
feel that George's death will have had some meaning.
Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much for that very moving testimo-
ny, Mrs. Prior.
We will hear from ail of the witneBses before we ask questions.
Next we will hear from Mr. Patrick Menichino.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK T. MENICHINO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PEOPLE AGAINST CHLORDANE, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT
FORTE
Mr. Menichino. Members of the subcommittee, ladies and gen-
tlemen, my name is Patrick T. Menichino. I am executive director
of People Against Chlordane. I live on Long Island in New York.
d by Google
In 1980, my home was treated by a licensed pesticide applicator
to prevent termite problems. That application resulted in the con-
tamination of my home £md treuisformed my wife and myself into
chlordane victims.
For a number of years following the application, my ffimily weis
unknowingly being exposed to an invisible toxic time bomb in the
air we breathed. We experienced the following adverse health ef-
fects: headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, nausea and vomiting.
Due to the lack of public awareness concerning chemical hazards,
our etdverse health effects were undiagnosed.
It was not until some time after we had received surface and air
test results that we began to realize that our trust and faith in
agencies designed to help the public was unwarremted. In fact,
after obtaining those results we could not get a representative of
either the New York health department or New York department
of environmental conservation [DEC], to indicate officially whether
or not our home was safe. The reason for this dilemma was the
lack of any indoor pesticide exposure standards.
Needing to learn as much as I possibly could about the chemical
which poisoned my home, I attended a meeting comprised of other
families who also had become victims of chlordame contamination.
This group of families became known as People Against Chlordane.
Our mEiin goals are, and have been, to: obtain aid for chlordane vic-
tims, obtain accurate information, and to actively endorse the ban-
ning of all chlordane uses.
The termiticide chlordane attacks the central nervous system, is
hepatotoxic, is absorbed and stored in human tissues, is passed on
to human infants in breast milk, and chlordane causes cancer.
Chlordane is persistent, Ifisting 30 years in the environment. Its
effects can presently be seen in New York's environment — killing
wildlife, contaminating lakes and rivers. Both fresh and saltwater
fish have chlordane levels above the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration guidelines. Chlordane has been detected in Long Island
ground water.
In the 1970's, the Environmental Protection Agency, [EPA], can-
celled most uses of chlordfine on the Undine of imminent hazard
but continued to permit its use as a subsurface tarmiticide on the
belief that the potential for human exposure was very low. We now
know this is not the case.
In New York, following the establishment of a Pesticide Hotline
telephone number by the DEC, approximately 11,000 telephone
calls were received. DEC arbitrarily determined that it could only
investigate 900. As of March 1985, of those 900 investigations, 600
have been documented misapplications involving commercial appli-
cation businesses.
Each misapplication hiis the potential to result in indoor air
levels that exceed the Nationed Academy of Sciences recommenda-
tion for indoor ambient air levels.
The New York State department of health has recently given tes-
timony that, £18 of January 31, 1985, of 1,000 air samples taken in
private homes and analyzed for chlordane, 39.8 percent of all sam-
ples were found to exceed the NAS Interim Guideline for airborne
chlordane of 5ug/m^ Further, 75 percent of all living areas, and 90
d by Google
percent of all nonliving areas had detectable levels of chlordane. So
much for EPA's beliefs in the 1970'8.
The New York State department of health further states, "The
NAS did not surest [Si^/m*] as a standard or guarantee of abso-
lute safety."
Dr. Nancy Kim, director of the bureau of toxic substance assess-
meot in the New York State department of health, and member of
the Environmental Health Committee of EPA's Scientific Advisory
Board, has testified that the "excess cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure, 24 hours a day, to [NAS guideline of 5ug/m^
. . . range from 500 to 6,600 per million." lliese risk leve£ are
clearly in excess of the 1 in 1 million, or 1 in 100,000 risk levels
which are usually suggested for regulatory purposes.
People Against Chlordane submitted thousands of pages of infor-
mation during the New York State rulemaking process on termiti-
cides. Based upon the record before it, DEC banned all uses of
chlordane in New York.
Our experience in New York demonstrates several points: No. 1,
persistent pesticides like these termiticides must be reevaluated for
r^istration in a review which requires the manufacturer to prove
that use of the substance will not cause adverse health effects; No.
2, EPA must be given broad authority to enforce FIFRA violations
and the civil penalties under FIFRA must be substantially in-
creased; No. 3, throi^hout all of the experiences described above,
EPA has failed to take any action to protect citizens of the United
States from the effects of termite pesticides. In fact, EPA denied
the citizens access to a draft policy document which it had already
provided to industry for review.
We request permission to submit proposals for FIFRA amend-
ments for your consideration and will be happy to provide any doc-
umentation you may require.
Thank you for tlus opportunity to have our comments included
in the record.
Mr. Bedell. I thank you very much.
Ms. Smigel.
STATEMENT OF HARJORIE J. SMIGEL, CHAIRPERSON, ECOLOGY
COHMMTEE, SPRINGFIELD GARDEN CLUB OF MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, MD
Ms. Smigel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-
committee. I am Marjorie J. Smigel, Ecology Committee chairper-
son, Springfield Garden Club of Montgomery County, MD. I l^ve
been a resident of Montgomery County for more than 30 years;
however, I come from a family of pioneers in the Western Reserve
Territory of Ohio and am familiar with rural farm life.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring to your attention our effort
to address the problems concerning the application of pesticides by
commercicd lawn care and landscape Hrms in urban/suburban
areas.
Over the ptist years, our members have become increasingly con-
cerned about mistakes, accidents, and excessive or unnecessary ap-
plication of pesticides by contract lawn maintenance and similar
establishments. Harmful incidents involving the use of pesticides
d by Google
84
have been frequently reported in the press, and many of our own
members have experienced or witnessed examples of careless or ir-
responsible application.
We became aware that many pesticide applicators were poorly
trained and ignorant of the toxic nature of the materials they han-
dled. For example, we discovered an applicator spraying trees in
our backyard. He was at the wrong address and was unable to tell
UB the name of the substance he was spraying. He was using no
protective equipment. Although Maryland law — Title 15.05.01 — re-
quires that commercial pesticide applicators be provided with nec-
essary safety equipment for their protection, they are rarely ob-
served wearing such clothing.
Ac^oining neighbors are often adversely affected without consent
by drifting sprays and runoff of contaminated ground water. An in-
cident of contamination of a children's sandbox and toys by such
spray drift is described in the attachments to this testimony.
We learned that pets can have severe toxic reactions from walk-
ing across a lawn after it is sprayed. A veterinarian who handled
calls to the National Animal Poison Control Center at the Univer-
sity of Illinois states that only a fraction of the actual occurrences
are ever reported. He described the difficulty in obtaining needed
information from lawn treatment firms to enable veterinarians to
diagnose and prescribe specific treatment.
Our research revealed that pesticide poisoning often goes unrec-
ogtmed. The symptoms of allergy, asthma, headache, dizziness,
nausea, irregular heartbeat, diarrhea, fatigue, et cetera, can easily
be attributed to other causes. Certain individuals, such as those
who suffer from Myasthenia Gravis, can be severely affected by rel-
atively small amounts of pesticides. Hyperallergic reactions can be
life threatening.
We researched Federal and State laws covering commercial ap-
plication of pesticides by commercial lawn care firms and found
them to be inadequately and poorly enforced. In addition, home-
owners are not aware that pesticides are registered with the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency on a risk/benefit formula. They be-
lieve that the Federal Government approves or guarantees the
safety of pesticides, thus they have a false sense of security.
The 1980 report of the National Academy of Sciences* Committee
on Urban Pest Management ' substantiated our own findings and
became the cornerstone of our effort. It confirmed our own findings
and urged that nonagricultural use of pesticides be monitored more
carefully to address increasing health risks, since there is presently
no Federal agency specificfilly responsible for policy decisions in
urban pest management. The study found:
One, pesticides are used in larger quantities on urban/suburban
land than on agricultural areas — unnecessarily and carelessly.
Two, children and pesticide applicators themselves are at special
risk.
' "Urban Peat Management." Environmental Studies Board, Commutioo on Natural Re-
.jurcn, National Renoacher Council, Washington, DC,, National Academy Press. 1980.
"Toiicity Testing: Strat^ies to Delermine Need* and Priorities," Board on Toxicology and
'— ' "■ Health, Natianal Research Council, W^iington, DC: National AcAdethy Pros,
d by Google
85
Three, incidental exposure of the general population is subtle but
widespread; the variety of chemicals in use means that exposure is
multiple. Long-term heeilth heizards are just beginning to be docu-
mented and little is known of the cumulative effect of relatively
smitll doses of pesticides. With our concerns about cancer and birth
defects, which can result from subtle expc»ure to chemicals, chron-
ic exfxffiure has become as significant as acute exposure.
Four, there is need for education and an effort by local jurisdic-
tioDS to work with citizens at the community level to address these
problems. That is what we went about doing.
In May 1983, our membership unanimously adopted a resolution
requesting Montgomery County officials to take appropriate action
to fiddress the grave heedth and environmental problems associated
with the use of pesticides on our lawns and gardens. Our request
was supported by a broad base of citizen groups, as well as the Na-
tional Capital Area Federation of Garden Clubs — 141 clubs — and
our own district IV — 37 clubs.
We were invited by Montgomery County officials to participate
in a Pesticide Management Working Group which included repre-
sentatives from the lawn care industry and environmental groups,
as well as State and county officials. In the spring of 1984, a draft
statute was prepared by the county under which residents would
receive notice of pesticide application to their lawns. However, in-
dustry representatives were first offered the opportunity to comply
voluntarily with the objectives of the draft legislation. The industry
was unwilling to cooperate and rejected the su^ested voluntary
agreement.
In March of this year, therefore, County Executive Charles W.
Gilchrist proposed that the county council pass legislation that
would require landscape and lawn care firms to provide customers
with the names of pesticides to be applied and the precautions nec-
essary to safeguard health and protect the environment. It would
also provide neighbors and chemically sensitive people with notice
of pesticide application through the use of signs posted on lawns.
hi addition, the county announced its own program of public no-
tification when pesticides have been sprayed on county property.
They will have this little flag out to alert citizens. Such action will
enable individuals to take necessary precautions to protect those at
high risk: children, pregnant women, the chemically sensitive, el-
derly, household pets, and last but not least, pesticide applicators
themselves.
Continuing research reveals mounting evidence that pesticide
hazards fU'e becoming a national concern. Massachusetts officials
convened a State pesticide board this past summer to excmiine the
extent to which lawn care service contributes to the total exposure
of the population to toxic agents. The National Research Council's
Board on Toxicology and Environmental Health Standards in 1984
found that complete heedth hazard assessment is possible for only
10 percent of registered pesticides.
The r^ht to know legislation in Montgomery County has re-
ceived national coverage by radio and television, as well as in
nugor publications. We are encouraged to hear from gardeners and
local legislators across the Nation who share our concerns. They
d by Google
join UB in calling for restoration of health and harmony in our en-
vironment through prudent and responsible use of i>e8ticides.
Our twofold effort to educate individuals to make informed
choices concerning pesticides and to secure right to know legisla-
tion has received the National Council of Stat« Garden Chubs'
Frances Hickey Award. The NCSGC represents 10,852 clubs in 50
States and the District of Columbia, with headquarters in St. Louis,
MO. We have also received the National Capital Area Federation
of Garden Clubs' Beatrice M. Coiner Environmental Conservation
Award, in addition to a special award from our own district IV.
I Eun submitting several documents to substantiate the testimony
I have presented, and I would appreciate their inclusion in the
record if possible.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
d by Google
January 24, 1935
Last spring, ChemLawn was spraying chemicals on the trees
of our neighbor, Mary Elizabeth Hotchkiss. The chemicals were
being sprayed indiscriirinately into the air, over our fence, and
into my son's sandbox. Luckily, my son had gone into the house
for a monent and therefore was not subjected to this spray. It
was necessary to clean a layer of sand out of the box and scrub
all his toys.
As a result of the above incident. Ma. Hotchkies wrote a
letter to ChemLawn informing them not to spray her trees without
first providing us with notice. Her letter will be found in
their files.
Shortly thereafter iZhemLawn was again spraying cur
neighbors' trees. Ko notice to us was given, as had been
promised. As a result, chemicals were indiscriminately sprayed
into the air and onto our porch, contaminating my daughter's
highchair and covering the toys of both my children,
ChemLawn' s representative
was nei; and that no one told him a
him why I was upset, he told me tf
over to explain the situation.
This incident is not the first occasion when we have had
problems with ChemLawn. It has been our observation that these
dangerous chemicals are usually dispersed by extremely young
employees with no apparent regard for their danger. Mhile we
enjoy having an attractive lawn, we will not continue to do so at
the expense of the health of our children,
M«rjo4:ie J.'^Mitinef
5509 Pollard Road
Bethesda, Maryland 30816
d by Google
Ii"11 Mtlpflt.rick
Auriiihnn t:atiir*11st Sor.i
HMO Jon»$ Fiill Rond
1 hiiv
r. fi
revt
zp*>trtc
19Hfl.
As
fanll
PS hp
lUi ard
prohl»n5 fls
SOct"prt
Hi
fls nn
of t
n,
Pniso
rnnt
ml r.Pnt
r
thnso
Slici
flps iiSBd
p.t ro px
pns
ieUf
3in3 ti. nr»v,.nt
;nlcals.
> Cat.ion^l Anlm*1
>is for tun vpts I
l^t.Bl to PXIHISlirp I
Tho Txiorit)
f 'inns to i-A.U .,5-1
f ippiit.ivf to P-fl-f ^m ipst-nr
: r'"^Ctinn5 frpni cpgs sinr'ly n,i1
Sr<tcif1.:5 on th.. nunior nf c»l
1s Hk>;iy, htiipvpr, tiMf I'lly <)
■ilpi-is TPU'-n '.0 ti'=s" |.riit!iiefs
A fiirthpr rtifficulty vm encountprp-i ^i tlip Poison Con'n
with Idpotilication of the specific products used. If v
toxicity to tf^ related to trie Iswo r.rpitient, the rAH,-r<
thPS" calls w"rp aftrr nomal husippss hours anfl tnp
coidrt not OP rortJ(ct»d until th- follo«inq day. This
infomflton hitnnprpfl both dl^i]rosis "nd thp rpconnnid'
trp*r.npnt. Fwpn in f.hp caSP of notional conp'nips ni
niinhprs , th^nqps in ' ' "'
-s SPldm.i if fvfr
My >ised. Often
"ipiny officp
a1lnv
iny per
iif|ht (
iPl t
d by Google
lety of potent pesttctriss unrlpr situations In
I usually highl> unlnlortv>(), public nay cnnp tn
certilnly understand the companies reluctance
stoniprs, hut feel that this reluctance, hasen o
Richar'l F, {
116?1 &>il I
d by Google
SPRINQFIELO QARDEN CLUB
Montgomtry County, Marylind
NEVS RELEASE
Ecology Comnlttee
Novonbar 29, 19ai»
For over a yeai: the Springfield Garden Club of Hontgoaery County has
participated In neetlngs of a Pesticide HaiugeBsnt Worhlng Croup under the
segla of the Hontgonery County Departaent of Envlronnental Protection, along
Hlth nenbers of the lawn-care Industry, County and State officials, and repre-
sentatives of envlronaental organizations. "Right to know" legislation was
drafted early this year* However, County Executive Charles Cllchrlst pro-
posed first seeking a negotiated settlenent with the lawn-care Industiy.
Ve deplore the decision by FAHE (Federation Against Regulatory Excess),
a recently-fomed group of a few lawn-care flr>s, to reject the Initiative
of Mr. Cllchrlst for a voluntary agreenent. Kr. Gilchrist's proposal would
ht.ve provided citizens at risk with Information needed to protect thenselves
froB unknown and unconsented enposure to pesticides, tfe regret this situation
all the aore, as we feel that the lawn-caie Industry has nlsssd a golden
opportunity to affirm Its concern for the health and safety of the public
and the envlronnent.
Recent studies by the HatloneJ Begoarch Council of the National Aoadeay
of Sciences have found that suburban lawns and gardens receive heavier pesti-
cide application than nost other land areas in the United States. The Council
stresses the need for citizens and their locally elected representatives to
develop sound pest-managonent procedures.
The Springfield Garden Club of Hontgonery County, with the support of
the National Capital Area Federation of Garden Clubs (I'll clubs}, the Awlubon
Naturalist Society, and a broad base of civic and environmental organ! Estions ,
will continue Its efforts to securei
1) Disclosure, before ap^icatlon, of the generic naaes.of
pesticides to be used
Z) Kotiflcatlon of precautions to be taken by the eustoaer
to safeguard health and to protect the envlroment
3} naceaent of sarker on lawn to Indicate pesticides have
been applied
h) Posting of a decal or logo to Identify property under con-
tract and thus prevent wrong entry and cheaical trespuss
Our objectives are alaad at enabling Individuals to Make prudent
decisions and to take necessary precautions to protect those at high rlski
children, pregnant women, the chemically sensitive, the elderly, household
pets and, last but not least, pesticide applicators themselves.
d by Google
Stanley K, Nny
S204 Drake Terr,
RockvlHe, m. S0B53
Stewart HcKenzle Harch 26, 1985
Hontgomery County Council
Council Office Bidg.
RockvlHe, Hd. Z0B50
Dear Hr. HcKenzle,
As per our recent phone conversation, I have Included docunentattmi
pertaining to the relationship of Myasthenia Gravis C^ neurontuscular
disease) and connunly used Insecticides, I hope It will provtde you
with additional Infonnatlon that can be used In your presentation of the
bill for sign posting of areas being treated with pesticides or other
chemical s .
Since Hyasthenia Gravis is a disease of the neuromuscular Junction
and many conmon pesticides directly affect the neuromuscular Junction
(e.g. I^lathion and Parathion) it is not surprising that patients nice
n^yself are adversly affected, (^asthenia Gravis (MG) is a disease that
affects patients in rnany varying ways. Each patient has to adapt to his
conditions and the things that affect his daily life style. Many factors
In the envlrornient can alter the HG patients disease. As you can see fron
the enclosed literature, Organophosphates (Halathlon and Parathion) and
carbamate pesticides (Sevin) are two such catagories that have adverse
affects.
While the number of HG patients is not large (est. 1 in 10,000), It
is a fact that some of these patients are constantly on the verge of
life threatening medical crisis and could be severly affected by relatively
small amounts of pesticides. Many HG patients have fairly will controlled
symptoms and would probably suffer only transient muscular weakness as a
result of exposure to these pesticides.
It is certainly important for all HG patients to be aware of the
presense of pesticides. Therefore, I strongly support the bill that will
re<)uire the posting of signs warning of pesticides or other chemicals.
Sincerely, ^^C^I^-EL,
Stanley H, My
y'n. ScNniegle
Springfield Garden Club
d by Google
DKUCS WHICH ACT OK THE AUTONOMIC NFRVOUS SYSTFM / 147
lestine, bronchi, heart, blood vessels, bijddcr — as well js the eyes and
sweat glands ll therefore controls all sorts of functions, from breathing
to sexual activity, from sweating to digestion. It consists of two divi-
sions, sympathetic and parasympathetic. These divisions oppose each
other, but a careful balance is maintained by special centers in the
Impulses from the brain and spinal cord join the autonomic network
of nerves along nerve fibers which run into ganKlia (rather like cleilri-
cal switch boxes). The impulses are transmitted .it these junctions by
chemical transmitters. The nerve fibers running A> the junctions are
called ^ri' ganglionic nerve fibers, and they all use the same chemical
transmitter — acetylcholine. This transmitter works for only a very
short time, because once it is liberated at nerve junctions to act -is a
chemical transmitter another chemical starts to break it down. The
latter chemical is an enzyme called cholinesterase. Nerve fibers running
{mm the nerve junctions (ganglia) are called ;>i»/ ganglionic nerves.
Parasympathetic postganglionic nerves also use .icetylcholinc as a
chemical transmitter; they arc therefore known as cholinergic nerves.
The sympathetic postganglionic nerve fibers, which use epinephrine
and norepinephrine as chemical transmitters, arc known as adrenergic
nerves.
Drugs Which Act on the Parasympathetic Nervous System
Drugs which act like acetylcholine are called cholinergic drugs: they
may also be called parasympathomimetic because they mimic the aC'
lions of the parasympathetic nervous system.
Stimulation of the parasympathetic division produces stimulation of
secretory glands— salivary, tear, bronchial, and sweat. It slows the
heart rale, constricts the bronchi, produces increased movement of ttie
gut, contracts the bladder, and constricts the pupil. It stimulates nerve
endings in voluntary muscles, stimulates and then depresses the brain^
and dilates blood vessels.
CHOLINEXCIC OnUCS
There are three groups of cholinergic drugs:
CHOLINE ESTERS: carbjchol, methacholine, bclhanechol. Those ail at all
sites tike acetylchohnc.
ALKALOIDS: pilocarpine, muscarine. These act selectively on those
nerve endings which respond to acetylcholine.
CHOLINESTERASE WHIIITORS OR ANTICHOLINESTERASE DIUCS: phySOStigmine
and neostigmine. These inactivate the enzyme (cholinesterase) which
is responsible for breaking down acetylcholine, allowing acetylcholine
to go on working.
d by Google
148 / HANDBOOK OF MEDICINt^ AND ORUCS
Not dll effects occur with eaih chulincrgic drug. Also, the intensity
of effect v^rie^ Methdcholinc mjy be used to slow down fast heart
rates, and carbachol may be used to stimulate bowel and bladder
function after surgical operations. They both have to be given by
injection under the skin. Bcthancchol is related jnd may be given by
mouth. Pilocarpine is used to constrict the pupil and decrease the
pressure inside the eye in patients with glaucoma. The anticholinester-
ase drug physostigmine is used to stimulate the bowel and bladder
after surgery, in ihc trcjtmcnt of niva^thenij gravis (a disease caused
by defective transmission of impulses by acetylcholine, and character-
ized by -.evere muscle weakness and fatigue), and as an antidote to
neuromuscular blocking drugs. Many related drugs are also "used"_ajt_
nerve gases, and some are pesticides.
Drugs Which Oppose Parasympithelic Activity
These may be malted acetylcholine antagonists or parasympatholytics.
They prevent acetylcholine from acting as a transmitter. There are
thiee grcups. anticholinergic drugs, whiih act principally at parasym-
pathetic nerve endings; ganglionic blocking drugs, which act on
gangliaj neuromuscular blocking drugs, which act on nerve endings in
voluntary muscles.
ANTtCnOLINCRUC OKUCS
Typical of these drugs is atropine, and they are therefore often referred
to as alropinclike drugs. Atropine is an alkaloid from the plant Atropa
MkJonna. It competes for the same chemical receptors as acetylcholine,
thus blocking its effects. It produces dry mouth and a reduction in all
secretions eKcept milk, effects opposite to that of stimulation of the
parasympathetic division. In the stomach it reduces the amount of acid
produced. Sweating is inhibited, and bronchial secretions are reduced.
It causes a relaxation of muscles in the bowel, bronchi, and bladder and
is used to relieve muscle spasm in these organs (e.g., intestinal colic,
bronchospasm). It dilates the pupils and increases the pressure inside
the eyes. It inireases heart rate, stimulates the brain, reduces motion
sickness, and decreases the tremor and rigidity of Parkinsonism.
Higher doses of atropine produce a rapid heart rate, dry mouth, blurred
vision, dilated pupils, and restlessness. In overdose, atropine produces
excitement, hallucinations, delirium, mania, and coma.
Other alropinelike drugs are: scopolamine, which depresses the
brain and is used preoperatively and in motion sickness; homalropine,
used to dilate the pupils; scopolamine butylbromide, which relaxes
involuntary muscles and is used to relieve colic; cyclopentolate, used
as eye drops to dilate the pupils; and propantheline, one of many
d by Google
CONTRAINDICATED DRUGS
Curare and Its derivatives
Morphine and other narcotic analgesics,
tranquilizers, barbiturates
Ether, Methoxyflurane, Halothane
Quinldine, Pronestyl
Quinine, tonic water, muscle relaxants
Procainamide, Propanoloi, Lidocaint and
related drugs
Potassium depleting diuretics
Common cold preparations
Enemas and strong cathartics should be
evaluated on an individual basis
'Streptomycin Polymyxin A and B
Kanamycin Colistin
Gentamlcin Geomycin
VIomycIn Tobramycin
'Neomycin Amikacin
Sulfanomldes Tetracycline
Insecticides: Organophosphates-
Parathlon and Maiathion
The fluorocart}on propellants in spray
carts may be poorly tolerated.
Flu shots should be taken at the discretion
. of your physician.
I AM ILL
I have a disease, called
MYASTHENIA GRAVIS,
which makes me so weak that I cannot
stand up or speak. I am not intoxicated.
Please call my physician or hospital
right away.
MYASTHENIA GRAVIS FOUHDATIOH. INC.
P.O. Box 24607
Philadelphia. FA 19111
HOTLINE - 342-7650
d by Google
,fj^it^ r* vlJW JtM*n*Ji/r.Lt ku-tftt T>m*. tf-tu* ^un. c*u. >~ r"i"*c^
j?.f ^--^. ^^.-r -*i-rt ..^<^ o^-fi, X>- -^^ ;:H^ ./juv^ '^"V^
-nA^n. cjnX^ CJUw^Xf^ c^ ,0~rwKj, ti _Aw^ o-i^*n*- -^Jl.^/*;?^
tJ2 „i<'it>- ^*'^ ^-"^^^ '"^ ■f'^ .^t^rMU^ *u -^t-i-Ti;!^ -/^*-l-
db,Google
SlncB 1983. a broad based coalition of citizens groups^ in
Montgomaiy County, initiated by the Spcingflald Garden Club with
the auppott of the Rachel Caison Council and the Audubon
Haturailit Society, has sought to addEass the grave health and
enviiongientBl probiesa associated with the use of pesticides on
residential lawns. The coalition was concernad about mistakes,
accidents and excesslTa or unneceaaary application of peetleldes
by Iswn aaintenance coMpanies, aa well as inadequate conauneE
awsrenaas of the (potential haiacda oC pastictdes.^
In Septenber 19B3, Beabers of the Springfield Garden Club
Ecology Coamittee and representatlvaa of the Rachel Carson Council
1. Tha coalition Includes the League of Nonen Voters. National
Audubon Society, Anerican Association of Qniversity Honen. Friends
of tb« Earth. Springfield Civic Association. Ken's Garden Club of
Nontgomery Cjunty, Maryland Wildlife Pedaration, Katlonal
Coalition Against the Hisuse of Pesticides. Clesn Hater Action
Project. Concern, the Huaan Ecology Action League, the National
Capital Area Federation of Garden Clubs (representing 141 garden
clubs], and Dlstdct 4 of the national Capital Area Federation of
Garden Clubs (representing 37 garden clubs).
2. The lawn care industry has erroneously clalned that the
coalition's efforts were notlvated solely by customer complaints
over billing and the storage of nerve gas near a public school.
In addition to being patently false, these assertions belittle the
important role which County officials have played In trying to
address the very real health effects associatad with the
application of pesticides to residential launs-
d by Google
•nd AuAibon Hatuialiat Soeiaty wece Invltvd by County officials to
pBEticlpat* In til* p«Bticid« Hana^toiant Mocking Group, which
iDCludad cepEosentativea fctwi the pesticide IndustEyi as well as
state and County officials. The Industry's reluctance to support
aiv Meaningful proposals hindered the working Group's
affectlTenesa. In the spring of 19S4, in response to a draft
statute prepared by County officialSi under which residents would
receive notice of pesticide applications and InfocBstion about the
(pesticides applied to their iBwna. the County Executive announced
his support for a voluntary compliance scheme that would achieve
the aaae objectives. The coalition supported the voluntary
coapllance scbeae. Several months later, the industry, through
the trad* association FARE IFedaration Asainat Regulatory
bceas),3 rejected It.
Th* coalitioni having worked cooperatively — and
patiently — with all parties for a voluntary compliance scheme
without result/ is now asking the County to adopt legislation that
wouldi 1) provide for full notification to the custoner of the
names of the pesticides being applied to the cuet^er's lawni and
the (potential health effects of Chose pestlcldesi 2) provide
notification of pesticide applications to nelghbora through the
use of small markers posted on lawnai and 3) provide for a email
3. PAitB' B reaponse to the voluntary compliance scheme waa
unsigned, and FARE has never disclosed which companlea comprise
thf- organization.
d by Google
d«C«l to Back cl«arly honas to b* traatad ovec tha ducation of tha
contract! bo as to pcavant tha wronfifal a^lication of pesticidea.
II. MHT A ■BIOIff-TQ-KMOB- OMTmilCB tS HBrRSBKHY
Tha OEdinanea pcapaiad by the coalition of cititen gcoupa ts
a laaponaa to tha incraasad avacanasst both nationally and In
Hontgoaary Countyr of tha batacda asaoclatad with tha vidaspread*
uaa of pasticldaa on rasldantlal lawna in aubucban araaa.
Coalition aambaca hava racalvad nuaaroua conplainta about
paaticida Biaai^licatlons and ipolsonlngs in tha County. The exact
nuabai of such incldenta Is unknown, sinca tbara is no central
Eapoaitocy foi coaplaints in HontgonaEy Countyi noc any
Eaqniraaant that doctors who ara alait to the syaptoBB rapoct
Incidents.^
Thaca ace nai^ known health affects which result fro« various
paaticida poisonings. Repaatedi lov-dose exposure aay cause
la«adiata effects, including partial pacalyalB. irceguJar
heartbeat, diisinaasr headachea. nausea, diacrhaa. auscular pain,
fatigue, allergies and aatbMa. Long-teca affect*/ whether fron
S. The coalition Is compiling Enviconaental Protection Agency
data on coaplaints received with respect to those pastlcldes which
ara uaad by lawn Balntenance companies in Hontgonery County. When
coBplete, that coapllatlon will be presented to the County
d by Google
on* OE Eapaatad •xpoauEHr Indttda Btacillty, blcth dBf«eta>
toxicity to fatiuas, DiscarrlAge, BatBtlona. naarologlc, kidnayf
baact, livai and blood daaaga, oahavlocal dlBOEdars and cancac.
Individual coactiona and auacaptibiiltlae aay differ. s<m* paopl*
wbo hava daralopad supec aansltlTlty to toxins aust avoid any
azpoaur*. Tba National Rasaarch Council's capoEt. Drban Past
ABDUBBiiiti' atatas that tba Badleal aigniticaaca of long-tan
axpoauE* has bacosa as gtaat as that of ijoMdiate azpoauca. ThaEa
Is llttla ganaral public awatanass of tha clsk of axpoanca to
pastlcidaa. HOEOovaEi accoEdlng to tha raipoet, cbildcan and tha
aldeEly SEa at spacial clsk of pasticlda axposura and pats aca
traquant victlas of unwlsa doaastic usa of pastlcidaa.
Bran nora alaralng Is tha fact that aaiqr of tha haalth Eiska
of pastlcidaa bec unknovn. In its taipoct antltlad Tonteity
teBtinS! Rtrateqiea to DeEermtne WeedB and Prtorltiea.^ tba
National KaaaaEch Council rapoEta that data sufflciant foe
coaplata haalth haiaEd aiaaBaaants ata avallabla for only 10% of
tha pasticidea cuEEantly In usa in tha Unltad Statas and that an
additional 24* can only b« partially asaeaaad. This aoana that
little — or nothing — Is known about the health hasards of
tw^thlEda of tha paaticldea In use today. Hany of these were
raqiatsEad by tba D.S. govarnaant for use before adequate testing
6. Rational Acadeny of Sciences Frasa.
7 . Ibid.
d by Google
was taquicad in th« Fadacal Ina«cCicld«i Fungicld* and Rodanticlde
Act (■PintA'l cavlaion of 1972, and aoat have atlll not baen
biought into conplianca.
It waa BlBO dlseoreced a taw yaaca ago that ona of tha
pilsacy Xaboiatoriss usad tai toxicity taating at peaticidaa.
Induatcial Bio-Tast LaboiatociaSf falsifiad tha taaulta of «any
taata on orar 200 posticidas. Other eoDBarclol laboratoiiea bava
alio baan found at fault. Thase tests aie being cepeatad at tha
babast of tha Onitad states and Canadian govecnmente, but tha
piocasB ia still not conplata. Horaovac, tha cagistration ptocass
of tha EnvlconBantal Protection Agency Is no guacantee that the
nawac pesticides on the naclcet have been adequately tested. Tha
EPA appEOves hundreds of *e>eEgency exenption' lequeatB each year
that peniit untagisteced pesticldas to be usad and also allows
auch pEoducta to be usad nndsE 'conditional raglatration* and
'apaclal local need* axakptions. In 1982| EPA approved 1,656
special local need reqlstEatlona alone. Recent rulinga of federal
dlstEict couEts in Oregon establish the ptlnciple that EPA
ragistEstioo of a pesticide Is not adequate justification for its
uae> and that a 'worst case analysis* nust be drawn up by any
govermant agency using a pesticide widely.
Qiven tha known health ciEka from peaticide exposure and the
scarcity of adequate data about pesticides, it is iBperative that
Nontgoaary County take the initiative and provide its realdents
with the Infornation they need to make informed choices about
d by Google
pastlcldas. That is wbat th« pco|?os*d oidioanc* sa«ks to do. It
will pioaota the haalth and safety of County r*sld«nts> and
iDccaaa* thaic awaraneaa of tha ipotantially hasaidoua peatlcidaa
balng appllad to tbaic lawna. Tha coalition) which suppotta thia
ocdlaanca. lacognliaa that pastlcidaa ara a fact of lifai it doas
iMt Mak to and paaticida usa In tha County. What tha coalition
.dBCI want la a bettac inforpad and aatac cltiiancy.
III.
Montgomacy County la not praaaptad by atata oc fadatal lew
team anacting lagialatton dicactad towarda disseminating
Information and pcotacting tha haalth, aafaty and ganaial walfaca
Of County caaldanta.^ Tha Fadaial tnaacticlda. Punslclda and
Bod«Dticide Act ('riPRA') ragnlatea peatlclda ragistiation.
a. In its reBponse to tha voluntary eoHplianca achaaa. PARE
cltas a nuaber of CaSes to support Its sweeping asaectlon that
localities are preempted tttm enacting pesticide ordinances.
ThaM cases accr «iianplea of ordinances which directly conflict
with sithc- a state oc fadaral law: r.on? island Peat Control v.
Town of Huntinqton. 141 N.Y.S.2d 93 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 1973,
aff'd on appeal without opinion, 351 S-2d 945) (local Ctdinance
required pesticide registration and regulated transportation of
peaticldesl; Toun of wen'iBll v. Rellottil. Civil Action No. 15119
tHaas. Superior cc. 1984] (local ordinance cequirad pesticide
registration and approval of pesticide use by local tward) ( ZfUffl
if Sallabury u. New England Power Co. ■ 121 N.H. 983 tSup. Ct.
1981) (local ordinance restricted use of chemical defollantaj.
The ptoposed ordinance contains no such conillcts with either
state Or federal laws uhe(« there is no conflict, as In £fifiBl£
V. County of Mendocino. 204 Cal Rptr 897 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1984)
(aerial Epraylng of pesticides not covered ty atata or federal
law) . a local law will not be preempted.
d by Google
cartification, use, aale and labelln9. It contains no eipceas
pceenptlon of stata or local leglalatlon. In fact. $24 of PIPRA
Buthodzea additional stata cegulatlon of the sale or use of
pesticides as long as there is no conflict with the federal law,
•ssentially leaving the states to detataine fot thenselvee In what
manner additional legislation could be enacted by localities.
Cndec the Maryland Constitution, chartered counties — such as
Nontgonery County — are granted broad lagielative powers to
protect the health and safety of their realdenta. Those powers
are nearly as eztenaiva as those of the state. Tbua. the state of
Maryland, by its Constitution, baa nade the choice to allow
chartered counties to deterslne the best nachanisna to protect the
health, safety and general welfare of their residents.
Moreover, FIFIIA does not Impliedly preempt the proposed
ordinance. First, the ordinance does not conflict with FIPRA.
PIPRA regulates only the registration, use. sale and labeling of
pesticides. It does not address the dissemination of Inforaatlon
aboUt pesticides to consumers. Second, PIPRA'b express
autboilzatlon of state leglalation indicates that Congress did not
wish to occupy the field of pesticide law.
PASS places great weight on the legislative history of PIPRA.
PARE points out that a House and a Senate committee rejected a
proposal which would have expressly authorized legislation by
political subdivisions. However, FARE neglected to mention a
pcoipoBBl tv the Senate Committee on Commerce which sought to
d by Google
lOS
p«r«lt such local lagislation.' Tb«M dlffutng posltiona l*d to
a coapcoaise in tba Hoius-SBtiata confeconc* under which nelttaac
poaition was adopted. One cannot Inter any Congcaaalonal intent
(eob aueb ineoncluaive legialative histocy.
The pcoposed ocdlnance la alao not pceeapted by Maryland law.
The pesticide sactlona of Title 5 of the Hatyland Agcicultuia Coda
contain no axpceas preeaption prorlalona. Noraovari the ordinance
falle clearly within the powara of a chacteced county to pcotect
the health and genacal welfare of ita tealdenta. Thua. nothing in
Maryland law axptesEly preeapts legislation of this type.
Bor ia the ordinance lipliadly pceeaptad. Such praaaptlon
■Ight occur if the ordinance conflicted with atate law, oc if
there was aone evidence that pesticides were an exclusive atate
concern. First, there ia no conflict with atata law. Like the
PIFRA regulationSf Hacyland regulatlona pertain to the
■anufactura, registration, distribution, and labeling of
pesticides. They do not concern the dlssealnation of inforaatlon
to consuaers. The ordinance will neither interfere with nor pose
an obstacle to cospllance with state law by pesticide applicators.
Second, pesticides are not an exclusive state concern. The state
peaticide regulationa are not the type of detailed and
comprehensive regulatory achene — such as the state's education
and election laws — that Maryland courts look for in deteralnlcg
9. 8. Rep. NO. 970, 9ad Cong., 2d Sess. 27-28 (1972).
d by Google
wb«tb«i on at«a Is of Axclualv* atata concern. ^1
ruts also aaaerte that tha pcopoaed ordlnanc* violates th*
Equal Ptotactlon Clause of th* Dnltcd State* Constitution bacause
th* oidinanc* discriminates against a paEticulai class of persons
(lawn maintenance coapanlasi without OHtablisblng a rational basis
foe aach 'dlsctinlnatton. * fARB's InteEpEetatlon of the Equal
Protection elauaa is erroneous. Plcatt whil* th* 14th Aaandment
does protect *susp«ct claassB* that hava experienced
discEiaiiuition. this pcotection has only been applied to
Classifications based on caca. sax oe national ocigin. Second, it
is not true that statutes which gorecn commeice cannot
dltfecentiate between coBiatclal •■tabllsbaents and ptlvate
individuals. Many Katutes do so. The aost pertinent example is
tha Maryland pesticide law> which exclusively pectalns to
buainassas that awiufactuce, sell or apply pesticides. It does
not ragulatc pcivate individuals who use pesticides. Hhile it
Bight be desirable to require private Individuals to comply ulth
cactalD provisions of a right-to-know ordinance. th«te ia nothing
10. FARE cites 55-102 and S5-104 of the Maryland Agriculture Code
aa support tor its argument that the proposed ordinance would
contravene the legislature's desire for unlfoimitv in pesticide
regulation. However a careful look at those sections reveals
that the uniformity refetced to was directed towards Other state
agencies, other states and the federal government:, and towards
regulations -governing pesticide labeling, coloring, manufacturing
and selling. Those sections do not pertain to localities, and
they do not refer to lava which are designed to provide
Infonnation to consumers.
d by Google
in th* U.S. Coattitutlon that aandat** It. 01 coutM- ainc* such
a laquiienant la not pteclud«d undeE tha ConBtitutlon> tba
coalition would fael tiem to so azpaad Its ocdinanca at a latar
data.
Spclngfleld Garden Club
Itaah«l Caiaon Council
Audubon Katucallat Society
d by Google
db,Google
ill
We'll soon see signs
warning of poisons
been ip»^ In tiwtr
db,Google
mi
ill
iHi-iiiiili
lili
liillill!
i«i
liilili
ill 111
iiiisnih'iitoiil
II lili
iyiinififniiliiiii
i1iiiliriUiHiu!!i hiH
111 p
H'.lll!
liiiiifi
.hi
m
mm
tH'i'hl
-fjiliilriil
ii.'"'
Jig
'■' !,
'I'
Kliiii I lib .
d by Google
CMILDHEN 5 HO&PITAL OF PuTsauflGH
PITTSBURGH. PA 15213
HDvcBber 30, J9B4
Mt>. Gertrude C. Coeke
5315 Brlley Place
BeCheada. HD 208)6
Dear Hrs. GotKt:
Slace the Pittsburgh Poison Cente
26, 1984'co ac.
Tour proposal to u
e th^ HR.YUK sticker or. the lavn oark-ci. to
alert neighbors, w
th children, to avci.: areas which have b^f,
sprayed vlth haroE
1 chemicals Is a very good one. Ue certainly
»ould be willing :
grant petralsaion for you to use the ffll. YUf
•ticker. We w^uld
or.ly ask that you uork through the ioral Poise
eorgetown University. I have alerteJ Dr. Toby
Lltovlti, Director
of Che PoisoH Center at Georgecowa, of your
request and she ul
1 be anticlr^ting a call from you (?0.-'- 625- 60 7
The Georgetown Unl
eraity center is licensed to use the MR. YUK
■tickers and they
hould be your source of supply, He «lRh you
«ety success In y
ur good uork and ve will be supportive through
Che National Gapltial Polaoa Center
e to Be and my wife because thct 1
SlD^erely yoi^rs,
As BO date Admlniatrs
db,Google
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
October 26, 1984
Kr%, Gertrude C. Goeke
Ecology Comnfttee Member
SpHngfleld Garden Club of Montgomery County
5315 BHIey Place
Bethesda, Maryland Z0816
Elear Krs. Goeke;
Thank you for your letter of Inquiry dated September 27, 1984.
The Consolidated City of Jacksonville has no local ordinances
governing pesticides. Commercial pesticide operators In Florida
are licensed by the State Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Affairs and certified by the State Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, Entomology Division. They are licensed
to use only EPA-approvcd pesticides and are monitored by the
licensing agency. Several of the pesticide con^ianies voluntarily
place temporary signs on lawns treated with pesticides to warn
the public to keep children and dogs away, particularly while the
lawns are still uet. Companies adnlt, quite candidly, that the
placement of such signs Is good advertising.
I hope the above information will be of help to you.
d by Google
Use of lawn ixwIh-hU-s coiu-enis stale offifials
so
sr
sr
db,Google
112
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much, Ms. Smigel.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to say I think this panel has touched on several
areas of very deep concern to the committee, and it is my hope that
we can improve the administration of the law to cover some of the
situations that have been discussed here.
Mrs. Prior, I am deeply disturbed by the story that you have
given us this morning with regard to your husband. I assume that
your husband had an initieil sensitivity to this chemicEil; that is
what the evidence seems to indicate.
Mrs. Prior. He was certainly not sensitive that we were aware of
beforehand. He was perfectly healthy; had no allergies that we
were aware of.
I don't believe he is unique. I believe that only the research is
unique.
Mr. Brown. I am sure he wasn't unique. The question is, even if
one person suffers these kinds of difficulties, that is sufficient to be
deeply concerned. But we also need to be concerned about how
many others might experience the same or even some lesser degree
of difficulties as a result of this.
1 was wondering if the research with regard to your husband's
case had indicated the degree to which others might be sensitive,
also.
Mrs. Prior. That wasn't addressed in the autopsy. I am aware of
at least four to five other cases of the same illness that are docu-
mented, caused by a similar pesticide. Unfortunately, without an
adequate autopsy and research, it will be impossible to come to the
bottom of other deaths that are similar.
Mr. Brown. Do these other similar cetses — did any of them arise
out of the situation at the Army-Navy Country Club?
Mrs. Prior. No, not there. There were cases of fumigation of
homes.
Mr. Brown. Can you repeat again the experience you had with
EPA on this? As far as you know, they have been nonresponsive to
your requests for information; and do you know if they have taken
any corrective action at all with regard to the use of this particular
fungicide?
Mrs. Prior. In the last year, my lawyers have written to EPA
several times. I cemnot give you dates or accurate numbers of let-
ters. I can tell you they have never even had the courtesy of a re-
sponse sa}'ing, "We received your letters." Nothing has been re-
ceived.
Mr. Brown. You know of no action that they have taken to pre-
vent the recurrence of something of this sort?
Mrs. Prior. I know of no action.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the sub-
committee request of EPA an tmalysis of this situation and a state-
ment of their own views with regard to the reasons for their failure
to take any action on the case.
Mr. Bedell. Is there any objection?
If not, it is so ordered.
[The material follows:]
d by Google
UNrTEO STATES ENVJRONMErfTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dear Mr. Chi
chlorothtlonll , ■ fungldOe, used
golf. Hrs, Prior 1s scrking I nf oi
with a pending laiituU ag«1 nst ttii
end the golf course.
! pliyed
funglctd*
>T any tontiLt I
Iffte* of Pestii
1 C. Broun, Jr. Consequently, He htve
did receive a genenl request from
iqueit did not Identify either Hrs. Pr1
il Bio-Test (IBT), He hsd no other rec
Irs. Prior or her attorney. Mr. Brown'
knowledge of the problens wUh studies and the fraudulent
test reporting hy IBT. Let ne assure you that EPA has no
evidence that any manufacturer or registrant of chtorothtloi
d by Google
itUn beyond that i
ll-utl, request^!
n have provl did Mr.
■I MonltOflnfl Systei
1 protect data
■nercial or f 1 1
i Confidential
■ of the dstt to
in or to release,
rlltlons (40 CFR ?).
1 after receipt ■ '
■t deternlned*
nforimtlon.
an expedited CBI
ly 2* and the
Information !
should have 1
director of t
oversees OPP'
luested. If. In the meg
istlons, she may call r
■ Manageaent and Suppor
of Inforaatlon reqi
t that problcBs of 1
If I aay b
ria and h1 1 1 mike my additional ehanget
y to remedy future problenj of the
d by Google
115
Mrs. Prior. Thank you.
Mr. Brown. I have no further questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. No qu^tions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This may be a followup to Mr. Brown's question. I would be in-
terested— Mrs. Prior or Mr. Menichino can respond. In your state-
ment, Mr. Menichino, you indicated that there was the reaction of
EPA in the IdTO's. To your knowledge, has there been some change
in the r^ulation of Chlordane? I am trying to find out, is the situa-
tion today identical, in terms of the regulations, aa it weis in the
1970's, to which you refer; or are you simply referring to something
that happened back then, recc^nizing but not suggesting in your
testimony there has been a change?
Mr. Menichino. What the situation was was that chlordane had
many uses before EPA acted in the 1970's. It could be used on agri-
cultural crops, also. EPA eHminated its use to subsurface infection
for termite treatments and for dipping of nonfood plants with the
belief that human exposure would be low. That was the purpose of
EPA's action in the 1970's, was to eliminate the possibility of
human exposure to this compound.
We now know that human exposure is taking place in the homes,
and we need to protect the public from that exposure.
Mr. GtmDERSON. You are saying that regulation is not adequate;
what we need to do is ban?
Mr. Menichino. I think what the New York situation has proved
is r^ulation that is inadequate; it cannot prevent misapplications.
And the United States nor New York has enough firnds to police
every licensed applicator in this countiy.
Mr. Gunderson. I recognize that. One of the questions which
may be difficult to answer today — I would be interested, if either of
you are considering sharing with the subcommittee a written re-
sponse— would be exactly how the process seems to be changed to
better deal with this particular chemical? I think that is what we
are interested in. In reauthorization, I don't think anyone in this
room would want us to begin the process of, by l^islation, legal-
ized, or making illegal a particular chemical — I Eim not queiliflea to
do that, I don't want to suggest to you I am — I don't think this cov-
erage of the United States in the political environment is qualified
to do that, what in the process needs to be changed. It would be
very helpful to us.
I found it very interesting, on page 3 of your testimony, you
said — conHrmed our own findings and urge that nonagriculture use
of pesticides be monitored more carefully. It kind of jiunped out to
me because I think this committee so often looks at what can be
the proper r^ulation and use of chemicals from an agriculture
perspective. You touched on a new issue.
Are you suggesting we really ought to have different standards
for regulation?
Ms. Shigel. I believe there should be some coordination that
would bring in agencies such as the Consumer Product Protection
d by Google
116
Agency and the health department and something like that. I am
not suggesting setting up another bureaucracy, but I think there
could be some kind of method to look at this with a coordination of
other groups who are interested in public health.
I also think that local legislators should not be closed off from
taking action, as has been done, which h{ks been called reasonable.
And r think a mild sort of thing that they are doing in Montgom-
ery County, which of course is not enthusiastically greeted by the
industry, putting out a simple marker and the right to know, the
right to information, I think should be a right that is that of every
citizen of the United States.
Mr. GuNOERSON. That puts us on a veiy difficult and controver-
sial question for this subcommittee, and I guess this Congress has
been unable to resolve for the 5 years I have been here, and that is:
How do we deal with the local rights to be involved and their right
to know, and at the same time trying to prevent a situation where
we have 50 different regulations of chemicals used in the country
from the State perspective, saying nothing of local justiiications.
Above and beyond that, I am sure you can assume if that hap-
pened there would probably be little or no enforcement, there
would be no consistency of law, and everyone would simply ignore
it in their general commercial and trade.
You have got some ideas for us?
Ms. SiUGEL. There are two problems, of course — the fact that
most homeowners, as I said, are unaware there is an^ need they
should look into these things, we need to awaken their questions.
The other thing is, people have a right, for instance, in some-
thing so simple as smoking and nonsmoking, to be protected
against that kind of thing, especially in their own homes. That
right should be able to be delegated as they have done on commu-
nity levels; commimity levels have enacted such l^islation like
that.
Mr. GuNDERSON. There might be a compromise here whereby we
can look at States, or the Federal Government would be the l^al —
but to allow local jurisdictions the authority in terms of notifica-
tion, right to know those. There may be some kind of balance
there.
Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Penny.
Mr. Penny. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. MoRBisoN. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson, if you desire more time, the chair-
man will be glad to yield.
Mr. CoMBEST. From your own personal situations, having been
involved with use of pesticides, would you say that in your experi-
ence the bluest problem would have come from the chemical itself
or the misapplication of that chemical?
Mr. Menichino. I would have to say that it is from the chemical
itself. In the case of Chlordane, the manufacturer of the chemical
has been well aware for many years even when the product is prop-
erly used according to the EPA directions and labeled instructions,
that levels can occur in the home which approach the NAS guide-
line. So what we are saying is that even if they follow the label.
d by Google
117
people are going to be exposed to the chemical. The manufacturer
is aware of that. There have been studies done that show it.
Further, once the chemical is in the air, once a surface is treated
with the chemical, there is no way to decontaminate that surface.
Decontamination involves ripping houses apart, to the tune of in
excess of $50,000 or $100,000. One case in New York, the house was
demolished, knocked down.
Mrs. Prior. I don't know which was greater at fault. I believe
both.
Mr. CoMBEST. In your specific instance, did there seem to be — or
do you have any facts or knowledge of the fact there actually had
been — a misapplication when that was treated?
Mrs. Prior. I have no knowledge of that whatsoever, I have read
the label myself. I am not certain what is known about applying it
and what directions were followed.
Ms. Shigel. Our position is that chemicals are selectively useful,
but they should also be used with prudence and common sense and
people need the proper and appropriate information as to how
these chemicals are registered, that they Eire not approved, the risk
and benefit, so they can evaluate and make responsible choices.
Mr. CoMBEST. I guess it was your testimony which seemed to in-
clude a broader range of chemicals than the other two witnesses
were specifically talking about. I would understand that, being
from the garden clubs, I seem to read into yours, or seem to under-
stand what you were saying, at least you are directing more in
terms of misapplication, or it was not being applied correctly, or it
was not proper notification, rather than specifically a problem
about the chemical itself.
Is that incorrect?
Mb. Smigel. I think you have said it fairly correctly. The main
point is that the public needs information of the risk and the bene-
fit, and th^ need to know what the chemiceils are so that they can
evaluate. Ttat is what we want the applicators — to let them know,
so they can make a decision whether they want this on their lawn
at all. If they do have it, what precautions should they take, if they
decide. It may be a problem that doesn't need to be treated.
That is one of the areas that we found things are often just given
a shotgun approach when there is a preventive application, when
there is no need of course that is dtmieiging to the environment —
they be used selectively, carefully, such as integrated pest memage-
ment — great caution.
Mr. CoMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Menichino, 1 think in response to Congressman Combest's
question you said the chemical itself was the problem. Yet, I think
your example was strictly in the use of chlordane in the applica-
tion in homes for termite control.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Menichino. What I meant to say is that there can be misap-
plications of the product by applicators, but there is also evidence
to show when the product is properly applied, according to labeled
instructions, that levels can still occur in the home subjecting the
humans in the home to exposure.
d by Google
118
Mr. Morrison. You did not mean to imply other uses of chlor-
dane have been more successful through the years in those uses
that don't involve homes?
Mr. Menichino. I don't think I imderstemd your question.
Mr. Morrison. Chlordane is used in a variety of ways. When jrou
said that the chemical was useful, it was part of our efforts here to
decide what to do about this.
Mr. Menichino. The only varieties of ways the chemical can be
used according to the EPA is subsurface, being nonplant foods.
Mr. Morrison. You don't question those procedures. Your ques-
tioning is about the uae in homes?
Mr. Menichino. No. I don't question the dipping of nonfood
plants; just in the home use.
Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Are there any further questions?
If not, we certainly appreciate your testimony. It has been very
helpful, certainly very moving to many of us, and we appreciate
the fact that you have come and that you have testified, and we
want to thank you all very, very much.
Next we have a panel: Robert M. Russell, Robert Oold, Euid Ed
Duskin.
Congressman DeLay, who is from Texas, is here, and he will in-
troduce each one of the witnesses.
Are we correct that you have been in the industry?
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS D. DeLAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. DeLay. I am in the industry, and I still have a pest control
company. But I did fall under the guidelines of outside income.
Mr. Bedell. Apparently, you and Congressmeui Ray have person-
al knowledge of this issue and had experience in it. We are going to
lean upon you, if we might, for some of your expertise.
Mr. DeLay. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
With your permission, I would like to give you a little of my
background.
I have a degree in biology and a minor in biochemistry from the
University of Houston. My first job out of college was with a pesti-
cide formulation and supply company. Redwood Chemical in Hous-
ton. After about 4 years of running that company, I went into busi-
ness for myself and built a rather nice, little company in Houston,
TX, called Albo Pest Control, which I still have. I have crawled
under houses, I have been drenched in the so-called bad chlordane,
and I have had accidents with this find other products.
I know that we are not here this morning to talk about roister-
ing chemicals; we are here to discuss the use of these chemicals. It
has been my experience that homeowners, are very concerned
about the benefits and risks of pesticide use and usually ask what
we are using and how we plan to use it. Let's face it, we are not
talking about a $20 job, we are talking about a $500 up to $1,200
job. Homeowners are not going to spend that kind of money unless
they know what is involved. Pesticide applicators explain to the
homeowners that pesticides can be dangerous if they are misused
ftnd proceed only with the consent of the homeowner.
d by Google
119
I don't think any law requiring the apphcator to tell the home-
owner what he is using will change anything because 90 percent of
the time the applicator informs the homeowner anyway.
I would like to respond to a previous panelist's reply to Congress-
man Combest's question, Is the chemical the bad guy or is the
misuse the bad guy? The panelist said the chemical is the bad guy.
That makes about as much sense as bltmiing the gun for a murder
and punishing the gun rather than the murderer. Because the gun
was misused by a person, you go after the person that has misiued
it. It's common sense: treat the cause not the symptom.
I have been in this business since 1970 and have lived under
FIFRA since it was passed. I think there are some problems with
FIFRA that tie a pest control operator's hands. To make FIFRA
more restrictive, even more than it is now, would be very detrimen-
tal to this business, a business that protects the health and proper-
ty of the citizens of the United States.
Pest control operators will tell you that the problems we are en-
countering right now in trying to get insurance stem from eill the
media hype and scare tactics currently employed against this busi-
ness and against FIFRA. Unfortunately, these same tactics can
affect the purpose of chemical testing.
I remember when the EPA was trying to ban chlordane. For the
purpose of experimentetion, mice were raised to contract cancer
with and without chlordane. In the first test they were using as
background to ban chlordane, the control mice not impr^nated
with chlordane contracted more cancer than those mice that were
inopre^ated with chlordane.
The lawyer for Velsicol who went before the administrative
judge concluded that it was obvious that chlordane cured cancer
because the chlordane mice contracted less cancer than the control
mice. It makes as much sense to conclude the opposite, that chlor-
dane causes cancer because a mouse contracted some cancer by
being impregnated with chlordane. Chlordane is not the problem.
I will be glad to answer any questions you may have of me after
the following testimonies. Now I would like to introduce Mr. Dold,
the past president of the National Pest Control Association, who
will share his experience for the benefit of this subcommittee.
Mr. Dold. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Why don't we hear from you first, Mr. Dold.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. DOLD, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL PEST CONTROL ASSOCIA'HON, ACCOMPANIED BY
GEORGE RAMBO, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, AND DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION AND TRAINING, AND JACK RYAN, DIRECTOR, LEG-
ISLATIVE AREA
Mr. Dold. Thank you, Mr. Chairmem.
I also would like at this time to introduce Dr. Geoi^ Rambo, our
technical director of the National Pest Control Association, and di-
rector of education and training, who is with us here today; and
also Mr. Jack Ryan, who is director of our legislative area.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here and testify before this
subcommittee. My name is Robert Dold. I am the immediate past
president now of the National Pest Control Association, which is a
d by Google
120
national trade association of pest control, structural pest control
operators from around the United States, and includes a number of
foreign countries. I am also president of the Rose Exterminator Co.
in Chicago and Hammond Pest Control in Hammond, IN.
On behalf of the National Pest Control Association and its 2,600
members, I themk the committee for this opportunity to present
our experience in working with pesticides under the provisions of
the current FIFRA.
The members of NPCA are those service companies in the Na-
tion's business that work to protect the public health, our food
supply and our building structures from pest infestations and dis-
ease vectors carried by these pests. Hospitals and doctors' oflices
are kept germ free with pesticides. They also keep restaurant and
school kitchens free of insects and rodents. Our job is to protect the
he^th and the property of this country, and I am proud that our
industry does this.
You need also to know that our members are small independent
businessmen. They are hard working. They are concern^. They
want to learn. They want to do a good job. They are what I call
middle America. TVuthfully, they are your neighbors. We are a
family owned industry and many firms are passed from father to
son as in the family farm.
I am one of those. My father was in the business for 40 years
before me. Members of our association do over 70 percent of the
structural pest control services that are done throughout our coun-
try.
The structural pest control industry has used integrated pest
management since its inception for effective pest manEigement. It
has not and does not now depend exclusively on pesticides in its
work.
Pesticides are an important resource, however, for eliminating
and controlling many pest infestations. The members of this indus-
try depend primarily upon their knowledge of pest bioli^y and be-
havior and their experience with a diversity of control methods ap-
propriate for the site, rather than depend exclusively upon pesti-
cides that are classified by EPA for restricted use. We estimate
that currently over 95 percent of pesticides used in our industry
are the same ones that are approved by EPA for purchase and use
by the general public.
In the early 1970's, NPCA supported the legislation which gave
the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to r^ulate the
use of pesticides. The association actively supported EPA approved
programs of certification of persons who apply, or supervise techni-
cians in applying, pesticides classified by EPA and the States for
restricted use. It is, and has been the policy of NPCA and its mem-
bership, to use only those pesticides that are roistered by the re-
sponsible authorities of State and Federal Governments in a
manner described in the manufacturer's roistered label and as
recommended by professional authorities in our field.
The NPCA technical guidance is referenced by both Federal and
State regulatory agencies on how to safely and effectively control
pests — from cockroaches and termites to vertebrates, such as rats
and birds.
d by Google
121
In general, our experience confirms that the existing law is
working to accomplish its purpose of providing for safe pesticide
use; it does not need any changes to improve its effectiveness. My
belief is that unless it is broken, don't fix it.
The NPCA proposal to the committee at this time is: Congress
reauthorize the existing FIFRA for 3 years with no changes in the
provisions for pesticide classification and applicator qualifications
for pesticide use. Our reasons for this recommendation are based
on the following experience.
The EPA records of pesticide poisonings throughout the United
States indicate that the einnual number of such instances remain
stable and are probably decreasing despite increases in the popula-
tion and the volume of pesticides used.
In 1971 through 1976, the EPA Pesticide Incidents Monitoring
Service recorded 900 to 1,000 pesticide poisonings per yetu* of all
types nationwide.
For 1978 and 1979, the National Clearinghouse for Poison Con-
trol Centers has reported that less than 360 individuals were poi-
soned and hospitalized by pesticides. This accounted for less than 5
percent of all poisonings of all types for each of those 2 years.
Extensive studies by scientists of this data have found that
almost all pesticide poisoning deaths in the USA are resulting from
self-infiicted or homicidal incidents. Deaths from pesticide poison-
ings for subsequent years are estimated by knowledgeable sources
to be following the pattern reported by Drs. Hayes and Vaughn.
For Janueiry through April 1983, the Poison Control Center of
Los Angeles, CA received 24,000 telephone inquiries, and of those
inquiries 1,182 were pesticide related. Of this number, 97 percent
were consumer-oriented use or misuse pesticide incidents. The re-
maining 3 percent — 35 — of the inquiries resulted from pesticide ap-
plications by commercial or private — farm — applicators.
My reason for citing these trends is to point out to you that
FIFRA in its current form is an excellent piece of legislation that
is accomplishing its purpose in making sure that the commercial
applicators of pesticides are not creating the problems of pesticide
poisoning to the citizens of the Nation. They are trained to apply
hazardous materials appropriately emd safely under the existing
State and Federal laws.
It is our conclusion from this information that if any changes or
expanded Government action is needed to further reduce pesticide
risks, it is to use the existing FIFRA authority to focus on educat-
ing the population that is currently experiencing the pesticide
misuse or poisoning: the general use of pesticides — not the commer-
cial and private applicators.
At this point, 1 would like to compliment Mr. Lee Thomas, the
new Administrator of EPA, for his recognition of the need for re-
directing EPA's use of resources for focusing on where the prob-
lems are occurring. In his comment to the public on April 3, 1985,
he outlined his proposals for "The Next Four Years — An Agenda
For Environmental Results." In that presentation, he indicated
that EPA must, and I quote, "* * * plan controlled solutions with
a multimedia prospective. We have to reduce risk and not merely
transfer it." He concluded his comments on this subject by stating
d by Google
122
that "We, EPA, must focus our resources on the most important
problems, and fix them so that they stay fixed."
The National Pest Control Association and its members would
like to feel that this means looking at where the problems are oc-
curring and focusing on reducing those risks rather than continu-
ing to focus increased regulatory burdens on the small business
community that has an excellent record of safety — and that is con-
tinually improving.
On our environmental concerns, the environmental risk from
pesticides is an area that EPA has in the past and continues to ad-
dress with increased intensity, and we think appropriately. We be-
lieve that the current FIFRA provides EPA the essential authority
and the necessary methods to quickly identify new scientifically
confirmed data on environmental or health risks, and to take
action to quickly restrict or remove from the marketplace the ma-
terials that pose the unacceptable risks.
As far as the appropriate actions, recommendations, we really
feel that there are three. They need to assign the responsibUities
for training to the employers, would be one recommendation that
we would make. They need to strengthen that.
The second recommendation we would make is that we require
State enforcement personnel to meet the certification requirement
in the areas where they are ass^ed pesticide enforcement respon-
sibilities.
The third area, we recommend the committee authorize a fund-
ing level of at least |5 million per year for the certification of
trftining programs under FIFRA section 23. These funds are needed
to provide additional financial and consultative guidance to the
States to strengthen the pesticide applicator training and certifica-
tion prc^Euns. Such funds provided for training and certification
reduce the need for enforcement action; training does not eliminate
the need for a basic enforcement responsibility.
Mr. Bedell. Are you about through, Mr. Dold? We are trying to
hold people to 5 minutes.
Mr. Dou). Let me conclude by saying this, Mr. Chairman: If
there is an area that needs to be looked at at all, the legislative
area that probably needs clarification has to do with the State au-
thority. Let me say, in this area, clarification, I come from Chicago,
and I feel that the States should be the lowest level of authority in
regulating pesticides.
There are some 200 to 250 communities around Chicago. If each
community is allowed to regulate pesticides, there is no way that
my firm or other firms can possibly keep up with all those regula-
tions of those communities. It is just simply an impossible task for
us.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairmtm, let me say that I am a user of pes-
ticides and I am concerned about my health. I am concerned about
the health of my family, about the health of our employees, and
about the health of our customers; that I am proud that our indus-
try does protect the hesilth and property of our country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dold appears at the conclusion of
the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Russell.
d by Google
123
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. RUSSELL, ORKIN PEST CONTROL
Mr. Russell. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am
Robert M. Russell of Orkin Pest Control. Our company is the
world's largest in structural pest control. We operate in 43 States
in this country; we employ 5,000 people; we serve over a million
customers. We offer these comments for our company, for all other
conscientious users of pesticides, and on behalf of our employees
and customers.
We are glad that this subcommittee, this congressional body, is
examining the issue of safe pesticide use in the context of FIFRA,
Pesticides, when used according to the label, protect the food, fiber,
structure, heftlth and peace of mind of our Nation — and have done
so with an outstanding safety record. If the benefit-risk relation-
ship under the existing FIFRA is satisfactory, then I am sure all of
us wish to save the expense which would follow from unneeded
Federal law changes and the ripple effect upon the States, indus-
try, and the ultimate payee — our children.
We would like to indicate to this subcommittee the high efficien-
cy and safety of our structural pest control industry.
The latest national report from the Council of Better Business
Bureaus, Inc., published for 1983, shows the quality and safety of
our industry. Of 409,156 complaints received from all types of com-
panies nationwide, only 1,701 concerned structural pest control
companies. The fact that the pest control industry ranked only 46
in the number of complaints, with a percent of the total of 0.42 per-
cent, is an outstanding achievement. Furthermore, this figure rep-
resents a significant improvement from the 0.53 percent level of
total complaints in 1982.
And if you remember, 1983 was the year when the nationedly
prominent television pri^ram, "60 Minutes," dramatized the rislu
of a termiticide while hardly acknowledging the benefits. Also,
there was additional publicity concerning the Mfissachusetts hear-
ing and the Long Island House bulldozing.
Fortunately, in that year, EPA, with its "Analysis of the Risks
and Benefits of Seven Chemicals Used for Subterranean Termite
Control," stated on pages VI — 1 and 2:
At this time, in assessing the risks and beneftta Basociated with the total national
use of the termiticides based on available data, and considering the lack of data out-
lined above, the agency finds that the benefits from the use of the currently rois-
tered termiticide products outweigh the potential risks.
Accordingly, these pesticides are still registered by EPA. More-
over, most of the pesticides we use are categorized as general use
rather than restricted use pesticides.
There is also some very encouraging data being published rela-
tive to the safety of the pesticides used by the strui^ural pest con-
trol industry. A recent study by the California department of food
and agriculture, worker health and safety unit, showed that only 3
percent of pesticide accidents were causied by the structural pest
control industry. This study covered the year 1982.
In another California study, the Poison Control Center of Los An-
geles, during the period January through April 1983, received
24,000 telephone inquiries. Of the 1,182 pesticide related calls, 97
percent concerned pesticides purchased by all consumers. Only 38,
d by Google
124
or 3 percent, related to pesticides applied by pest control operators,
and none of these could be classified as poisonings.
These studies strongly indicate that accidents resulting from
trained applicator misuse are infrequent and a small percent of the
total.
We next would like to comment on the general good health in
this country and the steady improvement in life expectancy. In my
statement, there are figures from the "National Center for Health
Statistics, Life Expectancy Data for 1981, section 6, Life Tables."
And to show the relative safety of pesticides as compared with
other substfuices and practices in this country, we are presenting a
chart from an article published by Scientific Americsin in February
1982, the "Biolc^cal Effects of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation."
Please note from this study that pesticides are ranked only 28
out of 30 factors, and deaths per year do not constitute any signifi-
cant threat to life or health as compared to many other substances
or practices.
I also wish to address the issue of the application of restricted
use pesticides by or under the direct supervision of a certified ap-
plicator. This is now required by Federal law and rightly so for
those supervisors of a work unit such as a structural pegt control
branch office. The existing law acknowledges the structure of our
industry hy defining "under the direct supervision" of a certified
applicator to mean that the certified applicator must be available
but not physically present.
There are some who now advocate testing or certification for
service technicians at the supervisory level of the certified applica-
tor. This suggestion is, one, unnecessary in light of the ^ety
record of the pest control industry, and two, completely incompati-
ble with the structure of that industry.
First, service technician and certified applicator represent two
separate and distinct pcsitions. To show the difference in required
luiowledge and skill at these two levels, our company position de-
scriptions for the two pcwitions are attached. We believe all or most
other pest control compfmies would show an equivalent difference
in duties emd responsibilities.
To require each position to be tested equally would result in one
of only two probabilities. Either the standards for the certified ap-
plicator would be reduced — and this is counterproductive — or these
standards would remain above the normal ability of the technician.
This, too, would be counterproductive. The latter situation would
result in manpower shortages, increased costs to customers, and no
effective increase in safety.
We earlier documented that the majority of pesticide accidents
result from consumer use. What advantage is there to certifying
technicians while about 97 percent of the problems originate with
consumers? Are we looking in the right direction? With public
access to the same pesticides we use, why focus on technician certi-
fication?^
The FTFRA Coedition, a responsible body representing millions of
concerned people, has made constructive comments in this area
and as a participating member of the National Pest Control Asso-
ciation, we support ite position. The FIFRA Coalition has proposed
d by Google
125
to resolve this matter by focuBing on the training provided to serv-
ice technicians.
In this respect, we would note that the regulations issued under
section 4 of FIFRA— 40 CFR 171.6(a)— offer broad possibilities for
training. We definitely support initial and continuous training of
technicians as a superior alternative to testing.
In conclusion, I would repeat that if proof of need for change in
the scope of certification is presented, our company and our indus-
try would support a review of this issue. The expense alone of un-
necessarily broadening a successful system would create an ex-
treme burden upon the Stetes, the industry, and eventually oiu*
customers. Training, not universal certification, offers the best
avenue for continued improvement.
By law, establish only those requirements that are absolutely
necessary for safety. And let us go forward with our successful
system, using the esteblished progress and good record of our in-
dustry as a base.
I thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony, and I
would be happy to answer any questions which you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russell appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Duskin.
STATEMENT OF EDGAR W. DUSKIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI-
DENT, SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Duskin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am Edgar Duskin, executive vice president of the
Southern Agricultural Chemicals Association.
To place our association in proper perspective, I would like to tell
you a little about SACA, as we call it. We are an independent re-
gional association representing the interests of the eigricultured pes-
ticides, formulators, distributors and manufacturers who sell their
products in 13 southern States. We are based in Dawson, GA. The
association was formed in 1954 in North Carolina, originally repre*
senting only the interesta of formulators and distributors in Virgin-
ia and the Carolinas.
Over the years, the industry's interests have caused SACA to
expand throughout the South. While we have some overlapping
members and much commonality of interest with other trade asso-
ciations testifying here before you, we speak primarily for those
firms in the agricultural chemicals business who are independent
regional or intrtistate formulators, distributors, and dealers whose
interests find viability also are critically affected by the actions you
will take as a result of these and other hearings.
On April 18 we heard with interest the testimony of Dr. Moore
and responses to questions posed by the subcommittee. Till now, we
have not seen draft legislation from EPA or the subcommittee. We
therefore can offer comment only on the general statements made
and certain specific items.
On balance, we would just as soon see a simple 2-year reauthor-
ization of the existing FIFRA. At this time, it does not require
mitjor restructuring. There are perhaps a few fine-tuning amend-
menta which might facilitate its operation. Adequate resources ap-
d by Google
126
plied in the right places in EPA would do more than Addling with
the law, in our opinion.
In the event it is decided to amend the law, our segment of the
industry also would support stronger penalties against willful viola-
tors and falsifiers of data to include cancellation, fines, and jail.
Nondisruptive lah and other inspections should cause no problem.
We Eu-e confident that in light of recent unfortunate happenings all
labs and data are justifiably subject to much closer scrutiny and su-
pervision both by ourselves as well as r^ulators. Sometimes some
seem to forget that we too are very much embarrassed when we
learn of accidents or misdeeds. Public confidence in our product's
effectiveness and safety are just as important to us as to those out-
side our industry.
Of major concern to us is the slowness of the registration process
for me, too and new uses, as well as for new products. We hope
that resources allocated in EPA's budget to product registration,
both internally and by the Congress, will be generously looked at.
At the same time, while on that subject we continue to strongly
oppose the imposition of substantial fees for r^istration of prod-
ucts. The burden of such invariably falls disproportionately on the
formulator-distributor, who may have many end-use labels for dif-
ferent formulations and mixtures of the same active ingredients.
A potentied problem of unrestrained and uncoordinated regula-
tion continues to evolve as more and more localities attempt to se-
verely restrict or ban use of certain pesticides. Except in extremely
rare cases, these actions are based on emotional reaction to fears
generated by various sources. Locedities lack expertise to critically
and scientifically evaluate the problem.
We believe regulatory actions should, at the lowest, be controlled
at the State level where expertise is available. Preferably, this au-
thority should not be delegated; however, a system of State approv-
al of local actions, as in California, could work in some Stat«s.
Though a State now may tiike action to set the lowest level of regu-
latory authority, we believe it preferable to clarify the authority of
States and intent of Congress in its choice of language in sections
24(a) and 24(c).
We believe it would in^rove efficiency and reduce State requests
for duplicate testing if EPA-held test data could be shared with
States when its laws concerning protection of data are equally as
stringent as Federal requirements.
We strongly oppwe removal of requirements for EPA to indemni-
fy owners and requirements to assume responsibility for disposal of
pesticides when they are summarily suspended. This provision v/as
placed in the law to protect small businessmen who, through no
fault of their own, could be caught with a large portion of their
assets in unsalable or unusable inventory with no recourse. We
sympathize with EPA's problem of unbudgeted expenses, but do
not believe this responsibility should be passed on to distributors
and users. It would seem that a budgeted fund could be established
in EPA to take care of such problems.
The right to judicial review of arbitration decisions under section
3(c) should be afforded.
We believe that authorization for EPA to establish separate sim-
plified standards for low toxicity or low exposure products of the
d by Google
127
home find garden, horticultural, and sanitizer variety would great-
ly facilitate speeding up the r^istration process since it would
allow such products to be rapid^ processed through the system,
thus allowing more time and resources to be ^located to those
posing greater risk.
Automatic cancellation of Federal registrations for section 24(c)
State registrations, when such are cancelled by the issuing State,
should be authorized.
We understand the desire to improve safety in pesticide applica-
tion through proposals to modify the provision which now author-
izes restricted use pesticides to be applied under the supervision of
a certified applicator. However, allowing restricted use pesticides
only to be applied by certified applicators could place impossible
burdens on farmers and end users. We believe that improvwl train-
ing of all applicators is the real key to improving safety in applica-
tion. Our efforts should be directed toward this instead of simply
attempting to tighten rules on who may apply pesticides.
Thank you for your attention and this opportunity to express our
views. I shall be happy to attempt to respond to any questions you
may have.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much, Mr. Duskin.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Duskin, you seem to concur with the other wit-
nesses that there aren't any substantial changes required in FIFRA
and that the nature of the changes that you discuss are in the
nature of a fine-tuning. Is that an appropriate way to describe it?
Most of the proposals, the suggestions that you make seem to coin-
cide with those that EPA has suggested wi^ the exception of that
compensation for cancelled products. We have to look at that from
the standpoint of the taxpayer. It is a rather severe burden over
all.
I think the figure that we were given was something like $5 mil-
lion, some recent year, maybe it was last year. Do you think there
is any possibility that this situation could he handled in a mutually
satisfactory way without increasing the Federal budget? Is there a
possibility that it could be handled through the way in which you
write your contracts with your suppliers or through some form of
insurance, or some other system of that sort, that would spread the
burden?
Mr. Duskin. It is entirely possible there are many ways to work
it out. Right now we have in the law the indemnification without
funding.
Mr. Brown. We have the indemnification and we don't have a
budget item for it, so it comes out of the hide of other programs.
And you have indicated that we are already shorting some of these
other programs. We need additional funds for training and for
some other things. We have to find some satisfactory way of han-
dling this.
It doesn't look too promising that we are going to get a large in-
crease in EPA's budget, and so we have to explore other p(»sibili-
ties, even the medical profession, which has been faced with serious
problems of malpractice suits and so on, and has had to invent
some ingenious ways of covering this with insurance rather than
having the taxpayers take up the cost of it.
d by Google
128
Mr. DeLay. On the compensation issue, let me give you an exam-
ple of how when the government, particulary the Federal Govern-
ment, gets involved in taking a product off the market by using, in
my opinion, somewhat suspect testing methods. Right now in Texas
and thoughout much of the South, there is a tremendous problem
with the imported fire ant that is migrating north. The Hre ant
gets into Helds and tears up machinery and kills calves that are
bom on the mounds in yards. My own daughter was in a fire emt
mound and was completely covered with fire ants in just seconds. If
vou have ever been bitten by fire ants you know the pain and the
blisters that they cause.
The only material that was effective against the fire ant was a
chemical that had been banned. Later it was found that the chemi-
cal should not have been banned after all. In the meantime, the
Mississippi manufacturer that had been producing it went out of
business. Even after Mirex was reregistered nobody would produce
it. You can see how damaging this mistake was. Not only did the
manufacturer lose a tremedoua amount of money, not only did Mis-
sissippi suffer from a loss of jobs, but fire ants are still spreading
through Texas and many other States.
So the question of compensation is indeed a thorny one. I am not
sure that I can support the Federal Government compensation
except in this type of situation where Government action errone-
ously put a company out of business.
Mr. Brown. I appreciate that suggestion. That would certainly
limit the taxpayer s liability if it could be limited to indemnifica'
tion only in those cases where the Government made a mistake in
cancelling the chemical. There aren't too many cases of that sort.
My recollection may be one of them. There are a lot of cases where
chemicals have been cancelled find the holders of those chemiceds
have been indemnified for it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Combest.
Mr. CoMBKST. Thank you, Mr. Chairmsm.
Gentlemen— it might be directed to any of you — in the case
where we are talking about a restricted use of pesticides being ap-
plied under the supervision of the certified applicator rather than
specifically by a certified applicator, how do you adequately oversee
or monitor the activities of the service technician who might be
many miles away from a certified applicator?
Mr. Russell. The present law in section 4 addressed this point I
think fairly adequately. First, they stated that there must be
verbal training, instruction, between the certified applicator eind
the technician.
Second, they state that he must be available, if not necessarily
directly on the job site, with the technician.
Third, they cfefine that that techniciem must be competent. That
is in the law. I think this assures if there is a level of training and
supervision that the end result of the technician use is satisf^tory.
Mr. DeLay. I might go further than that to answer your ques-
tion, how do you supervise when the technician is miles away. In
my own company, my supervisors are certified tmd don't start a
termite job unless the supervisor is at the site that morning. He
may not stay on the site throughout the job, but he comes back
d by Google
129
that afternoon to make sure that the job was done properly and
closed properly. So, in the case of my compeiny — of course 1 can do
that a little bit easier than the big boy like Orkin — we have hands-
on supervision of our technicians.
Mr. Russell. What can I aay now?
Mr. CoMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duskin, perhaps your are the best one to answer this ques-
tion. Are the States in the South, where your chemical association
is active, making progress or have fairly uniform programs of
training of farm applicators of pesticides?
Mr. DusKiN. The treiining is primarily through the Extension
Service and it is toward certification of those that require certifica-
tion. The training of an individual applicator per se, the guy who
drives the equipment, could be trained, is probably trained by
either the, if he is working for a professional applicator of course
he is trained by him or trained by the certifled farmer on how to
run and operate the equipment and how to apply it safely. There
are no State progrtuns that I am aware of that train all applicators
per se, certified or uncertified.
Mr. Morrison. Have you seen movement in the direction of
better and better State programs in recent years as far as the
training and certification process?
Mr. Duskin. I think we have only had one major program but
there are efforts in all the states and EPA to rework the core
manual, so to speak, and improve the quality of the training. 1
think you will see it ongoing through all the States in the South.
People tare becoming more emd more interested in being certain
that the products work right and are put on right and that we
don't have these risks from misapplication that could be caused by
lack of knowledge.
Mr. Morrison. Do you belive that the certification programs that
tu^ in place are partifilly responsible for the improved safety
record that we have seen?
Mr. Duskin. I think it is absolutely a great m^or factor and I
would like to see it continued and funded to even a greater d^ree.
Mr. DbLay. If I may respond. Frankly, I foiight the FIFRA and
the certification in Texas. In fact, the certification in Texas is what
got me into politics; the next year I ran for the State legislature.
But I must admit that I felt the licensing was anticompetitive, and
I have even fought my own industry to stop the anticompetitive
r^ulations. But I also must point out its benefits on the training
and educational levels and on structural pesticide controls. In the
agricultural areas in Texas, our Extension Service holds pesticide
seminars on a regular basis through our county agents.
On the structural side of pest control I have seen gentlemen and
ladies that barely got out of high school running their own compa-
nies. At the beginning of the certification process, many of them
withdrew because it scared them half to death. But the ones who
stayed in and studied hard to be certified became better biologists
ana entomol<^ist8 and certainly better professionals because of it.
I can give you all kinds of horror stories. I won't take up your
time but maybe privately we could talk about some of these people
d by Google
130
to whom, before certification, I would not even sell chemicals be-
cause I feared they would kill themselves. Because of the certifica-
tion process I have seen a vast improvement in the professionedism
in our industry. However, if you go too far out of harassment, r^u-
lation becomes counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve.
Mr. Morrison. We appreciate whatever got you started in poli-
tics you shifted from one kind of pest to another.
Mr. DeLay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Mr. Menichino indicated that in 1980, his home was treated by a
licensed pesticide applicator to prevent termite problems, and he
ctaums that this caused a serious health hazard for his feunily. Do
you believe that he is incorrect in that testimony.
Mr. DeLay. No.
Mr. Bedell. What is your reaction to the testimony?
Mr. DeLay. I understand your problem, Mr. Chairman, but let
me say that I have no doubt that he is telling you the truth. There
are exceptions to every rule. A license doesn t make you good, and
no amount of further regulation is going to make you any better.
In any industry in America you have the good guys and bad guys.
Fortunately, in our industry the bad guys are fewer than in most
industries.
If more and more regulations and more certification restrictions
are placed on an industry, you could follow that with restrictions
on lawyers, doctors, and real estate eigents. Every industry has
people that many would not like to have in its industry. But, by
and large, if you look at the safety records of the pest control in-
dustry and the intense commitment of my State and other States
to continuing education in the area, you will probably find that our
industry is safer than most unlicensed industries.
Eveiybody makes mistakes and I have made my share of mis-
takes, but I have never been brought before a board. When 1 meike
a mistake, I go back to take care of that mistake. But one or two
isolated houses in New York do not mandate shutting down an
entire industry that protects the health tmd fiber of our citizens.
Mr. Bedell. I don't think the issue is whether you are going to
shut down an industry. The issue is what could be done, if any-
thing, to address the problem, if a problem exists, and I guess the
question would be, if Mr. Menichino is correct that that did
happen, what can be done? Can a house be decontaminated some-
how? What could be done?
Mr. DeLay. I know the case that he was talking about, and I
eigree with him that those houses probably will have to be replaced.
But there are millions of houses and only a couple of incidents of
contamination. I disagree with his testimony because we could
show you as many studies to dispute him as he has studies to sup-
port his claims about chlordane.
He made a statement earlier that when you put something on
the surface of a baseboard it cannot be decontaminated. Most of
the chemicals other than most of the pesticides that we use — chlor-
dane, heptaclor, or chlorinated hydrocarbons — are organo phos-
phates that naturally break down under pressures of sunlight, hu-
midity and water. As they age, they decomtaminate themselves. So
d by Google
131
his claim that that pesticides cannot be decontaminated is totally
false and makes me suspect the rest of his testimony.
Mr. Bedell. If his testimony is correct, amd if you are correct,
then you have to tear the house down. If that is correct, what re-
course does he have under current law?
Mr. DeLay. He has recourse of normal law where he could seek
reUef through the courts and go after the pest control operator that
misused that pesticide.
Mr. Bedell. Should there be anything in legislation that would
make it easier for a person to seek damages if that indeed hap-
pened?
Mr. DeLay. If that happens, I don't know many lawyers who
would turn down the case because the return for the lawyer would
be tremendous. You are not talking about a thousand-collar law
suit, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. I
think we have recourse now — we have it certainly in Texas. If we
pest control agents misuse pesticide or if we commit fraud, the citi-
zen has resources avedlabte to him. Additional laws will not change
that.
Mr. Bedell. Any further questions?
If not, we thank you for your testimony very, very much. We ap-
preciate your being here also.
Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Our next panel is Mr. Malcolm Moore, Auburn, KS;
and Mr. Norman Freestone, Ecology Sound Farms, Orosi, CA. We
will hear from you, Mr. Moore. We will ask you to hold your testi-
mony to 5 mintues.
STATEMENT OF MALCOLM MOORE, FARMER, AUBURN, KS
Mr. Moore. Thsink you, Chairman Bedell. My name is Malcolm
Moore amd I am a farmer from near Topeka, KS. My wife and I
farm over 1,000 acres of wheat, soybeans, corn, and milo. We also
nm a cow herd which usually includes around 100 head of cattle.
With the farm ground, pasture, and hay meadows we leeise over
3,000 acres. This is a medium to large operation of our area.
This past fall I was hired by the Keuisas Chapter of the Sierra
Club in Topeka to lobby for them during the legislative session.
Until this time our only income was from the farm. Since 1980 the
weather and farm prices have forced us to look for other options
for some off-the-farm income. I was asked by the Sierra Club to tes-
tify today on behalf of the many farmers who use chemicals.
My main use of farm chemicals involves herbicides for com and
soybeans and spraying of 2-4-D in pastures. We stopped using 2-4-D
approximately 5 years ago because of drift problems. We live close
to Topeka and we have a lot of 5-acre plots with houses on them
next to the ground that we farm and rent, and we were having too
much of a problem with the drift.
Although most of the farmers in our area greatly benefit from
the use of herbicides, we are not totally dependent on them. The
benefits are noticeable with most fields being reasonably free of
weeds. But talking to some of your neighbors you soon realize that
farmers pay the price for the weedless fields, not only through the
actual cost of the chemicals but through the mental anguish of not
d by Google
knowing whether the chemlcalB cause health hazards to the fanner
and his family.
The family farm may be still alive, I am not sure. When you
have your children, and members of your family working in the
field with you, it concerns you. When you handle these chemicals
you are not sure what they do.
Heedth risks are encountered through exposure when mixing or
spraying, or by inhaling dust while incorporating the chemicals
into the soil, or by ingesting residues through foodstuffs. This is in
the back of every farmer's mind in the United States.
Another problem ia flooding in the area when the top 8 inches of
soil are washed into the rivers. All these chemicals are then in the
water supply of the cities downstreams.
Farmers are concerned that the chemicals they are using haven't
been fully tested for long-term health effects. We sometimes feel
like guinea pigs or the canary that sits in the coal mine. The
farmer, the extension agent, and the general public need to have
these questions answered fully and truthfully.
We know that a lot of the chemicals are unsafe when after using
them for 5 or 6 years, suddenly they are taken off the market. Her-
bicides my father used 30 years ago are now outlawed, and I bid
sure 30 years from now most of the chemicals I use will be off the
market.
The cancer rate for farmers is considerably higher than the na-
tional average, and I am sure the exposure to farm chemicals
causes most of the increase.
Most of a farmer's information on pesticides comes from the
chemical companies themselves. The only information we get
through the local salesman is the chemic^ salesman that comes
around to the local co-ops or feed stores and this is where we get
most of the information. We have a great need for unbiased testing
of these chemicals before they reach the market.
A feurraer has enough stress from all the variables of weather
and prices. We shouldn't have to worry about using unsafe prod-
ucts. We have learned in our operation that it is possible to get by
with less herbicides and little or no insecticides by utilizing crop
rotation and growing varieties adapted to our r^on.
If some pesticides are taken off the market, because of more re-
strictive laws, it won't jeopardize the production of American agri-
culture. Agriculture must change the course it is on now to avoid
further contamination of ground water and streams. Thfink you.
Mr. Beoell. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Freestone.
STATEMENT OF NORMAN W. FREES'TONE, JR., ECOLOGY SOUND
FARMS, OROSI, CA
Mr. Freestone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, subcommittee mem-
bers. My name is Norman Freestone. I am a fanner. I am also a
college graduate. I served in the U.S. Marine Corps as an officer for
3V4 years, emd I served on our local school board for 10 ye£u^. I am
currently president of the California Certified Organic Farmers'
chapter for Tulare and Fresno Counties.
d by Google
I have farmed for 22 years, the first 15 years with chemicals and
the last 7 years without chemiceils — organically. I farm 90 acres of
a variety of specialty crops, kiwifruit, Asian pears, persimmons, or-
anges, and plums.
The change in farming practices occurred because of two factors:
escalating pest control costs, and, more importantly, because I
became ill due to pesticide exposure. As a teeneiger I worked on a
cotton farm during the summer months. A miyor highlight was our
5 a.m. early rise to watch — not a sunrise — but the skill of a crop
duster as he sprayed a fine mist of poisons — parathion — over the
cotton fields, lliese early exposures did not augur well for becom-
ing a chemical farmer like m^elf, one who would be a very effi-
cient user of pesticides.
My health problem started slowly, occasionally with headaches,
fatigue, insomnia, indigestion, soon to spread to frequent head-
Etches, insomnia, indigestion, et cetera., to include numbness, chest
pains, fuzzy thinking, personality changes, and a myriad of other
physical symptons. In fact, ecological illnesses can mimic many
known diseeises.
Finedly, I sought help: many doctors, a psychiatrist, two clinics,
and a clinical ecologist, who magnosed the cause as toxic chemicfil
buildup within the body precipitated by pesticide exposures. The
doctor suggested I might move to a clean environment, but there
were no guaremtees I would get well. A pesticide blood test weis
taken. Poisons were found in my blood that I had never knowingly
came in contact with or consumed. Even now, two members of my
family cannot eat oranges sprayed with insecticides without acquir-
ing headaches, yet both can eat organic, unsprayed oranges with-
out a reaction.
At one point I was a total reactor. I would develop physical and
mental symptoms from such items as most foods, the telephone re-
ceiver, newsprint, wet wood and d(% hair. During this period, I
wore a mask constantly whenever I left the house.
I contribute my recovery to consuming clean — orgtmic — foods,
maintaining a clear awareness of the mind-body connectiveness,
and a strong family support system.
As a chemical farmer for 15 years, I am a personal witness to the
slow, subtle contamination of our land, our water emd of the food
we consume eis a result of our continued relieince on pesticides. A
vivid example can be illustrated when we realize that we, as
orange growers in the San Joaquin Valley, spent about $16 million
last year to spray insecticides to control one insect, red scale.
The continual application of these pesticides have contributed
significantly to the pollution of our air, water, soil, and food
supply. This has resulted in reduction of soil fertility, destruction
of natural pest enemies, developing minor pests into major pests
and creating human health rislu through exposures of these toxic
residues into our food and water supply systems. Even with all
these environmentfd costs, growers atUl loose about a quarter of a
million dollars worth of fruit each year to red scale.
Pest resistance has become a problem in Cetlifomia. A University
of California entomolt^ist that we have worked closely in regards
to biological control of red scale estimates that insect resistance to
insecticides has doubled in the last 10 years. About 75 percent of
d by Google
134
our State's most dfunaging crop insects and mites are genetically
resistant to at least one or more insecticides.
I have witnessed the unwarranted, inappropriate misuse of pesti-
cides ever since I began farming. Aerial applications are the worse
offenders. Open fields have been sprayed because of faulty equip-
ment or human error. Ai^acent to sprayed fields, farm workers
have been sprayed by aerial applicators numerous time because of
pilot error, faulty equipment, or just drift of the poisoned air. Our
home, tucked against a hillside, has been sprayed twice because of
faulty equipment.
Also the instructions on the pesticide labels make no correlation
to the risk of low, cumulative exposures over a lifetime, risks that
include nervous system injury, immune system deficiencies, cancer,
et cetera. What are the synergetic effects of long-term cumulative
exposures from meuiy different pesticides and chemicals?
These facts and experiences are disconcerting results of the use
of pesticides. But there are alternatives, and they work. We do not
have to live with the burdens of these poisons; we do not have to
continue to contaminate our food and ground water supply. We can
reduce and eliminate the use of pesticides.
Farming for the last 7 years without chemicals — organically —
has been a challenge. Mistakes have been mtmy, but all have been
recoverable. I have learned that farming orgtmically is more effi-
cient and less expensive than chemical farming. Eight years ago we
sprayed nine times to control six different pests to protect two
crops. Today, farming five different crops without chemicals — or-
ganicfilly — we do not spray, and we have only two or sometimes
three pests per growing season. The other peste are no longer peste,
they are now being controlled by natural enemies.
We use parasites, summer oil, botanical insecticides and natural
vegetetion. This is our means of pest control. It is a safe and
h^thy progr£un for us and for our future generations. Interesting-
ly, as a chemical farmer, I had more fruit dameige from pests while
using pesticides than I now have using insects plus nature.
Organic, biolt^cal farming is the trend of the future because it
is energy ef^cient, labor intensive, and safe for our future genera-
tions. When we look at a farmers' budget, the most rapidly expemd-
ing items are pesticides, chemical fertilizers and electrical costs.
Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are increasing at the rate of 25
to 30 percent a year.
Energy costs are forecast to increase 250 percent in the next few
decades. Labor costs are rising only about 5 percent a year. Organic
farmers do not use pesticides or chemical fertilizers, and they use
less energy. Energy costs are less as water and pump usage is re-
duced now that the soil has increased its life, structure and porosi-
ty.
To farm efficiently we must farm differently. We are substituting
chemicals — high cost items — for labor and insects — low-cost items.
Eighty-eight percent of all insects are our friends. We feel fortu-
nate when friends are able to help lower our costs and improve the
environment. When pesticides are used to kill insecte we inherit
nature's work. And in today's world that can be costly and unsafe.
Organic farming can be a major solution to our environmentel
problems. Organic fanning is tm inexpensive and realistic way of
d by Google
135
cleaning up our lands and our water supply. It can be a profitable
fdtemative to the chemical farming treadmill. More importantly, it
is a major commitment to restoring our lands imd our life-sustain-
ing resources for future generations.
Thank you again for your time in listening to me today.
[The attachment follows:]
d by Google
H. PhilpotI, M.D., DiiBCIor
R£: Horman Freestone
4I6S1 Road 126
Orosl, CA. 93647
iriiian Freesliciiie was under my profeEsional care for four weeks.
rveaheT and DecHober, 1980. As per my diagnostic recomnendatlon
: was necessary for him to stay in a relatively ecologically pure
ivironmenC, specifically an all electric apartment.
Sincerely, _ ^^
WILLIAM H. FKl
d by Google
>
Miiaas Ni NomiB aaa siavd
d by Google
DOXHBBB 3, 198Z
To: FhylllB Baitn. HJX
3031 Talagrach Im. Ste 213
Bnrkalw Ck MT05
Cellular I^nine Eystoi ConnltatiDn
PfononuclcBi celli war* twilBtad fron appioiiiiucaly 20cc. oE wttolo blood
collactB] In BCm solution anpLoylng Ficoll-Hypaque aftsr the tedmlque oC
BoyiBi et al. (BoyuB A, Isolation of Donoauctesr cells and gi:amilocytsB fron
huah blood, Scand J of Clin ai^ Lab Invast. Su[:pL. 97, T7-7B, 196a.)- Cells
weEe washed !□ [hoEphate buffered saline in piqiaration Ear incidiation with
raono^Bcitic antibody. 1 cell si^iaets uece idontltied uali^ monoclonal
antibodies capable oE ncogniiii^ ixiique antigenic deteminents found on thB
variou* T cell subsets. These antlbodlas wen produced using hybiidoma
Csdnology wht<A has allowed the devalopnent of uell-chaiacteEized
nooospaclEic antisecL Calls Idellol by specific antiseia following a
period oE incubation with test cells, wera detected by a secondacy
EluocesosiD-laothlocynste-conjugated antibody specific foi the primary
BOnoclonal antibody. B oells ware identified using a goat antl-huniBn giMna
glctulin ccnjugated to fluoraeoeln laottilocysnate. Hon-speclElc, suifaoe-
bouid ganaa globulin was E^iovad by Ircidiation of teat cells In multiple
changes of vaA solutions. Mrcent labelled cells detected by each antibody
label were detenDined by fluorescent microscopy using an epi fluorescent
lllminaticci systao.
HBC
4BS0/OC
400I)-10,(K
[^E*)ooyte
3§1
OCTll* cells
54t
55-eo»
OCT** celU
OKTB+ calls
16%
22-341
Surface igt
3%
Hull cells
t3t
mt
ie43/cc
1SOO-4(IDO
Total T cells «wril+)
\995XBen ^■
1CMM-2SO0
Total B cells {surface
lg+)
~i^]
Total null cells
Total helper cells (OKT«+>
iOKTBt
l^
r/i
l-S/l
cells are very low. Halpar/supptesaor ratio Is borderline
t probably not significantly deviated.
db,Google
139
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Freestone, I really enjoyed your comments. I have been a
farmer for the last 30 years, growing tree fruits in Washington
State, and have seen the gradual increase in use of pesticides. We
have made a significant change up in our country to very selective
materials, and I trust that was part of the shift that you have de-
scribed as well, as you went all the way to no chemical forms at all
other than your summer oil, which we have always considered in
chemical application.
Mr. Freestone. That is true, under the California State organic
food law it's accepted material to qualify for organic applicators,
organic farmers. I agree, however, it does ecological damage within
a given geographical area and it is used as & transition to get over
the chemical requirements necessary to control pests.
Mr. Morrison. Are you located m an area that your neighbors
are also following the same practices you are using, or are you iso-
lated so that you don't suffer when they goof up in some way and
end up sending you an infestation of insects you have to use chemi-
cals to control?
Mr. Freestone. No, that is not true, I am not isolated, I am sur-
rounded on three sides by farmers that use chemicetls. I do have a
hill. The drift in either situation is not conducive to clean environ-
ments, 30 that insects are totally protected. But we have found
with other crops, pEU*ticularly avocados, it is not necessary to have
ecolc^ical area totally free from the use of either chemicals or inte-
grated pest management to be able to function without the use of
chemicals.
Mr. Morrison. I notice that nowhere in your testimony did you
really say that the use of these materials or your neighbors
shouldn't be using them, you just in essence said there is some al-
ternatives that we should investigate.
Perhaps Mr. Chairman, I should mention that this committee, or
at least the full Agriculture Committee, has passed our organic
farming measure which will attempt to steer some of the research
programs in the direction that you have edready chosen to utilize,
so we are certainly not opposed to it. Do you propose any changes
that we should consider in looking at the Federal regulations as
they relate to pesticides, or do you feel that your way of life will
gradually take over because it is less expensive and you feel that
it's better for everyone?
Mr. Freestone. I do believe that organic farming, biological
farming, whatever we w£mt to call it, is a trend of the future, as
previously expressed, but I think that for example the reentry data
is inadequate and think it could be addressed more effectively. I
think there should be restrictions on reentry in regard to pesticide
use.
Aerial applications, I think, should be restricted, particularly
around urban areas and schools, and boundaries should be set up
with half-mile restrictions around dwellings or homes. In regard to
reentry data, that is an area where farmworkers as well as farmers
are being compromised because of drift ajid exposures. It is not
practical to have a reentry period of 14, 17, 30 days, on farms par-
ticularly, and orchards. As you are aware, you cannot farm an iso-
d by Google
140
lated piece of ground, or an enclosed piece of ground for that
matter, without constantly monitoring that operation.
And who is going to go in there and monitor it? And are you
going to wear a mask constantly? And if the home and dwellingB,
where the farmworker lives or the farm is within that reentry
boundary or in or within the boundaries of that reentry area, are
they going to be evacuated for 7 days? Of course not. It hasn't been
practical, it heisn't worked out, it is not effective. So there should
be some insights, some knowledge, some adjustments, some restric-
tions made in the reentry data.
One idea, one suggestion of course, from a bioli^cal farmer of
course, would be to restrict the use of pesticides so that pesticides
that would be used would have a limited reentry data, 48 hours for
example, 24 hours. That would help eliminate the potential expo-
sure that one might come in contact with.
Mr. Morrison. My experience indicates that that actu£illy is hap-
pening, that some of the more specific materials now that are being
used have better options for access to the orchards and ftelds. I ap-
preciate your testimony and the information both of you have pro-
vided to the subcommittee. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Mr. Moore, you have quite a farming operation, as I understand
it, a sizable operation. Do you still use chemicals to the extent you
previously did? Have you seen any change in your operation?
Mr. Moore. We have gotten away from it over the last 3 or 4
years. We still use chemicals. We don't use any insecticide at all
and we are able to do that through crop rotation, in the valleys
where com is rfused every year, there is quite a bit of insecticide
that goes down. We rotate beans, wheat, tmd com, tmd we get away
from a lot of dependency upon the insecticides. In our area, I have
a lot of 5-acre fields, 6 acres. They are small patches, and then I
have large fields also. It's impossible for one person or one famUy
operation to get over that much area to cultivate.
I still use herbicides on the com and on the soybeans.
I am still dependent upon chemicals to that extent, but we have
found through crop rotation even the herbicide in the com and soy-
befms, we can get by with lesser rates than we could when we were
going continuous.
Mr. Bedell. My understanding is you have some material you
would like to have entered in the record. Without objection, that
will be done.
[The material follows:]
d by Google
for SUy«*^>i"<5
KANSANS FOR SAFE PEST CONTROL
633 xilselssiapi Strevt
rSMEMT ON THE FEDERBL PESTICIDE SE^OW fiCT DP 1363
1 Soction 84 (e
As awf\-nma by i-agul
aBSTHCVt base;:! us^'i-i sat
.« l*a TFR Ifce. 151 I
iBle foi-
1 local n»»B— SL^
local. T^a ragulatii
ftiay E^onsidar an not i
nnothar iupor-tant raquiraMcnt of fadaral ragulationc (*9 C^R
l££.lS3(cl) IS tliat In cartaln caHa thv stata must datarmin*
that th« i-»alstratlon will not causa ui
on man or tha anvlronraant. ThaB« c«s«> »r«i
(1) For a product mth a composition dif*«)-«r>t
iSla aOvai-s* arracts
db,Google
icBllsd by EPn.
aopllcat Ion
target affects
tool coiMJitiona might call for diffsrant
r« »p»cialty crop« nright not provlda a
titnulat* inOumtry to do tha raaaarch
(Saction 3> i-agiat rat Ion. Hombv»i", prior
lilai
Sactlon 2A(c>, riOHOvai-, has largaly
i VB 1 nt ant and Fsdera 1 rag u I a 1 1 ona*
■ SLN ragiatration for aarial
Bdient in Tor-Oon SSK nnr-Oicida is
cat ad both doMn from the leaves anc
Qllshsd Ddrennlal grasaes and Is
sterilant. Object ions mere raised
:he laauas raised in objoctiona i
SLN< s in Kansas and, inde»d, the country. The Board of
Ogriculturc had made no attainpt to verify ths points re<
federal regulat ions, and no one even sigr<ed his naoiB to
least from Montai
te. So not (
-.na scheme, 6PB should have takan action to sac
S_N' B ir. »ccordar.ce with "federal regulations,
jr. cf John O. Todhuntor, then Bssislant
jowerless unl
(Staff, 1982).
d by Google
arm by flllsn S|
Coiani t
19S3),
&5g
ion MAk not peculiar to Kansas. Three studies.
It or the Rural nOvancement Tund (Saalt, 1983),
f of the Department Operations, Research, ana
ture Subcommittee of the House Pgriculture
herein as Staff, 1982), and one Hy E&S iOPP,
■eg strat ons are, in 31% »f the cas<
luflh IS% of federal registrations ar
IBT data, A3K of the SLN' s gr
I on IBT tests. Por •Kamole, safet
lely-ueed SLN pesticides (Furadar, Si
■m «4i# in cv 1976
>f the SLN' » were not for specialty uses-
■B soybeans, livestock, small orains, cot
Has a general pattern of many SLN' s for
It, there were IBS SLN' s issued for perrne
I 1 1 vestock--more than 7 par state' On tl
ie Subcommittee staff report ment Ions tha
'ed 361 SLVs 1
(s~tne top S u
Special local net
ince 197& (U.B»)
i for SLN tiQi lev
Ucy on regu
d by Google
A r*a«or>abl« conclu
th« 8LN pi-ocsss la tnat
local p«Bt problvma for
tha Bactlon 3 procaaa, b
It Is pomsibl* that a ml
hamJla those rwada wltho
Saction 3 of FIFRA. Cmr
John moor; Asslatant Odn
Subatancaa has aaid <-ecer
Kith Hany data B'PS (Cam[
untastad mlxtu>-a of ragl
t ballava that tha
pt*oviaing safaguarda agi
9LN rag 1 at rat i ons for- documi
loss of Sactlon 3 safaQuai-d'
ravisad a|>aelal local naads
— Sactlon 24(c> raulatrat
pastlcldaa Mtth full Bact
Bsps.
— QU. T-agiatr-atlona uridar
abaanca of unraasonab
— Safsguar-ds against .
t through
,sli-»to>- f'.
' that EPR
□t allow
e<j. Howa>
quat, a pi
a high potantl
point about thi
:ha erracts of i
It can ba oravantad by looking at
LOn VII for approving emargancy a>
Tha Kanaaa Stata Board of flgrici
:al naada is so snail,
ght ba Oavtsad to
'aguards providad by
db,Google
;hB numbvr of applications r
tha r»jaction vat* has
ngricultur* <BarMOO<>, 19S41
ght «or
, contr
B^eniptl
-ed by R
™i-oer.c/
e^emoti
.■ptior,»'h«"Br
Th. r«»on 1
• R.gl>
point b
nr-amncy
• HBunptl
o«* for
special
fici»l«
who nav
c«l rHMds r»oi9
Mut psa
ail.bil
ty .nd
Uith
tha Bid
prcvBin
•t»iiil
EPA ahPuld r-*qu
»c:lal and local
n aod t
Thar* should t>a
ri approvina • SLN 1
hiatorical BurvBy data In Board of
cial local naed for the control of
tings Ooss SHlst. mthough alfalfa
■ Infsat alfalfa mharavBr it Is
of wBBds in alfalfa is dstBrmlnsd by
limit the n»sd for control at any
:• agriculture department.
VII of EPn. There have been vmry few
isued in Region VI I states (for eMamplB,
Lth a MaHimum of 3), while usb of eiPBrgeni
■imental effects.
in S or mori
db,Google
Th« first tHO of th»B« ch<
■■•Qulatlonm. Tha other cnangai
Mhich fai led to D>«> CongreBS t
maO* by EPR through
t changes in PIFRA,
-HI Bill SI774/HR3eie,
'0 radical suggestion houI
mat there Be no other control o
Mhat would tM t
would orobably
■ation. Otheri
I 3 reglstratic
Imnlicatlons [sH UlM. E
Perhaps ms can
us something about the Si
since the abuse cf SLN' s
being sought for chemice:
db,Google
!■■ hava not made « significant dirfarvncB kri althcr
icy or inmpiring public trust (6enata Staff, 197&I Stal
vyvtBH that datarminvm >f f icacy and l«v>lm o'
proposMt use of a pasticlds. It should not r
tha pBSticiAc Is shOHn to b* knaffectlva or i
unr-aasoriab 1 a advarsa af facts.
ar> old ctiemlcals — pastlc
graatar problans in rarac
M tails us that it
:hB systam cannot
ipalt, 19831 Staff, 1?S£) . Ma sai
. gats a shara of th» mar-kat for i
gain this flj facto support with
I fallacy to claim that farmars •
P good axamtfla is flaio blndMBi
I at baat a suOstituta for tillags-
>illty to t
(2) Incn
(3) ftctl>
rclsions out of tha hands of farmars (and othar
Inst It Lit a a prascrlpt ion systam.
Izan Dart iclpation In raragistrat Ion daclsloni
(ua faadback from usars aOout afficacy, healtl
lar non— targat af facts.
db,Google
It haa oftBi
*Buea that paaticiOe misgse HouLe I
Er<vit*onenBntBl o>*Qanlzat lom
'fantly havo no right untiar Fl
t chantcal to •n«ar« r«a»onaDl
;h» syatCM (ncGar- ty ct al, 1383). Thi« i
(O difficult tf co'-i-ect our r«Hi«ti-at Ion i
ivai-cone by docreaaina ths r-sglstrants' cc
:olI>ctBd reoorts of "i
D«pt> of Pood and Boricultui
bi)-th dvfacts, ana eancerB n
•vidanc* if hb had i-aliabla
ng <iyGtani tPimS). PIilS
■ally acute effects of
raooi-tiog system fo>" all
by ataCe ao'^i'^ulti
thioBB BivB inforr
raglatrat ion syatem hav* led ua to aoinB rac
I«1pi-ovlng 5LN pOl cy. They have also auggi
fundatnentdl cnangee in pesticide reglatratl
prescription, public involvement in making
'plication by
11 I
:ing c
Coordinator, Kansans foi- Safe Past Control
Conservation Chair, Kansas Sierra Club
Pesticide Cooi-dlnator, Sierra Club Haiai-dous
le May 19SS
d by Google
Coa« of F«d»r»l R»nul«t ien». Titla AB, P»i-t l&£
155. StaC* r«Bi>trdt ton of paaticid>m to mast
n«Hd», PubllBhBd In tn» Fadgr^l B»atKt»r J«nuj
FadBT-dl InsBctlcldB, Fungiclds, ana Rodsntlcidi
Public Lam 92-516 OctoDar SI, 197S as amandad t
lie NovantMr S8, 197S and PuOlic Law 9S-39& Sa(
Garwood, H. D. , 1984. Di
Amaricaa, Inc- appi Icat i
GranoHona Pai-aquat Harbicida for tha control of Maada >n difalf
batwean cuttinga. Entomology Division, Kansas Btata Board of
ty, T.O., National Coalition nQalnst tha nisuaa of
idaa, Dafandars of Wildlifs, ^armworkar Justica Fund,
inantal Policy Centar, Natural Reaoiirca Dafanaa Cour<i.'il,
o», 19B3. Gat 1 1 no tjis Eua*.
; MR 3a IB. PuDlisnad by MCflwc
Offica of Paaticlda Program*, 19B4, Sf f^ua Bgaant ._
PraauBipt ion float n»t Raraaiatrat ion or 5 pacta 1 Ravi aw CnaMica'.s.
Rag 1 at rat ton St aiiOargs Pronraw. and Data CJal 1-In t^ronraw aa of_
Warch 31. 19at. Environmantal Prot«ct ion Psency, Wann inut on, nC,
Parkina, J. H. , 19a£, Inagcii^ EMP^rta^ enO ttlS jn^acpticiBa
tha N.
tior.,
.1 Sharacroop-ra
Fi
Staff,
Sum
lommittae on
BBm.
.r..
tha 5ei
r.»ta
Protaction
trit t
(ei
Uaahini
gton.
DC.
Staff,
Suocommlttaa on
Dapart
n flg-
Oqr.
Reoraa.
:ivaB, 1982.
?Pf
« ^
USGCO,
Uaar
1 Boach, 1978.
d by Google
150
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Freestone, you say you riiise Ave crops. What
are those five crops?
Mr. Freestone. Yes, sir; I raise oranges, plums, persimmons,
kiwifruit, and Asian pears.
Mr. Bedell. That is an orchard operation?
Mr. Freestone. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bedell. What are the insects that affect those crops and
what do you do about them?
Mr. Freestone. Yes; we have two insects that we still have to
control with means other than nature helping us. One is red scale,
as mentioned before. Orange growers in California would have a
very difFlcult time making the transition without using some
means of insecticide to control red scale. We use summer oil, as I
mentioned before, as well as parasites. Hopefully, we will be able to
eliminate the summer oil as the predators begin to feed on it, their
food source, red scale.
We have just had the opportunity to bring in one of the more
vociferous of red scale just released out of quarantine from the
University of Riverside. We were able to place that in our orchard.
It's an inside fighter of red scale, which means it works on the
inside part of the tree where we have the greatest difficulty in con-
trolling red scale. So we are optimistic about eliminating oil, which
is a very expensive operation. If we can eliminate it, the cost of oil,
our costs will be less than half of what a chemical farmer pays.
Right now we are just about — we are even in terms of pest con-
trol costs. Our costs are basically even though a summer oil and
release of parasites are very similar to the chemical farmer in that
respect.
In regard to the other p^ts, we have what we call omnivorous
leaf roller that works on kiwifruit that feeds on fruit and we re-
lease a pm'asite called Triktagami at a certain period of time when
we know it will work, with etomologists we can set out traps. We
know when to release these insects. And these insects lay their
eggs OD the larvae, lay their e^s on the egg of it and then feed on
that e^ that hatches out of it. So consequentlj^ we have better con-
trol of insects than we did when we were usmg chemicals to con-
trol LOR.
Mr. Bedell. What do you do about fertilizers?
Mr. Freestone. Fertilizer is not a problem for us. As a matter of
fact, that was one of the concerns that we had when we were
making the transition, was how would we fertilize, where would we
get enough natural fertilizers to comj)ensate for the lack of chemi-
cal fertilizers. As a matter of fact, in our situation, we have over-
fertilized and we have an overfertilization problem, so we have had
to supplement that, to correct the problem, with limestone.
The reason for that is because I did get concerned about that, ap-
plying too much natural fertilizer, and with the fertilizer that the
nitrogen particularly that we are pumping from the underground
water, via overfertilization from years past, not just in our oper-
ation but in the majority of operation, we have a high nitrate in
our well water. So consequently we really do not have to apply any
natural fertilizers for the next few years.
We £i1bo, of course, mow our vegetation. We used to have weeds,
now we no longer have weeds, we just have vegetation. We mow
d by Google
151
that. That breaks down into organic matter which adds nutrients
to the soil. We also have earthworm activity. 2,000, 4,000, 10,000
earthworms in a given area. That is a lot of fertilizer, when they
delicate 1 pound a year, deficate the weed, wait 1 year, so fertilizer
is not a problem for us.
Mr. Bedell. Are you saying that your water is sufliciently pollut-
ed, is the only word I know, with nitrate so that you get fertilizer
from the polluted water? Is that the same water that they are
using for drinking purposes?
Mr. Freestone. There are many wells in our area that are
unsafe to drink, according to the department of health. Somewhere
roughly around 45 parts per million of nitrate level, that is consid-
ered unhealthy as drinking water source, and our well is not in
that category. We are looking at about 25 to 35 parts per million.
But with 12 to 14 irrigations a year, we can add approximately
7,500 or almost 1 pound of actual nitrogen via the water. That is a
sufficient amount of nitrogen. Of course nitrogen is only one ele-
ment that we are looking at in terms of our fertility program.
Mr. Bedell. Any more questions?
Well, we thank you very much for your testimony. We want to
thank all the witnesses for their testimony this morning and the
subcommittee will recess to convene at 2 o'clock this afternoon.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee recessed to 2 p.m.
of the same day.]
AITERNOON SESSION
Mr. Bedell. I think we go ahead. We hope that more members
will join us as the times goes on, but we always run out of time at
these sessions.
Our first panel will be Ms. Kay Pinkus, association attorney for
International Sanitary Supply Association, Inc., of Chicago, IL; Mr.
Robert Miller, who is on the board of directors. Professional Lawn
Care Association of America, Marietta, GA; and Dr. David F. Ham*
ilton, director of technical services, American Association of Nurs-
erymen, Inc. — they are not here.
I understand Mr. Hamilton and his assistant were unable to
make it. We will start with you, Ms. Pinkus.
STATEMENT OF KAY S. PINKUS, COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL
SANITARY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION. INC.
Ms. Pinkus. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
The International Sanitary Supply Association is a trade associa-
tion comprised of approximately 3,000 companies in this country
which are in the cleaning and maintenance industry. The members
of ISSA manufacture and distribute a wide variety of products and
chemicals which are used for cleaning and maintenance. Some of
these products are registered as pesticides under FIFRA.
My testimony will not deal with many issues which are going to
be discussed concerning the various eispects of FIFRA. We only
have one narrow concern with this l^islation. It is narrow in
terms of the wide array of issues that will be discussed in these 2
days. However, for the cleaning and maintenance industry, this
particular issue is of paramount importance.
d by Google
152
The problem that arose for the cleaning and maintenance indus-
try results from the nonspecific definition of "pesticide" in the Fed-
eral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Many cleaning products are regulated by EPA as pesticides, £il-
though when most people consider the term "pesticides" they don't
think of these type of products. I am talking about pesticides such
as Lysol, Comet, sanitizing dishwashing rinses, air fresheners, and
even toilet bowl disinfectants. These products are classified as pes-
ticides because they destroy or mitigate bacteria, germs, tind other
similar pests. These types of pesticides can be referred to genereilly
as antimicrobials.
The problem for ISSA is not that these antimicrobial products
are regulated as pesticides. The problem is that many people are
not aware that this is the case. The cleaning and maintenance in-
dustry has dealt with many problems which arose because neither
the regulators nor the regulated public were aware that these
cleaning products fall under the definition of pesticide.
The reason for this confusion is clear: antimicrobials do not fall
within the commonly understood definition of pesticide. In the Fed-
eral Insecticide, Pui^cide, and Rodenticide Act the definition of
pesticides is any substance which destroys or mitigates a pest, and
further defines a pest as any insect, rodent, fungus, weed, virus,
bacteria, or other microorganism.
In many cases, people reading this definition fissume that it
refers to agricultural pesticides and indoor-use insecticides and ro-
denticides, and do not have the slightest idea that products used in
the cleaning and maintenance industry are covered.
Let me give you two brief examples of the sort of problems that
are rampant in the cleaning and maintenance industry as a result
of this confusion. The State of Illinois enacted a law in 1982 which
requires certification in order to use any pesticide. In this situa-
tion, no one was aware and even the sponsor of that bill wasn't
aware that they were regulating aJitimicrobial products. If they
were, they wouldn't require the examination and certification for
the use of products such aa Lysol.
The reeison this was a problem is — and this is the basic scenario
that has happened at the State and local level — is their law refer-
ences the deHnition of pesticide in FIFRA. In that Federal defini-
tion, there is no indication that it includes our industry. What hap-
pened was we had to go and get an amendment to that law. This is
something that we have had to do over and over again. We can't do
it in every case. It is expensive aJid time consuming.
Not only that, it is wasteful because in the State of Illinois, as in
many other States, our industry was never intended to be regulat-
ed at all.
Another area where this is a problem is for the public that is
being regulated. MaJiy of the members of ISSA are small family-
owned businesses. They simply buy and resell the pesticide prod-
ucts that are used in the cleaning and maintenance industry.
There are requirements for the use of these pesticides. They have
to be registered sometimes and these small companies aren t even
aware that they are pesticides. Oftentimes they will have a corpo-
rate counsel who isn't aware that these products are pesticides and
d by Google
153
if this attorney would look over all the environmental laws, there
still wouldn't be any indication in FIFRA itself.
I can basically close with that and just to say that ISSA would
like to see the word "antimicrobial" and the specification of what
that includes in the law. That is all we would like to see. We don't
want einy chfinge in the substantive regulations, simply an indica-
tion that our industry is covered under the law so that we aren't
Eiccidentally regulated.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pinkus appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Ms. Pinkus. I appreciate your limiting
your time to the 5-minute period.
Mr. Miller, I would appreciate you holding your time to 5 min-
utes also.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. MILLER, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIREC-
TORS, PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. MiLLEB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As introduced, I am a member of the board of directors of the
Professional Lawn Care Association of America located at 1225
Johnson Ferry Road, Northeast, Marietta, GA. I am aJao vice presi-
dent in charge of technical services for ChemLawn Services Corp.,
a professional lawn service compaiiy heeidquartered in Columbus,
OH. Prior to my association with ChemLawn, I was a professor of
agronomy with the Ohio State University College of Agriculture.
There are three subjects I want to discuss: background informa-
tion on PLCAA and the lawn care industry; second, the problems
that we have with local regulation of pesticides; and the third is
our belief that existing FIFRA language preempts local regulation
of pesticides should be strengthened.
PLCAA, is a trade association with a membership of 650 lawn
service companies. It is the only trade eissociation for that industry.
The lawn service industry has experienced significant growth
during the past 15 years. The members now operate in 50 Stetes
and the District of Columbia.
The lawn care industry services more than 7 million customers
and employs more than 160,000 people. Much of the industry is
comprised of small businesses. While lawn care companies offer
only mechanical services, many provide chemical-based services as
well.
Liquid or dry fertilizers are applied and pesticide products are
added at appropriate times during the season. The service typically
consists of four to five applications per year. Lawn care companies
do not manufacture or formulate fertilizers and pesticides. They
purchase materials from manufacturers based on ef^cacy, cost and
safety to employees and customers. These products contoin the
same active ingredients and require the same application rates as
lawn care products purchased by do-it-yourself users at retail out-
lets.
During the past 10 years, 60 local governments in 17 States have
consideived regulating pesticides. Much of the regulatory initiatives
have taken place recently. Ironically, local ordinances do not apply
to the larger do-it-yourself market segment where, because of the
d by Google
154
lack of training in the use of pesticides, the possibility of mishap is
greatest.
Local registration of pesticides is disruptive and counterproduc-
tive for the following reasons: One, lack of uniformity. Most profes-
sional lawn services operate in more than one municipality. If nu-
merous local governments adopt differing pesticide ordinances,
lawn service companies face a difficult and time-consuming task.
With 65,000 political subdivisions below the State government
level and the United States, it is not unforeseeable that lawn serv-
ices will become overwhelmed by varying local laws.
The second reason is absence of scientific expertise. A thorough
knowledge of chemical and toxicology are fundamental to assess
the risk to humans or the environment from the use of pesticides.
Expertise in these areas exist at Federed and State levels, but
rarely at local levels.
Third, lack of enforcement and loss of public confidence. Federal
and State governments have established a comprehensive system to
regulate pesticides, the primary function of which is the protection
of the public health and the environment. Local officials who pro-
mote local pesticides regulation frequently justify their efforts by
criticizing Federal and State regulatory efforts.
Ironically, local governments that may choose to regulate pesti-
cides rarely possess the resources and technical expertise to pro-
vide even minimal enforcement of local pesticide laws.
There is an incentive to do-it-yourself users. By regulating only
commercial applicators, local pesticide regulations foster a belief by
the public that the materials applied by the lawn services are more
toxic than those found in over-the-counter do-it-yourself products.
The fifth reason is a burden on commerce. Local pesticide ordi-
nances clearly impose restraints on the free flow of commerce. Law
services that fail to comply with a local ordinance may be prohibits
ed from doing business in a community even though they have met
all Federal and State requirements.
It is our belief that if left to local forces, inconsistent and ineffec-
tive regulation of pesticides will proliferate.
The Professiontd Lawn Care Association therefore requests that
this subcommittee consider amending section 24(a) of FIFRA to ex-
pressly confine the regulation of pesticides to the Federal and State
Governments. Be assured that our members will actively support
regulatory efforts at the Federal or State level that promote appli-
cator competency, increeise customer and employee safety, and pro-
vide consistent and equal treatment for all segments of the lawn
care industry.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much.
We appreciate particularly you summarizing your statement EUid
your entire statement will b« made part of the record.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. No questions.
d by Google
155
Mr. Bedell. Mb. Pinkus, I think your testimony has been most
helpful. I think probably what we need to do is have the stafT check
with the EPA and see if they have any particular objections to
your suggestions, but it certainly is helpful to have them.
Ms. PiNsus. Thank you.
I spoke with them myself and as far as I am aware, they don't
have any objections, but I don't want to speak for them definitive-
ly-
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Mr. Miller, were you here this morning for testimony?
Mr. Miller. Yes; I was here for part of the testimony.
Mr. Bedell. You folks in the lawn care business use the same
chemical that Mrs. Prior's husband apparently was affected by
Mr. Miller. You mean the pesticide Daconil that she spoke
about?
Mr. Bedell. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Most of the lawn care industry, Mr. Chairman, does
very little in the control of diseases. There is a very limited
amount of that pesticide used by lawn care companies.
Mr. Bedell. Have you used it?
Mr. Miller. Only a limited amount of it only on a problem basis.
Mr. Bedell. Have you had any problems where you have used it?
Mr. Miller. None whatsoever. Our company, I can speak for our
company itself, our company at this point in time has more than
3,500 applicators applying pesticides, and over the p£ist several
years fiave had many more than that, and we have yet to experi-
ence the first known health effect from application of pesticides.
Mr. Bedell. That was quite a moving statement, I thought, that
she made this morning.
Are there further questions? If not, we appreciate your testimony
very, very much.
Our next panel is Mr. Jim Walesby, cochair, and Mr. Peter Ny-
gaard, cochair of the Farm Chemicals Committee of the National
Association of Wheat Growers; Mr. Mark Maslyn, assistant direc-
tor. National Affairs Division, American Farm Bureau Federation;
and Mr. Dale Stansbury, National Association of State Universities
and Land Grant Colleges.
First, we will hear from Mr. Seiberling since he was scheduled to
be on the witness schedule at this time.
John, we are asking everybody to hold testimony to 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SEIBERLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Seibebung. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this opportunity. I introduced a bill recently, H.R.
1910, to prohibit the sale of pesticides and herbicides for agricultur-
al production unless tests prove that such substances are not likely
to endanger human beings. 1 have been concerned for some time
that the use of dangerous pesticides and herbicides could pose seri-
ous health threats to consumers and agricultural workers. Once
the pesticides and herbicides enter the food chain and our ground-
water, the long-term effects of these substances are largely un-
known.
d by Google
156
Because of these concerns, it seemed to me that a^cultural pes-
ticides should not be used unless appropriate tests indicate tiiey
are unlikely to cause harm in human beings.
The story about EDB is too well known to go into the details, but
this EDB crisis demonstrated the serious inadequacies of our
system of regulating pesticides and herbicides. And there are many
other dangerous pesticides and herbicides that need to be focused
on as well. For example, the most widely used agricultural herbi-
cide in my State of Ohio, alachlor, has been found to cause cancer
in rats.
It is estimated that 30 percent of Ohio's 7.7 million acres of crop-
lands are treated with alachlor. I submit to you that where traces
have been found in the rivers that serve as drinking water for
many Ohio cities, and where it is possible that alachlor could get
into the food supply, it is high time that we took a closer look at
this situation, particularly when you consider that most municipal
water treatment systems do not filter out alachlor.
There are also problems with the aerial spraying of the chemical.
EPA has banned aerieil spraying and has banned the use of the
chemical on potatoes because it may leave a residue on them, but
EPA has refused to suspend all uses of this herbicide until more
test information is available. There again we have a need for a
tightening up of the current system.
The general public shouldn't have to won? that their drinking
water contains dangerous pesticides and herbicides, and certainly
the problems and demgers for farm labor are Edready well known to
your subcommittee.
Serious problems with the current system of pesticide regulation
are obvious. Under the current system when tests are inconclusive
about the dangers of the particular pesticide, the use of the pesti-
cide or herbicide is approved. I think we should not approve a
chemical unless appropriate testa indicate that it is unlikely that it
will endanger humEm beings.
I notice that the bill that is about to be introduced by Congresa-
taan Geoi^e Brown, certainly an excellent piece of proposed legisla-
tion, focuses on the effect on birth defects. But I suggest that whUe
anything likely to cause birth defects may well £dso cause cancer,
for example, we need to broaden the proposal emd cover cancer as
well as other possible serious adverse efTects.
It has been argued that reducing the availability of herbicides
will hurt farmers by curtailing farm production. But to the extent
that farmers are not forced by competition to buy pesticides and
herbicides, their costs will be lower. And to the extent that agricul-
tural production is reduced, crop surpluses will be reduced or elimi-
nated, thereby saving crop price support costs presently borne by
the American taxpayers.
H.R. 1910 would change the current regulatory structure to
ensure that pesticides and herbicides used in agricultural produc-
tion are truly safe.
Before EPA could renter any currently used iigricultural pesti-
cide or herbicide or approve any new one, the agency would be re-
quired to conduct the tests to determine if it could endanger
humans, and if it did, it could not be approved. To encourage EPA
to move quickly to conduct the proper tests, after 3 years the bill
d by Google
157
would revoke the r^fistration of any agricultural pesticide or herbi-
cide already in use unless EPA tests were complete.
I want to thank the subcommittee for hearing me on what I con-
sider to be an extremely important issue, and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Let me say one other thing. As my colleagues may know, in Jan-
uary I found out that I had cancer of the prostate. For 3 months I
didn't know, until I had an operation in April, whether I had me-
tfistasized cancer or not. In the interim, I did a lot of thinking and
reading, particularly reading as to what are the causes of cancer in
human beings. Having cancer certainly sharpens your fwwers of
concentration on this kind of a subject. As a result, I became even
more convinced that the time had come to try to do something
about this particular issue of pesticide regulation, and that is why I
am here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seiberling appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thamk you very much, Mr. Seiberling.
Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, John, from your statement and your interest in this
issue. I can't help but comment initially as I read your paragraph
on page 3 about the cycle if we ban the chemicals we will reduce
production and if we reduce production, it will increase price, I
wish it were that easy.
Mr. Seiberung. I was attempting to answer the argument that if
you enact my bill eigricultural production will go down. Yes, but
costs will go down, too.
Mr. Gunderson. Could you elaborate on what you mean by ban-
ning chemicals that are likely to produce endangering human
beings — I don't wemt to sound simple but I didn't know that EPA
was legalizing chemicals likely to endanger human beings now?
Mr. Seiberling. It seems to me that some generalized standard
in legislation is needed, to be followed by regulations. You remem-
ber the Delaney amendment which says that any food additive that
produces cancer in laboratory animals in any quantities cannot be
used. It seems to me that that is the kind of approach that I would
hope that EPA would be required to undertake when eveiluating
the chemicals that could get into the food chftin or could affect ag-
ricultureil workers who are working out in the fields.
Whether that is the best approach is something I think you
would have to leave up to EPA, but certainly I would hope that the
le^lative history of any legislation, whether it be the Brown bill,
my bill, or some other, would make it clear that if the chemical
produces cancer or birth defects in laboratory animals in any quan-
tity, then it should not be used in the production of food for human
beings.
Mr. Gunderson. Is your bill that exact that if
Mr. Seiberung. No. My bill does not spell it out that exactly.
d by Google
158
Mr. GuNDERSON. Thank you.
Mr. Seiberlino. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. In regard to the Delaney clause, there have been
those who have ai^ed that we now have such sophisticated ana-
lytical equipment that we now can detect a very, very minute
amount of anything in a food stuff or in the water, and to say that
there can't be any of it probably is somewhat questionable.
I take it you don't agree with that.
Mr. Seiberung. The test that I have put in the bill is "if it is
likely to endanger the health of human beings," which gives some
latitude. I think we have to look at the cumulative effects over a
long period of time. The virtue of using laboratory animals is that
you can have many generations in a very short period of time. It
seems to me that if the pesticide or herbicide produced cancer or
birth defects in quantities that are comparable if you scale them
up to consumption by human beings over a period of a life time,
and you take into account the fact that there are probably other
chemicals that we are taking in at the same time, the teat should
be a fairly tight one in my opinion. The long-term effects of the use
of these pesticides are subtle and difficult to pinpoint in human
beings.
If a person at the age of 65 gets some kind of cancer of the liver,
let's say, who can say what caused it? Yet if we could show that he
has eaten various chemicals that cause cancer in laboratory ani-
mals, I think we would begin to see some basis for making a corre-
lation. The exact amounts, I think, should have to be left to the
experts.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Brown, do you have any questions?
Mr. Brown. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. No, theink you.
Mr. VoLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I do have one pertaining to the
last part of the statement, John.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. The thing that we have had this proposal before
on reregistering and pesticides in use that have to be tested in the
3-year limitation. There is no question in my mind that it is com-
pletely impossible for EPA to run the tests or have the test results
analyzed on all of them within that 3-year period. The quandry in
my mind is how do they make the decision of which ones they are
going to reevaluate, in other words, which ones after three years
are going to fall through the crack and not be able to be used even
though they may not be harmful to humans and even though they
may be very effective in their use.
Mr. Seiberling. You subcommittee members are experts, and I
am not, on this subject. Perhaps 3 years is too short a period.
Maybe it ought to be twice that long. I would leave it up to this
subcommittee, but I would suggest that there ought to be a dead-
line at which point pesticides and herbicides would have to be re-
certified, whether it is 3 years, 5 years, or some other period of
time.
Mr. Volkmer. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
d by Google
159
Mr. Bedell. We appreciate very much your being here, John,
and we appreciate your work in this area.
Mr. Seiberling. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. My understanding is that we really have only Mr.
Walesby and Mr. Maslyn here, so we will hear from you first, Mr.
Walesby.
We would appreciate if you would try to hold your testimony to 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM WALESBY, CHAIRMAN, FARM CHEMICALS
COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS,
ACCOMPANIED BY PETER NYGAARD. COCHAIRMAN
Mr. Walesby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, the National Association of Wheat Growers appreci-
ates this opportunity to present its views on the reauthorization of
FIFRA, and the particular concerns of farmers relating to pesticide
regulation.
I am Jim Walesby, chairman of NAWG's Farm Chemicals Com-
mittee, and a wheat producer from Almira, WA. Appearing with
me today is my cochairman, Peter Nygaard, also a wheat producer,
from Williston, ND.
Maximizing agricultural productivity must always be a basic goal
of sound economic policy. Efficient agricultural techniques neces-
sarily include the use of a broad range of pesticides. But public
misperceptions related to the use of these chemicals seem to be
growing, in large part because of our technical ability to measure
chemical residues at infinitely small levels. The existence of any
such residues is often perceived by the public to be in itself harm-
ful, and this misperception makes the balancing of risks associated
with chemical residues against the benefits of using agrichemicala
increasingly difficult for the EPA.
Ironclad rules to fit the circumstances of any risk benefit analy-
sis are not possible to create. BPA's regulatory decisions must pro-
tect the public health, while at the same time encourage research
and development of beneficial agrichemicala. Because of these dual
requirements, some discretion in applying regulatory guidelines
will be necessary in determining where the true public interest
lies.
The farmer has a great deal at stake, from both perspectives. He
depends on the availability of efficient pesticides to control weeds
and insects, and he must, at the same time, be concerned about the
health implications of handling such chemicals.
The handling of chemicals poses several issues for the EPA, in-
cluding certification of restricted use applicators, and supervision
of noncertified applicators. Requiring certification for anyone who
handles restricted use chemicals, even if supervised by certified ap-
plicators, is beyond what is necessary and practical.
Supervisors should be required to properly train and oversee ap-
plicators under their responsibility, so that the worker understands
the importance of careful and safe handling of restricted use
chemicals. But often farm workers are hired on a temporary basis
for specific tasks, and making arrangements for certification train-
d by Google
160
ing programs would prove impracticetl from the point of view of
both the worker and the farm operator.
Such a requirement would essentially force farm operators to
hire professional contractors to perform their chemicxd applica-
tions, which is an expensive alternative for the farm operator, and
an equally undesirable alternative for farm workers.
In r^ard to certification training programs for which the Exten-
sion Service is responsible, most farmers agree that the quality of
these programs should be significantly improved in order to
achieve the educational objectives for which they have been au-
thorized by Congress. Label information is useful only to the extent
that the user is adequately informed on how to use the informa-
tion, and on his legal responsibility to do so.
It is unfair to hold a user liable for misuse when the system de-
signed to educate the user regarding proper application is not rec-
ognized as the most fundamental means to ensure safe use of pesti-
cides. We do not believe that rules and regulations specifying the
type of clothing which must be worn by applicators, reentry peri-
ods following pesticide applications and the like should replace edu-
cational programs as the primary means of strengthening safety
standards on the farm.
As Em orgEmization representing users of chemical materials, the
NAWG has recognized the importance of applicator training, and
has sponsored a series of applicator clinics across the counti? as a
means of improving equipment calibration and other applicator
techniques. But the fundamental responsibility for certified appli-
cator training lies with the Extension Service, and these pn^ams
must be improved for the protection of the farmer and the commu-
nity.
The EPA hfis clearly, and correctly, recognized that an essential
r^:ulatory priority is completion of reregistration, so that harmful
chemicals can be identified and discontinued, and that safe and
beneficial chemicals can be recognized as such. Quicker resolution
of special reviews is also under evaluation, as well as more direct
procedures for cancellation of registered chemicals. These initia-
tives must not prevent full oppwrtunity for disclosure and discus-
sion of data which favor continued registration, and for economic
benefits arguments to be completely heard.
The role of the USDA in presenting benefits data must be
strengthened, in the interests of establishing a fair analysis of
chemicals under special review at EPA. The EPA maintains that
benefits analyses are disadvantaged by the poor quality informa-
tion it receives from USDA. But the ability of the USDA to collect
benefits data depends upon the commitment of research personnel
to this task, and the pesticide assessment program hfis not been
given the proper support within the Department.
We urge the committee to help correct this situation.
Expedient registration of new compounds is of utmost impor-
tance to wheat growers. As older products are removed from the
market, effective substitutes are often not available, and new prod-
ucts must be registered to fill the gap. Often new pest problems de-
velop in response to weather conditions and cheuiging cultural
preictices, and new methods of control must be found, and, as more
d by Google
161
effective compounds are discovered, growers are anxious to be able
to utilize these tools to improve their production.
State and local initiatives to restrict and control pesticide use
continue to disrupt the marketing and use of beneficial chemicals
by farmers, pest control businesses, homeowners, and others. Un-
reasonable requirements to post notices of intent to spray and
other means of impeding timely use of pesticides are examples of
local regulations which are becoming serious problems for farmers.
Although the FIFRA law makes provision for States to regulate
the sale and use of pesticides, apart from Federal authorities con-
tfiined in the statute, it has not been the intent of this law for po-
litical jurisdictions below the State level to preempt Federal euid
Stete authorities with additional restrictions. This should be clari-
fied in any FIFRA reauthorization with a specific prohibition of
use restriction by local jurisdictions. In addition. States should be
encouraged to adhere to Federal guidelines in the regulation of pes-
ticide use and required to conform to Federal tolerances for pesti-
cide residue in food.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our views, and
Peter and I will be pleased to answer questions at the appropriate
time.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
We will next hear from Mr. Maslyn and then we will question
you both.
STATEMENT OF MARK A. MASLYN. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NA-
TIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDER-
ATION
Mr. Maslyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee.
The American Farm Bureau Federation is a general farm organi-
zation in 48 States and Puerto Rico. Farm Bureau membership pro-
duces nearly every crop grown and marketed in commercitil quan-
tities in the United Stetes. Today the American farmer produces
enough food to feed himself and approximately 80 other people.
Critical to agriculture's ability to sustain this unprecendented
level of production is the scientifically sound regulation of agricul-
turtJ chemicals. We appreciate the oppwrtunity to present our con-
cerns on this important issue.
Section 3(a) of H.R. 2482 proposed to eliminate the lai^ueige
"under direct supervision" thereby Umiting the use of restricted
use chemicals to only the certified applicator.
No justification for this proposed change has been given nor has
any evidence of a problem been provided. To the contrary, the agri-
cultural community has demonstrated a commitment to profession-
alism and environmental concern in the handling of agricultural
pesticides since the inception of the Training and Certification Pro-
gram in 1975.
In the 10 years since this program was established, over 1.5 mil-
lion farmers have been through the Training and Certification Pro-
graun. Furthermore, tens of thousands tmnually upgrade their
training through the recertification process. At this time no evi-
d by Google
162
dence of need nor claim of a benefit that would justify this pro*
posed change has been provided.
Sections 11 and 13 would strike current FIFRA provisions which
provide for indemnity payments to owners of pesticide products for
which registrations are suspended and canceled. Under the pro-
posed change, the Environmental Protection Agency would no
longer be responsible for the disposal of any suspended or cancelled
pesticide, nor incur any costs through the indemniflcation of
owners of existing stocks of these chemicals.
From strictly an agricultural standpoint, we believe this change
would be unwise. To date, the Indemnity and Disposal Program has
only been implemented for two suspended chemicals. We believe
the program, as currently provided, is necessary to assure the safe
and adequate disposal of stocks of suspended and cancelled pesti-
cide products.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to comment briefly on H.R.
1416, by Mr. Heftel.
We believe that this bill is good for Eigriculture since it elimi-
nates one of the unfair advantages that foreign agricultural pro-
ducers have over U.S. producers. This bill seeks to ensure that pes-
ticides banned for use in the United States are not used by foreign
agricultural produers to grow products which are ultimately
snipped to U.S. markets.
Not only will this bill reduce the competitive disadvantage faced
by American farmers, but it will also restore confidence and trust
in the American people about the food products they purchase.
Before concluding, I would like to briefly address two provisions
of a widely circulated draft reauthorization measure prepared by a
coalition of environmental groups.
Farm Bureau is unalterably opposed to including in FIFRA any
citizen suit provision. Such a provision would in the very least
result in the harassment of farmers through nuisance suits alleg-
ing violations of FIFRA in the course of normal farming practices.
We believe strongly that farmers who follow federally approved
label instructions should be absolved from liability cleiims of envi-
ronmental pollution.
Second, we are concerned over attempts to include ground water
protection provisions within the jurisdictions of FIFRA. No one is
more entitled to speak on this issue than farmers whose water
needs are overwhelmingly served by ground water sources.
The issue of ground water protection is a rapidly emerging issue
which will be in the forefront of discussion for years to come. We
believe the magnitude of this issue is such that a uniform and com-
prehensive approach should be taken rather than reacting with a
scattered patenwork of ground water provisions in every environ-
mental statute under the sun.
Farmers consider themselves environmentalists by nature and
necessity. We have an inherent interest in the reauthorization of
FIFRA, not only from an economic and business standpoint but
from a personal health and safety aspect as well.
We look forward to working with the members of this committee
to ensure that the flnal product is not only eflective and workable
but reasonable in its impact.
Thank you.
d by Google
163
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Maslyn.
Mr. Combeat. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. No qu^tions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. Gunderson. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Mr, Brown.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Maslyn, I am quite sympathetic to most of the
points you raised in your statement, but I am wondering if you are
not a little inflexible on the situation involving ground water. I
think the question is one of how is the best way to address this
problem more than anything else.
You may recall that the situation that developed with EDB
stemmed out of, simongst other things, the fact that it was discov-
ered that it vraa occurring in ground water to a much greater
extent than had ever been anticipated, and I am not quite sure
what the proper way to address that is, but one of the things we
have been hassling EPA on for many, many years is the inadequa-
cy of their monitoring in certain media, and that includes the un-
derground water resources.
I £im wondering just how adamant the Farm Bureau would be
about legislation which made a little bit more effective EPA's role
in at least the monitoring of ground water supplies so that we
don't get caught short in some of these additional situations like
EDB that may crop up again in the future.
Mr. Maslyn. I don't think we would have any trouble with that.
We are very concerned. Obviously the farmers in this country
served by ground water sources in rural areas have a very inherent
need to be concerned about what is in that ground water and they
would support that I am sure.
Mr. Brown. The EDB ban hit us harder in California than
fUmost any other place I think because it is widely used as a pre-
ventative for nematodes in the citrus industry there and the prob-
lem was that we had no information as to how prevalent it v/aa or
what the pathway was by which it went from the soil in a citrus
orchard to the adjoining wells, and I think EPA does have some re-
sponsibility to improve their capability of making judgments in
that area.
One other thing, you don't like the language in the bill which
deaiB with indemnification or the ending of indemnification for
canceled pesticides.
Do you have any bright ideas about how we can handle that situ-
ation? You know the problem that faces us is EPA doesn't have a
budget for that. They are underfunded for some of the things you
are very interested in, better training in certification for example
and other things, and whenever they are stuck with a heavy in-
demnification award they have to take it out of some of these other
items and we don't quite see how they are going to be able to con-
tinue to do that.
On the other hand, it isn't fair to those holding large stocks of
these chemicals. In many cases they are not the same people who
even manufactured them, that they should be stuck with the
burden of paying for it. It is a situation where there is no real good
solution but we would like to get the best one we can.
d by Google
164
Mr. Maslyn. I wish I had a specific recommendation for you. It
is my understanding that most of the people who are indemniiied
are somewhere in the retail chain, not the meuiufacturer, but the
bulk of the payments go to either the retailer or the applicator and
I have been unable to get the specific information to distinguish
even whether it is the private applicator or the commercial appli-
cator.
I don't have a specific recommendation. I certainly understand
EPA's dilemma and we do support increased funding overall for
the Pesticide Prc^ram.
Mr. Brown. Well, it may be that we will have to do sort of like
we have in the savings and loan crisis, require some form of Feder-
al insurance to pay for it or some form of insurance, the cost of
which would be borne by people who are in this business.
It is a little unfmr to ask the public as a whole to bear the cost of
this when they get no observable and direct benefit. They get an
indirect benefit obviously, but that is about all.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to explore with the representative of the Farm
Bureau and the wheatgrowers how they would react and how they
would prevent from happening again a situation that occurred in
my district last year.
A com producer contracted with the local cooperative elevator
applying chemicals to his field of com. The person that came out
was a technician, not a certified applicator. He put on the chemical
and when he had finished there was a significant amount remain-
ing in the tank. He stopped along the road at a small dry water
course and dumped the remainder off the edge of the road from the
tanks into that water course.
It went down into a small pasture that was a holding pasture for
a dairyman, a pasture that is frequented every day. Within a
matter of a day, most of the cows in the herd were obviously very,
very ill. It is not apparent at this time however the effect of the
chemicals, because as you well know it sometimes takes several
daj^ for chemicals to show their effects on vegetation.
The dairyman ultimately lost virtually all the herd as well as
milk production for a period of time. By the time it was recognized
what the problem was there was no way of proving from tissue in
the cattle that this was the problem. Too much time had passed.
There are many elements to the problem including the applica-
tor who is not certified and who is a technician. From your point of
view as producers, how would you approach preventing incidents
like that from happening?
Mr. Maslyn. Well, I don't know how far you can go to prevent
situations like that. It seems to me that it is a matter of common
sense, first of all, and you can't require that.
I would have little sympathy for sai individual who drained a
tank like that into a water supply.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. Shoiild there be penalties aigainst that
person?
Mr. Maslyn. I would think that there currently are penalties.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. But they have not been imposed. So that
there is room for better enforcement?
d by Google
165
Mr. Maslyn. I would certainly think there is room for better en-
forcement.
Mr. E)VANS of Iowa. How do we get better treiining of that
person? I understand the objection Ib to certifying every technician
or every person that Is hired only for a short term to go out and
apply these pesticides, but I think that is where a considerable
amount of problem is. I recognize the great disadvantages of put-
ting a certification process on every person that is supposedly
working under supervision, but clearly it is not universally success-
ful the way it is right now.
I am just hoping that someone have some practical successes for
an acceptable way of at least dramaticiUly r^ucing the number of
these instances euid still doing it in a way that makes it meuiagea-
ble.
Mr. Walesby. Possibly I could respond. If I understand the sce-
nario right that you are describing here, and unfortunately we do
hear of things like that happening from time to time. It sounds like
it was a commercial application made on a contract basis by the
farmers co-op or elevator to him.
Many States govern this by State law whereas no commercial ap-
plication of any type can be made on a contract basis unless that
applicator is licensed and bonded.
The second part of your question, what would I do as a farmer, I
would be hopping mad, because obviously the fellow didn't put eill
the chemical on the crop and had to dump it somewhere.
So obviously the individual made a stupid mistake. Unfortunate-
ly those things do happen.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Cheiirman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Evans.
I have a couple of questions.
Id your testimony, Mr. Maslyn, you say you are unalterably op-
posed to including any citizen suit provision. Do you believe that
that farmer in Mr. Evans' case should not be permitted to sue the
elevator, the co-op that was responsible for doing this?
Mr. Maslyn. Not at all. In fact, I would recommend — I would be
surprised if he hasn't sued him already. I guess what we are con-
cerned about is currently under FIFRA there is no private right of
action.
From our information, virtually every State has pesticide regula-
tions and laws and statutes that govern a situation as Mr. Evans
described, and in that particular case we feel that the State stat-
utes, common law, would be the place to begin.
I guess from a farmer's standpoint the concept of citizen suit
brings to mind the professional litigemt that would be hovering
over the average fanner just in wait of a mistake.
We don't thmk that is the proper thing to do. If there is a prob-
lem with enforcement, then it should be dealt with directly
through EPA or the State statutes. We don't feel that the making
available the citizen suit to enforce FIFRA is the best alternative.
Mr. Bedell. You also, say "we are concerned over attempts to in-
clude ground wat«r protection provisions within the jurisdiction of
FIFRA." I should think that is where you would want it to be.
Would you rather have it in Henry Waxman's committee?
d by Google
166
Mr. Maslyn. Probably not, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a very
unique issue. It is something that has surfaced relatively recently,
and we don't know all that we need to know about it.
Maybe in the long run FIFRA is where it should be, but I guess
whet concerns us is having to fight this battle not only in the Safe
Drinking Water Act and aean Water Act but FIFRA as well.
We all know the relationship between groundwater contamina-
tion and the use of agricultural chemicals. It is something that con-
cerns fanners very much. On the one hand we are using chemicals
that are federally approved and registered and the label is ap-
proved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The chemical is then recommended for use by the Extension
Service, euid 20 years later this chemical shows up in the ground
water, not only in the public water supply, but in the fanner's own
well. It is something that concerns us a great deal.
We just don't know exactly where this ought to be addressed but
it is a very serious problem and we feel that it should be eiddressed
in a comprehensive manner.
Mr. Bedell. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Bhown. Would the gentleman allow me one more question?
Mr. Bedell. Certainly.
Mr. Brown, liie issue of the private right to sue is going to give
us a big headache. It has come up before and we recognize the
issues that are involved here. If I understand correctly, what this
really means is that the person desiring to sue must have recourse
to the State courts under the general tort laws or whatever rather
them having it written into the Federal law that they would have a
Federal court recourse. Is that correct?
Mr. Maslyn. Yes.
Mr. Brown. What bothers me a little bit here is that your posi-
tion may be one of temporary expediency. It seems to me fairly
conceivable that under some circumstances you might get a situa-
tion where a widespread public concern about some of these issues
might create a climate in the State court level which would be the
reverse of what it is now, where currently I think the State courts
tend to be somewhat more sympathetic to the problems of the locfd
citizens and the local farmers and so on, but that situation might
be overcome, and I can envision the possibility of your coming back
here and saying, why can't we have a Federal provision that pre-
empts the State provision as we are saying now with regard to
some other parts of the bill, where you don't want chaotic State
and local r^ulations and saying that you would rather have this
handled on a uniform basis at the Federal level.
Has that thought occurred to the Farm Bureau and have they
considered the merits of that possibility?
Mr. Maslyn. Obviously it has. I think it is a very valid point.
Even more so, I think farmers generally feel that they would like
some provision in Federal statute that said if they follow the label
that is approved by the Federeil Government in more than one
agency, then they should be absolved from any liability, barring
gross negligence.
We don't want to be in aposition of defending an applicator who
has no regard for the law. lliat is not in anyone's best interest. But
what we want to do is protect the family farmer, the mom and pop
d by Google
167
ffirmer who has very little reresources to fight a nuisance suit, let
alone any suit for significant damages.
Mr. Bkown. Well, what you are really saying is you want fair
equitable an uniform legal standards that the farmers and others
using the chemicals can live with.
Mr. Maslyn. That is correct.
Mr. Brown. And not be subject to the chaos that you might oth-
erwise get, which is a very retisonable position. The question is
whether you get it better from leaving the exising situation, which
very frankly, gives you different results in different places, and I
think you are probably aware of examples of that.
But you still prefer that situation and for the time being to re-
writing the statute to give a private right to sue in Federal court.
Mr. Maslyn. This was a policy that was surfaced at the grass-
roots level and was approved and voted on all the way through the
county, State, and national {uinual meeting by the farmers that
make up this organization, and that at the present time is their
feeling.
Mr. Brown. I think that may be reflecting the fact that your
members may feel that they have more influence at the State level
than they do at the Federal level. I may be guessing wrong.
Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Any further questions? If not, we appreciate your
testimony very much. If there are no further questions, the com-
mittee will be adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The subcommittee will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 21, 1985.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
d by Google
WITED STATES tERMflMEHT ff flfflCLLTlW
STflTWENTCF
KAREK MRLING, ACTING ASSISTMfT SECPETAIIV
HARIOING m INSffCTIt* SERVICES
BEFORE T«
SlBCCmmEE CN IRARTTIEKT OPERATIONS, RESEARCH
AND FOREIGN AGRICXTIliE
OF THE
HOUSE CCmiTTEE ON AflllClLTUIE
HAY 20, 198S
ft). ChAINUN *H> ffenBERS Of ne StBCDtirTTEE, IT IS * FLEASURE TO APPEAR BEFOHE
VOU TODAY TO PRESENT THE ll>S- DePARTHENT OF AgRICLLTURE'S QISIK) VIEMS OK
CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL IhSECTICIDE, FuNGtCtDE AM) RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA).
ht ARE FIEASED WITH RECENT ADHINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE EnVIROMHENTAL
RioTECTim Agency (EPA) to enhance the timeliness of resilatory decisioimaking
WHILE ENSURING SCIENTIFIC SOIMDNESS OF THOSE DECISIONS AND THE OPENNESS OF THE
DECISIDWUKING PROCESS- SiNCE THE AGRICU.TURAL CITtllJNlTY DEPENDS OH THE SAFE
USE OF EFFICACIOUS PESTICIDES TO WLP PltOTECT OUR PRODUCTIVITY AND OUR ACCESS
TO FOREIGN MARKETS, INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE EPA REGILATORY PROCESS ABE
CLEARLY IN THE INTERESTS OF AGRICULTURE-
IH TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS SUBCOHHITTEE, Uk- JdHN A- HoORE, EPA's ASSISTANT
Administrator for ftsTiciDES and Toxic Swstances characterized FIFRA as a
FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND LAW AND USOA CONCURS WITH THIS APPRAISAL- Or- PbORE M.50
d by Google
ADDRESSED AREAS OF CONCERN, IDENTIFIED BY A SPECIAL ERA SPONSORED TASK FORCE,
IN ALLOWING EPA TO CONTINUE TO ACHIEVE ITS 60ALS OF PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH
AW THE ENVIROWENT MILE MAKING SURE THAT SOCIETY HAY ENJOY THE ECONWIC AND
SOCIAL BENEFITS THESE REGILATED PRODUCTS CAN OFFER>
hh- Chaihian, ke understand that you have introduced H*R- 2482, a bill to miend
FIFRA- MlILE WE HAVE not had AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS BILL, SOME OF THE
concerns EXPRESSED BY Ot- MoORE HAVE SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR friERlCAN
AGRICULTURE' HE CERTAINLY SUPPORT EPA'S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS OF
the review process* rtolonging the process unmecessarily can create costly
uncertainty amcng producers *h0 need to be able to make plans based on full
knowledge of hhat products will be available to thek> cp course, we are
especially concerned that any changes ensure continued consideration of the
full range of consequences of pesticide registration or loss of registration'
Another area of special concern to us is possible cwnges affecting restricted-
use PESTICIDES. Implementation of decisions regarding restricted-use
PESTICIDES requires EARLY CCHKtfllCATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT SO THAT TRAINING
NEEDS FOR APPLICATORS CAN BE CONSIDERED- W RECOGNIZE THE DESIRABILITY OF
ASSURING THAT RESTRICTED-USE PESTICIDES ARE USED BY OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
THOSE WHOSE (1UM.IFICATI0MS ARE CWENSURATE WITH THE RISKS POSED BY THE
PESTICIDE' He M.SO APPRECIATE THE EPA's WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US IN lUKIHG
SURE THAT AGRICULTURAL APPLICATIONS ARE FIU.Y CONSIDERED AND THAT ACTIONS THAT
WOULD WNECESSARILY INCREASE THE COST OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ARE AVOIDED-
d by Google
ht N.SO HAITT TO EXPRESS OUt GENERM. CONCERN THAT AMY CHANGES TO FfFPA ENSURE
THAT THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR RETAINS THE FLEXIPILITY NEEDED TO ADDRESS CONCERNS
FULLv. Specifically, w want to ensure that biergeiky exhiptiohs remain
AVAILABLE- CURRENTLY UNDER FFRA THE EtPARTHENT HAS AUTHORITY TO DECLARE A
CRISIS EXWPTIOH MEN NO LABELED PESTICIDE IS AVAILABLE TO TREAT THE SPECIFIC
PEST OR DISEASE AND WEN THE NEED FOR TIMELY THEATTIENT IS SO CRITICAL THAT A
specific exb1pti0n cannot be cbtained- epa just published a proposed rile that
ensures that exehptions are protective of public health and are tfsed only mhen
necessary- as ah example, this ex^ption has used for the f^diterraneak
Fruit Fly eradication in California in 1981 and our current prosrah in
Floriu- This portion of the Act is essential to ensuring that me have the
tools available to respond to DISEASE AND PEST EMERGENCIES THAT COLLD QUICKLY
DEVASTATE OUt AfiRIClLTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEM- W ARE CONCERNED THAT ABILITY TO
RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO THESE SITUATIONS IS RETAINED-
As LEGISLATION IS DEVELOPED AND INTRODUCED, ME tCLCCME THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK
T06ETHER WITH THE EPA AND WITH THE CONGRESS TO ENSURE THAT OUR COWCN GOAL OF
PROTECTING THE EWIROWEHT IS ACCWPLISHED AND IMAJ THE VIEWS Of AGRICULTURE
ARE FULLY CONSIDERED AS PROPOSED CHMffiES TO FFRA ARE EXAMINED- WE BELIEVE
THAT A CLIMATE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT WILL ENSURE THAT tC CAN MDRK TOGETHER
EFFECTIVELY- Ih COIKLUSIOH WE WILD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT WE BELIEVE FIFflA IS
A SOUND LAW THAT FULFILLS ITS PURPOSE- ThE RECENT ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
IHR.EHENTED BY ERA ARE FURTHER EVIDENCE OF FIFRA's FLEXIBILITY AND OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CURRENT REGULATORY SYSTBi- ThIS COHatfllES MY STATEMENT,
AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS -
d by Google
Piesented by;
ImmediaCe Past Piesldent
National Pest Control t
r the C
institutional pest control companies in the United States. Beside
office as Immediate Past President of the National Fest Control
On behalf of the National Pest Control Association ar
memberB, I thank the Coniriittee for this opportunity t
experience in working tilth pesticides under the provisions of the
e menbers of NPCA are those service companies In the nation's
slness that work to protect the public health, our food supply and
r building structures from pest infestations and disease vectors
rried by these pests. Hospitala and doctor's offices are kept germ
ee with pesticides. They also keep restaurant and school kitchens
ee of insects and rodents.
» structural pest control industry has used Integrated pest
nagement since its inception foe effective pest management. It has
t and does not now depend exclusively on pesticides In Its work.
Bticides are an important resource, however, for eliminating and
many pest infestations. The membecH of this industry
depend primarily upon their knowledge of pest biology and behavior and
their experience with a diversity of control methods appropriate for
the site, rather than depend exclusively upon pesticides that are
classified by EPA for restricted use. He estimata that currently
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (as Amended
d by Google
over 95* of pesticides used in our industry are the same (
approved by EPA for purchase and use by the general publii
Before auboitt
ing my recoimnendt
congressional
session, I would
induBtry'a poa
ition on FIFRft ft
Cion on FIFRA this
sine background on the
In the early 1970'5, NPCfi supported the legislation which gawe the
Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the use of
pesticides. The fiaaociation actively supported EPA approved programa
of certification of persona who apply, or supervise technicians in
applying, pesticides classified by EPA and the states for "Restricted
Doe.' It is, and has been the policy of HPCA and its membership, to
use only those pesticides that are registerQd by the responsible
authorities of state and federal goverrir.eiits in a manner described in
the manufacturer's registered label and as recommended by professional
authorities in our field. The HPCA technical guidance ia referenced
by both federal and state regulatory agencies on how to safely and
effectively control pests — from cockroaches and termites to
vertebrates, such as rats and birds.
For your purpose today in receiving comments for reauthoriiation of
FIFRA, I will present our Industry members' experience in operating
under the current FIFKA. In general our experience confirms that the
existing law is working to accompliah Its purpose of providing Cor
safe pesticide use; it does not need any changes to improve its
effectiveness. Hy belief is that unless its broken, don't fix It.
OOH RECOHMEWDATIOH
The NPCA proposal to the Committee at this tine isj
COHGBESS REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTING FIFRA FOR THREE YEARS KITH
HO CHANGES IN THE PROVISIONS FOR PESTICIDE CLASSIFICATION AND
APPLICATOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR PESTICIDE USE.
d by Google
THE BEASOMS WHY
The EPA records o£ pesticide poisonings throughout
the United States indicate that the annual number
decreasing despite Increases In the population and
In 1971 through 197e the EPA Pesticide Incidents Monitoring
Service recorded 900 to 1000 pesticide poisonln98 per year
of all types nationwide.
•
For 1978 and 1979 the Nation,
al Clearing House
for Poison Control Centers h,
33 reported that lei
360 individuals were polsonei
3 and hospitaliied I
pesticides. This accounted :
For less than St of
poisonings of all types for i
each of those two y<
•
Extensive studies by Bcientli
Bts of this data hai
years.
i found
that almost all pesticide poisoning deaths In the U.S.A.
are resulting froo self-inflicted or homicidal incidents.
Deaths from pesticide poisonings for subsequent years arc
estimated by knowledgeable sources to be following
the pattern reported by Drs. Hayes and Vaughn.
of Los AngeleSi California received 24,000 telephone
inquiries and of those Inquiries, 1,182 were pesticide
related. Of this number 97» were consumer oriented use
or misuse pesticide incidents. The remaining 3% (3S) of
inquiries resulted from pesticide applications by
connerclal or private {fara} applicators.
. J. Hayes and W. K. Vaughn, "Mortality from Pesticides in tt
lited States in 1973-74, Toxicology and Applied Fonnieolooy,
, Academic Press, Inc., 1977.
d by Google
ts current
torn i
rcomplishi
ng its
aplicatora
of pel
jisoning t
o the I
.zatdous n
dterial
Id tedecal
laws.
le trends is to point out to you that FIFRA i
> in making sure that the commercial
5 are not creating the problems of pesticide
i of the nation. They are trained to apply
ded to further reduce pesticide
FTFRA authority to focus on educa
tly enperiencing the pesticide nisuse
Iministrator of EPA, for his recognition of the need for redirecting
::curring. In his comment to the public on April 3. 1985, he outlined
Is proposals for "The Next Four Years ■ fin Agenda for Environmental
isults.' In that presentation he indicated that EPA must —
"... plan controlled solutions with a multinedia prospective.
concluded his eomments on this subject by stating that "He
(EPA) must focus our resources on the most Important
problems, and fin them so chat they stay fined."
<PCA and its members would like t
o feel that thi
<here the problems are occurring
and focusing or
rather than continuing to focus 1
ncreased regula
irea that EPA Ji
=d intensity, a
d by Google
Ledge of BODietimes daoAging effects of
, and the growing technological
pcioi decisions made based on the science available at that time. Ke
believe that the current FIPRA provideE EPA the essential authority
and the necessary methods to quickly identify new scientifically
poao the unacceptable risfcs.
ADH INI STRATI VE HCTIOK RECOMMENDED
Furthermore, we believe the exietinq PIFRA language also provides EPA
frequency of pesticide nisuse by both conmiercicil and private
(1) Revise the regulations for Part 4a(l) that provides
that all persons working under certified applicator
supervision be trained In the safe use of restricted
use pesticides and provided with the latest EPA and stats
revisions in registration and use directions for the
legally allowed to apply pesticides under supervision.
We believe this can be accomplished by mandating in the regulations
that the responsibility for training and supervision of the service
technician resides with his einployer. His employer should ensure that
Che state or EPA required training In safe use of Restricted Use
Pesticides Is provided by some credentialed source. The National Pest
Control Association has developed and presented to EPA proposals for
carrying out this recommendation for the structural pest control
industry. Me believe that it is also applicable to the other special
categories of pesticide applicators.
db,Google
The EPA action needed 1b nerely to dealgnate the re»ponBlblllty for
carrying out specific prescribed training for thoie people who are
working under supervialon in applying Restricted fee Peaticides.
(2) Reviae the regul
require the EPA state
enforcement personnel meet the certification require-
ments in the area where they are assigned pesticide
enforcement responsibility-
Such is not always the case today in many of the statea. The
authority for this action contained in Section 4a(2){B) states 'The
AdminlBtrator shall approve the plan submitted by any state or any
modification thereof if such plan, in his ]udg»ent, contains
satisfactory assurances that auch agency has or will have the legal
authority and qualified personnel necessary to carry out the plani*.
(3) The Committee authorize a funding level of at least
$5,000,000.00 per year for the certification and training
programs under FIPBA 23. These funds are needed to
provide additional financial and consultative guidance
to the states to strengthen the pesticide applicator
training and certification programs. Such funds provided
for training and certification reduce the need for
for a basic enforcement responsibility. Both activities are
essential, but more attention and resources need to
be invested in reducing the likelihood of pesticide
PIFRA AHESDHEST TO CLARIFY INTgHT OF STATE PRIMACt
If any legislative action by Congreaa is needed at this time, it »
be primarily to clarify what may not now be clear enough to implen
the original intent of the 1972 Act and the 1378 Amendments
d by Google
ithonty to regulate
creating unnecesaacy confusion and increasing the complexity of
If every suburban community adopts Its own differing rules for
pesticide use, you can imagine it will be near inpossible for the
3 Keep those rules straight. It is a
n for safe p«atici<Je application in tt
provide professional
where appropriate.
If this FIFPA amendment is deemed feasible this session it can be <i
in the definition of a state in Section 2<2l<aa). This clariflcati
will provide clear authority for state primacy in pesticide use rul
but will not restrict the state from sharing appropriate enforcemer
authority with localities. It will require the state approval of a
local pesticide regulatory action. Examples of such cooperative st
action exists in California and New Jersey. Agreements are reacheil
these states with localities to provide enforcement authority for
flexible uie. depending upon the needs of Che locality to prevent
drift or notify sensitive individuals of future peaticide applicati
In concluaion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to present our experience on use of pesticides under th
existing FIFRA. Me share the Committee's goals of ensuring the
continued effective and safe application of pesticides.
I will be pleased to respond to any questions you nay have on our
recommendation to aimply reauthoriie the existing FIPBA for anothei
to 3 years without changes, and our proposals for Increasing the
effective administration of that Act by EPA.
d by Google
OF
ROBERT H. RUSSELL
ORKIH PEST CONTROL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
I an Robect K. Russell of orkin Pest Contcol. Our
coapany is the world's largest in structural pest control. He
operate In 43 states in this country; we omploy 5,000 people;
we serve over a nillion customers. He offsr these cooaents foe
our conpany, for all other conscientious users of pesticides,
and on behalf of our enployees and customers.
We are glad that this Subconnlttee, this congressional
body, is exanlning the issue of safe pesticide use In the
context of FIFRA, Pesticides, when used according to the
label, protect the food, fiber, structure, health, and peace of
nind of our nation — and have done so with an outstanding
safety record. If the benefit-risk relationship under the
existing FIFRA is satisfactory, then I an sure all of us wish
to save the expense which would follow from unneeded federal
law changes and the ripple-effect upon the states, industry,
and the ultimate payee, our cltiiens.
He would like to indicate to this Subcomtttee the
high efficiency and safety of our structural pest control
Industry.
The latest national report from The council of Better
Business Bureaus, inc., published for 1983 shows the quality
and safety of our Industry. Of 409,156 complaints received
from all types of companies nationwide, only 1, 701 concerned
structural pest control companies. The fact that the pest
control Industry ranked only 4fith in the nunber of complaints,
with a percent of the total of 0.421, Is an outstanding
achievement. Furthermore, this figure represents a signiftcant
improvement fron the 0.53% level of total complaints in 1982.
And if you remember, 19S3 was the year when the
nationally prominent television program, *60 Hinutes,*
dramatized the risks of a termlticide whlls hardly
"'ere was additional
s hearing and the Long
in that year, EPA, with
ts of Seven Chenicale Used
ated on Pages
>wledging the benefits
publicity concerning the Hassai
Island Rouse bulldozing. Fortunate:
its ■Analysis of the Risks and Bern
for Subterranean Termite Control* i
VI - 1 and 2: 'At this time in assessing the risks
benefits associated with the total national use of
d by Google
termiticldes based on available data, and considering the lack
of data outlined above, the Agency flnda that the benefits froii
the use of the currently registered tainttlclde pioducts
outweigh the potential risks.* Accordingly! these pssttcidas
are still registered by EPA. Hoieovec, nost of the pesticides
we use are categorized as general-uae rather than
restricted-use pesticides.
There is also sone very encouraging data being
published relative to the safety of the pesticides used by the
structural pest control Industry:
1. A recent study by the California Department of Pood
and Agriculture, Worker Health and Safety Unit, showed
that only 3t of pesticide accidents were caused by the
structural peat control industry. This study covered
the year 19B2.
2. In another California study, the Poison Control Center
of Los Angeles, during the period January through
April, 1963, received 24,000 telephone inquiries. Of
the 1,182 pesticide related calls, 97% concerned
pesticides purchased by all consumers. Only 38, or
3t, related to pesticides applied by pest control
operators and none of these could be classified as
poison Inga.
These studies strongly indicate that accidents
resulting from trained applicator misuse are Infrequent and a
small percent of the total.
Ne next would like to comment on the general good
health In this country and the steady inprovement In life
expectancy. From the 'National Center for Health Statistics,
Life Expectancy Data for 1981, Section 6, Life Tables,' we
LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR ALL RACES, BOTH SEXES, ESTIMATE AVERAGES
e8.2 Vears of Age
69.7 Years of Age
70.8 Years of Age
74.2 Years of Age
d by Google
During this time, uae of pesticides was also
incrsaslng. Bassd on figures i^bllshed in 197S by the D.E
International Trade Commission, the amount of pesticides
applied during the period 1965 through 19TS increased
significantly:
1965 750,000,000 Pounds of Pesticide
1970 825,000,000 Pounds of Pesticide
1975 1,225,000,000 Pounds of Pesticide
Thus, though noie people were exposed to More
pesticides, it in no way seened to affect the health of out
nation, for life expectancy continued to increase.
To show the rslativs safety of pesticides as conpared
with other substances and practices in this country, we are
presenting a chart from an article published by Scientific
American In February, 19B2, 'The Biological Effects of
Low-Level Ionizing Radiation.*
SOBSTAHCES/PMCTICE -
Alcoholic Bevera
Motor Vehicles
Electric Power
ir eye lea
Swin
ling
Surgery
X-Rays
General Avlatlc
Large construct
Bicycles
Hunting
Home Appliances
Ptre Fighting
Police Work
Contraceptives
Commercial Aviation
Nuclear Power
Mountain Clinblng
Power Mowers
Scholastic Pootball
0 NUMBER DEATHS PER tEAR
150,000
100,000
50,000
17,000
14,000
3,000
3,000
2,800
2,300
1,950
1,300
1,000
1,000
800
195
d by Google
Vaccinations ID
Food coloring Leas than 10
Pood Piesecvatlves Lesa than 10
PESTICIDES Less than 10
Prescription
AnClblotlcs Less than 10
Spiay Cans Less than 10
Please note, fioti this study, that pesticides are
ranked only 28th out of 30 factors and deaths per year do not
constitute any significant threat to life or health as compared
to many other substances or practices.
So before this Subcommittee decides to recoMMnd any
changes In the laws and pio'gxams -affecting the application of
pesticides, It should be sure that there la significant
evidence of the need for change — not Just a clamor or a
demand that change for the sake of change be Initiated. If
there is evidence of need for changes, we will be your
strongest supporter. If there Is no evidence, let us continue
our good record and steady Improvement under the laws as they
In this respect, we would like to quote one President,
Woodrow Wilson, who said In 1912, "The history of liberty Is a
history of llnltatlons of government power, not the Increase of
It,* so please, no more law unless necessary.
I also wish to address the Issue of the application of
restricted use pesticides by or under the direct supervision of
a certified applicator. This is now required by federal law
and rightly so tor those supervisors of a work unit such as a
structural pest control branch office. The existing law
acknowledges the structure of our Industry by defining 'under
the direct supervision* of a certified applicator to Mean that
the certified applicator must be available but not physically
present (Sec, 2(e)(4) of FIFRA)
There are some who now advocate testing or
certification [or service technicians at the supervisory level
of the certified applicator. This suggestion Is (1)
unnecesEsry in light of the safety record of the pest control
Industry and {21 completely Incompatible with the structure of
that industry.
First, service technician and certified applicator
represent two separate and distinct positions. To show the
difference in required knowledge and skill at these two levels.
d by Google
our company position deacclptlons for the two pasitlons «ie
attachsd. We believe all or nost other pest contcol conpanles
would show an equivalent difference in duties and
responsibilities.
TO require each position to be tested equally would
result in one of only two probabilities. Either the standards
foe the certified applicator would be reduced — and this is
counterproductive — or these standards would renain above the
normal ability of the technician. This, too, would be
counterproductive. The latter situation would result in
manpower shortages, increased costs to customers, and no
effective increase In safety.
so, to request certification for all pesticide usees
regardless of job description is no solution at all. The
Utopian theory about technician certification does not reflect
the reality of the different levels of required skill and
knowledge. Further, It is of particular concern to us that
consideration is being given to eliminating the supervision of
restricted-use pesticide application by certified applicators.
If this be done, supervision will be lessened rather than
strengthened.
This major change strikes at the foundation of our
structural pest control industry. Ne are a relatively snail
Industry In size, applying approximately 5% of the pesticides
used in this country. Our industry is built, as are siost all
service industries, upon a competent and trained individual
working on his own. This technician needs certain knowledge
and physical skills. If this technician becomes certif ed,
this person will gain a title to his work posltKin through the
state certification process. To replace such an individual for
cause, we would have to have available a replacement with
certification credentials or our customers would suffer. Thus,
our ability to supervise is lessened by the necessity of
meeting an external requirement. Actual Job perfocaance would
be reduced accordingly.
Second, we earlier documented that the majority of
pesticide accidents result fron consumer use. What advantage
is there to certifying technicians while about 97% of the
problems originate with consumers? Are we looking in the right
direction? With public access to the same pesticides we use,
why focus on technician certification?
The FIFRA Coalition, a responsible body representing
millions of concerned people, has made constructive comaents in
this area and as a participating member of the National Pest
d by Google
control Association, we support Its position. The PIPRA
Coalition has proposed to cesolve this Batter by focusing on
the training provided to service technicians.
m this respect, we would note that the regulations
issued under section 4 of FIFRA {40 C.P.R. ITl.Sla)) oCfer
broad possibilities for training. He definitely support
initial and continuous training of technicians as a superior
alternative to testing.
As this Subcommittee is aware, our industry is
becoming increasingly concerned about the difficulties which
would be created by permitcing local governments to establish
multiple and varying levels of regulation of pesticide use
within their jurisdiction. In 197B, after considerable work by
this Subcommittee, the Congress developed an effective
clarification of the relative enforcement powers of the States
and the Federal Goveinnent under FIFRA. How this Gystem is
threatened by many new entrants into the regulation business.
We would hope that this Subcommittee would courageously address
this issue and bring forth a logical solution. Here again we
support our own National Pest Control Association and Che other
responsible nenbers of the PIFRA Coalition.
In conclusion, 1 would repeat that If proof of need
for change in the scope of certification Is presented, our
company and our industry would support a review of this issue.
However, i£ there is only a request and no supporting factual
data, we would question the wisdom of taking any action, nie
expense alone of unnecessarily broadening a successful system
would create an extrene burden upon the states, the Industry,
and eventually, our customers. Training, not universal
certification, offers the best avenue for continued
improvement. He are equipped to supervise training through out
industry, our association, and our state officials. The use of
training Is already authorized in the existing regulations.
Let us nove accordingly within the safety and efficiency of our
free enterprise system. Another President, Herbert Hoover,
expressed this most eloquently when in 1932 he said 'We have
... a systen of individual sm peculiarly our own which Must
not be forgotten in any governniental acts, for from it has
grown greater accomplishments than those of any nation.*
He have no proof from state or federal officials that
present certification procedures are not working. If minor
adjustments are needed, we will work with EPA and the states to
see that It is done. By law, establish only those requlrekents
that are absolutely necessary for safety. And let us go
forward with our successful system, using the established
progress and good record of our industry as a base.
I thank you for this opportunity to present this
testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions which
you might have.
db,Google
BRAHCH HMIA6EB
POSITION DESCKIPTIOH
BASIC FUMCTIW:
This posUlon It responsible for the Integrity, ongoing profiUbtllty.
safety *nd aorale of branch opcrttions through the selection, training.
and supervision of branch personnel.
PRIWCIPAI. ACCOUHTABIMTICS:
A. Produce revenue and profit.
B. Understand, iiknfnUtcr and enforce all Coapany policy.
C. iBprove the Company's iaage.
D. Upgrade quality of personnel.
E. Develop all Conpany eaployeei through training.
G. See that quality terviee It delivered.
H. Collect all funds due the Company.
I. Responsible for the security of a11 Company property.
J. Hatntain buildings, grounds, vehicles, and equipment.
TERHITE TECHNICIAti
POSITION OESCRIPTION
BASIC ruHCTlOrj;
PMllCIPAl ACCQUHTABILITIES:
d preventing the return of
Establish and maintain good custoMer relations.
Hatntain all equlpaent In good operating condition.
Respond to and resolve customer complaints at they occur.
Maintain a neat and professional appearnce and Banner at al
Operate a aotor vehicle In a safe and efficient Banner.
Complete and turn in required documentation and paperwork.
d by Google
ISSA la a trade asiociation comprised of nearly 3, DOO companies In the cleaning
and maintenance Industry. ISSA members manufacture and distribute a wide
variety of products and chemicals used for cleaning and maintenance. Some of
these cleaning chemicals are regulated as "pesticides* urtder FIFRA. My
testimony will not deal with the many complex issues presented by tha
reaulhoriiation of FIFRA. It will instead describe one enormous problem faced by
the cleaning and maintenance industry. This problem is a result of the
mn-specific definition of the term "pesticide* In FIFRA.
Many cleaning products are regulated by EPA as "pesticides", although they
vrould not teem to be likely candidates for this classification. These are
pesticides such >s Lysol, Comet. sanlti2ing dishwashing rinses, air-fresheners,
and even toilet bovit disinfectants. These products are classified as pesticides
because they destroy or mitigate bacteria, germs, and other similar pests. These
types of, pesticides can be referred to generally as "antimicrobials".
The problem is not that these antimicrobials are regulated as pesticides. The
problem Is that many people are not aware that this Is the case. The cleaning
and maintenance industry has dealt with many problems which arose because
rtelther the regulators nor the regulated public were aware that these cleaning
products fall under the definition of 'pesticide". The reason for this confusion Is
dear — antimlcrolsiats do not fall within the commonly understood definition of
'pesticide* and nowhere In FIFRA Is there any mention of this category of
pesticide.
FIFRA simply defines a pesticide as any substance which destroys or mitigates a
pest, and further defines a pest as any insect, rodent, fungus, weed, virus,
bacteria or other micro-organism. In many cases, people reading this definition
db,Google
assume that it refars to agriculturaJ pesticides arid indoor-use insecticides
rodenticides, and do not have the slightest Idea that products used ir
cleaning and maintenance industry are covered.
Let me give you two brief examples of the sort of problems that a
the cleaning and maintenance industry as a result of this confusion. In 1982.
Illinois enacted a law which required certification For the use of any pestlcid* in
the state. Even the sponMr of thll legislation did not reaiiia or intend to
require certification for the use of antimicrobials. Nevertheless, the cleaning and
maintenance industry was forced to go through the time- consuming and costly
process of obtaining an amendment to this law. Thii unfortunate situation has
occurred many times, not only at the state level, but at the local level as well.
The laclc of specificity in the definition of pesticide has also caused problems of
compliance for those people who are regulated. Many members of ISSA are small
famlly-awned businesses who distribute a wide variety of cleaning and
maintenance products. Most companies distribute mops, bucltets, soap dispensers
and many other Items, In addition to a few lines of disinfectants and other
These small companies will hire a general corporate attorney to talce care of their
business' legal matters and provide counsel for compliance with any relevant
product label and product safety Issue*. Many of these attorneys do not have
previous knowledge of FIFRA. Even after reviewing this law, they do not have a
clue that their client's products such as Lysol need to be registered in the state
of sale as pesticides. This vague definition In FIFRA has led to enforcement
actions against companies which were not put on adequate notice of the subject
matter of FIFRA.
d by Google
There are those who say that people should know that FIFRA covers
antimicrobials. But tha fact of the matter is. people do not. Legislators,
regulators, and the regulated public are not sufficiently apprised of the subject
matter of this statute. This is particularly inappropriate in a law such as FIFRA,
which envisions a scheme of state regulation and enforconent.
In conclusion. It is one thing to argue over the merits of substantive regulation
of pesticides; it Is another to Include an entire industry under a (tatuatory
definition which does not provide sufficient notice that this industry is covered.
We are asking you today to make the simple clarification in FIFRA which would
put an end to this waste and confusion. This probiem could be corrected by
specifically stating In FIFRA that antimicrobials are pesticides. This would not
change the substantive regulation of antimicrobials in any way. I have enclosed a
definition in the appendix to this testimony and wilt sutmit It for the record.
Thank you for listening to o
57-StS O— 8» T
d by Google
PROPOSED DEFINITION OF >ANTIMICROBIAU
Section Z(u] of FIFRA Is anvKled by *trlking out "and" ttmnocllattfy before
clause [1] «nd adding th« word "and" at the end of clause (2), and by
adding a naw dauaa (3]:
Section 2 of FIFRA Is alM amended by adding a definition of
"antimicrobial* (and by re- lettering the definitions which foitow In
sequential order).
(e) The term 'antimicrobial' means:
(S) ConiRiodity preservatives and protectants Intended to Inhibit
the growth of, or destroy bacteria In or on raw materials [such
as adheslves and plastics) used in manufacturing, or
manufactured products (luch as fud, textiles, lubricants, and
d by Google
STATEHEMT OF ROSEBT W. MILLER, Ph.D.
MEHBER OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
PROFESSIOHAL LAWN CARE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE
t^ n«M Is Robert H. Miller. I am s member of the Board of Directors
of the Professional Lawn Care Association of Anerica located at IZZS Johnson
Ferry Road N.E., Marietta, Georgia. I a* also Vice President 1n charge
of Technical Services for ChenLaMn Services Corporation, a professional
lam service company headquartered In Coliinbus, Ohio. Prior to my
association with ChemLawn, I was a Professor of Agronomy with The Ohio
State University College of Agriculture.
The Professional Lawn Care Association of America, or "PLCAA," Is
a trade association with a membership of 6S0 professional lawn service
companies engaged In the care of urban and suburban landscapes. Many
member companies apply pesticide products to lawns, ornamentals and
trees for the control of pests and disease. As pesticide applicators,
our moMbers are subject to EPA Jurisdiction pursuant to the requirements
of the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act (FIFRA) as
amended .
I am here today to speak about the concerns of PLCAA regarding the
rapidly Increasing threat Of regulation of pesticides by local governments.
Such regulation Is having a harmful and discriminatory Impact on the
abtll^ of our members to continue to provide a safe, covenlent and cost
competitive alternative to the do-it-yourself use of outdoor pesticide
products .
d by Google
190
The Profassfonal Lawn Service Industry
The professional lawn service Industry has experienced significant
growth during the past 15 years as nore homeowners and businesses opt
for the convenience and reliability of professional lawn, tree and shrub
care services for urban and suburban landscapes. PLCAA Menbers operate
In the 50 states and the District Of Colwbla. As a whole, the professional
lawn service Industry provides service to nore than 7 million hoaeowners
and businesses and employs nore than 160,000 people. Much of the industry
Is coaprlsed of small privately-owned businesses.
While some lawn care companies Offer only giechanlcal maintenance
services (such as mowing and pruning), mahy provide chemically-based
service to private residences and commercial establishments. Liquid or
dry materials are applied to provide fertilization. Pesticide products
to control weeds, destructive Insects and diseases are added at appropriate
times during the season. The service typically consists of four to five
applications per year, dependent upon geographic location and agronomic
conditions.
Professional lawn care companies are service companies— they do not
manufacture or formulate the fertilizers and pesticides they use. They
purchase materials from various manufacturers based on efficacy, cost,
and safety to employees and customers. Most pesticides applied by
professional lawn service companies tre classified for "general use"
under FIFRA. These products contain the sane active Ingredients and
require the some rates of application as the lawn care products purchased
by do-it-yourself users at numerous retail outlets.
d by Google
191
The Envl rononenUI Protection Agency regulates the sale and use of
pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act
(FIFRA). FIFRA authorizes states to also regulate the 'sale and use* of
pesticides.
Federal and State Regulation of Pesticides
Few coMpounds used In modem life are more extensively regulated by
federal and state goverments than pesticides. A11 pesticides must be
registered with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before
they can be sold or used. In addition, each state has Its own registra-
tion program. Registration and dereglstratlon decisions are based on
EPA's review of an extensive toxicology data base for the pesticide's
potential for acute, subchronic, chronic and mutagenic toxicity- Moreover,
the storage, mixing, use, and disposal of pesticides by commercial
users, such as professional lawn service companies, are regulated
extensively under federal law.
Regulation of pesticides at the state level Is equally extensive.
In most states, professional lawn service applicators are authorized to
apply pesticides only If licensed by the appropriate state regulatory
agency. They also must post a performance bond before comaenclng
applications. Licenses art granted after competency In the handling of
pesticides has been demonstrated through a licensing examination.
State agencies also are given the authority to adopt comprehensive state
regulations governing the handling, storage, transportation, application,
and notice or posting of an application of pesticides.
d by Google
192
Local Regulation of Pestfcldes
Notwithstanding the extensive regulation or pestlcldei by EPA and
state goverraMnts, during the past ten years 60 local governaents In
17 states have considered regulating pesticides. While sane local
pesticide ordinances were adopted during the 1970's, most of the
regulatory Initiatives have taken place recently. Attachoent *A* presents
a list of those local govemnents where pesticide regulatory efforts
have arisen.
Generally, local regulatory Initiatives have taken one of three
fonis: (U an outright ban on the use of a particular pesticide or class
of pesticides; (2) a ban on the aerial application of a particular
pesticide; or (3) a requ1re*ent to notify neighbors or custoaers of the
Indoor or outdoor application of pesticides.
Local legislative Initiatives In the first two categories often an
proipted by state- sponsored spray programs to coMbat highly-destructive
gypsy noths, by spray prograns for nosqulto control In urban areas, and
by Isolated drift Incidents resulting fron the aerial application of
pesticides to agricultural crops.
The third category of local regulation would require comwrclal
applicators of pesticides to notify certain residents of an application
either prior to or after the application. This for* of regulation has
been pronoted vigorously by those Individuals who believe themselves to
be sensitive to synthetic chanlcal substances. Including pesticides.
Proponents contend that pesticides, when used In accordance with their
labeled directions, present unacceptable health risks to them and their
comnunlty and that federal and state authorities have done an Inadequate
d by Google
193
Job of regulating pesticides. Ironically, ordinances promoted by these
Individuals typically do not apply to the larger do-it-yourself Mrket
segnent, that segaent of the user coMunlty. where- -because of the lack
of training In the use of pesticides- -the possibility of alshap Is
greatest.
Local Case Histories
The DMnlclpalltles of Lyndhurst, Ohio and Wauconda, Illinois have
received extensive publicity over their local regulation of pesticides.
The Manner In which these local governnents went about the legislative
process Is representative of how pesticide regulation is addressed at
the local level.
During 1984, the city of Lyndhurst proposed an ordinance to require
the prenotlfl cation of pesticide applications by professional applicators.
The Lyndhurst ordinance would have made It a criMlnal act for a commercial
applicator (but not a do-it-yourself user) to apply pesticides to outdoor
property without first providing 24-hour advance notification to residents
within a 5-house radius of the customer.
Health related testimony offered by proponents of the ordinance was
entirely anecdotol . At the sajae time, council members rebuffed comwrclal
applicators' attempts to present Independent, expert testimony on the
safety of the materials being applied. One council nember (who supported
the ordinance) Justified her refusal to hear additional testimony by
admitting that the Issue of pesticide safe^ was too complex for comprehension
by council n
d by Google
194
Council penltted only Lyndhurst residents to speak on the ordinance
during the public connent period at the council nestings, preventing
non-resident lawn care coMpanles fro* presenting testlniany at that tfae.
Although the Mayor vetoed the ordinance {because he felt It was Illegal
and the city lacked the resources to enforce 1t1, an attenpted override
of the veto fell short by only one vote.
Slnllar treatment of the Issue occurred In Uauconda. Illinois
during the fall of 1983. There, the Board of Trustees enacted prohibitions
against the coenerclal application of pesticides unless Mrning signs
were posted for 3 days. The 15'x24' signs must appear every 75 feet of
border on the treated property.
Those professional lawn care applicators regulated by the ordinance
were not given an opportunlV to present testlmny to the Board prior to
a vote on the ordinance. Following adoption, lawn care conpanles net
with the Board president and attenpted to ask for reconsideration.
However, discussions ended abruptly when, without cause, the Board
president refused to continue the meeting.
The Inadequacies of Local Begulation of Pesticides
The extensive regulation of pesticides at the federal and state
level has not deterred local governments fron engaging In pesticide
re<]ulat1on. The federal and state regulatory programs are designed to
balance the risks and benefits of pesticides. Local regulatory progrins
Ignore this balance and Impose additional costs and governnental
restrictions on those consuners Htio chose to use professional rather
than do-it-yourself lawn care. As discussed below, the local regulation
of pesticides Is unnecessarily disruptive and. In the long run,
counterproductive to existing federal and state programs designed to
provide for the safe use of pesticides.
d by Google
196
I. Ltclc of uniformity
Host professional latm servica conpanles oparata In mre than
one Municipality, particularly In Major Metropolitan areas.
If nuMBrous local govenments Mere to adopt differing pesticide
ordinances, lawn service coMpanles subject to these ordinances
MOuld face a difficult and tine consuiring task. A wltlpllcl^
of local ordinances clearly mIII Increase the cost to consumers
of professional lawn care services. For example, should
COMnunltles In one service area each ban a different pesticide,
lawn service conpanles (and, In turn, customers) would bear
the Increased costs associated with additional Inventory
maintenance needed to provide satisfactory customer service-
Extensive local pre or post notification requirements will
engender increased expenses for labor, telephone access and
sign printing, posting and removal. Mith 65,000 political
subdivisions below the state govemoent level in the United
States. It Is not unforeseeable that lawn service coMpanles
win become overwhelmed by varying local laws. Professional
lawn service companies will be deterred from doing business by
the complexly of maintaining compliance with numerous and
varied local requirements. Because of the Increased costs of
compliance with multiple local laws, the benefits and
convenience derived from the professional care of lawns and
landscapes may no longer remain within the reach of medluM
income families.
d by Google
Finally, local governnents rarely consider the external Inpact
on nelghCwrIng ciMnunUles Mhen regulating pesticides. Pests
do not respect local Jurisdictional boundaries. Comunltles
that ban a particular pesticide any foster or prolong the
existence of a particular pest In a netropolltan area by
providing a safe harbor frcn effective control. Such safe
harbors can serve as breeding grounds for Insects, diseases
and other pests that will attack people, structures and plant
life well beyond a local ccMMunlV's borders.
2. Absence of Scientific Expertise
A thorough knowledge of chemistry and toxicology are fundamental
to assess the relative risk to humans or the environment from
a particular ^pe or use of pesticides. A knowlege of weed
science and entonology allows for an assessment of the benefits
of a pesticide and the feasibility, safety and availability of
alternative controls. Expertise 1n these areas exists at the
federal and state levels but rarely at the local level.
Recause local conmunltles lack such expertise, they maiy give
undeserved weight to essentially anecdotal accounts of alleged
Injury attributed to pesticides, while such accounts often
succeed In elevating public anxiety over pesticides, they
rarely withstand critical scientific scrutiny.
d by Google
197
A lack of expertise also fosters slnpKstlc solutions to
ccaiplex probleas. For enample. some local legislatures have
enacted total bans on the use of all pesticides when a single
pesticide Is alleged to have caused a problen. This broad-
brush approach to regulation Ignores the extensive scientific
evidence about the risks and benefits of various pesticides
generated as part of the federal and state regulatory prpcess.
To be evaluated properly, this evidence demnds a level of
scientific knowledge that usually does not exist at the local
level. This presents the real danger that local legislators
Mill regulate pesticides out of a fear of the unknown, or as a
result of pressure from a few vocal proponents, rather than fro* a
reasoned evaluation of scientific data.
3. Lack of Enforcement and Loss of Public Confidence
Federal and state govemaents have established a comprehensive
system to regulate pesticides, the prlrury function of which
Is the protection of the public health and the environment.
Local officials who promote local pesticides regulation
frequently Justify their efforts by criticizing federal and
state regulatory efforts. Ironically, local govenwents that
nay choose to regulate pesticides rarely possess the resources
and technical expertise to provide even nlnlMl enforcement
of local pesticides laws. Consequently most such ordinances
go unenforced. This absence of an enforcement presence undermines
d by Google
198
public confidence In our governwnt Institutions and encourages
noncoMpHance with regulations. A lack of enforcement also
provides a coMpetltWe disadvantage to those conpanles tAo
voluntarily coiaply and thereby Incur Increased costs.
4. Incentives To Do-lt-Tourself
By regulating only co«Merc1a1 applicators, local pesticide
legislation fosters a belief by the public that the Materials .
applied by professional service companies are More 'toxic'
than those found In pesticide products sold over-the-counter
at retail stores. This nlsperceptlon by the public (and the
Increased cost of professional lawn care service) encourages
consuMers to discontinue professional service as lest safe
than do-it-yourself care. This, In turn, increases the risk
to the public and the environment froM the Misapplication or
Mishandling of pesticide products by untrained Individuals.
Unlike professional applicators, do-it-yourself users May fall
to read label directions and will overapply pesticide products
from a belief that 'Nore is better.* This overappll cation May
ham plants. Increase applicator exposure, and lead to run-off
of excess pesticides. In addition, do-it-yourself users may
store concentrates carelessly In the home or dispose of
pesticides In sanitary or storm drains or In household trash.
Professional lawi service coMpsnles, on the other hand, use
correct application rates, handle and store concentrates only
at their facilities, and save excess quantities for later use.
d by Google
Despite these sound reasons for encouraging the professional
application of pesticides rather than do-it-yourself use.
local governnents tend to do the reverse. They regulate the
professional applicator and, by doing so, provide a significant
Incentive towards the do-it-yourself use of pesticides.
5. A Burden on Cowierce
Local pesticide ordinances clearly inpose restraints on the
free f10M of connerce. Professional lawn service companies
that fall to comply with a local ordinance may be prohibited
from doing business In that ccmnunity, even though they have
■et all federal and state regulatory requirements.
In some instances, professional applicators simply will be
unable to comply with the regulatory demands proposed by
proponents of local ordinances. For example, one proposal
would require an applicator to notify all residents within a
300 foot radius Qf a custcmer, 72 hours prior to application.
For a single customer In a suburban area, this law would
require notification of about 14 homes per customer prior to
application. Accomplishing such notification with any certainty
of success would be impossible. Moreover, the outdoor application
of pesticides Is weather dependent. Because of this weather
dependency, professional applicators cannot predict with any
certainty the time of application 72 hours In advance. .
xxxxxxxxxxxx
d by Google
200
The Meed For A Strong F«derg1 Prwence gnd Clear Statutory Lan9uage
PLCAA neinberf have experienced first hand the tendency of local
governaents to politicize the regulation of pesticides. The refusal of
local governMnts to regulate the do-it-yourself use of lawn care
pesticides along with cOMiercial applicators deennstrates most clearly
that the local regulation of pesticides is Motivated pr1«ari1y by
political expediency rather than by an honest concern for public safe^.
State goverments. nerely by their proxiial^ to Iocs! Jurisdictions,
also are subject to and mindful of these sane political forces that seek
to capitalize upon the public's anxiety over pesticides.
Mo one at any level of govemNnt has argued that the regulation of
pesticides is a simple matter. Because of the complexity of this Issue,
decisions to regulate pesticides must be made in an atmosphere conducive
to scientific scutiny and reasoned deliberation. Such an atmosphere has
yet to arise at the local \tve\, primarily for the reasons discussed
earlier.
It Is our belief that if left to local political forces, inconsistent
and ineffective regulation of professional lawn care will proliferate.
There Is an innediate need for a strong and visible federal presence In
the pesticide regulatory arena. Ue at PLCAA favor reasoned regulation
and enforcement by the federal EPA and coordinate state regulatory
agencies. PLCAA therefore requests that this subcomnittee consider
Mending present Section 24(a) of FIFRA to expressly confine the
regulation of pesticides to the federal and state governments. Be
assured that PLCAA piembers will actively support regulatory efforts at
the federal or state level that promote applicator competency, increase
customer and employee safety, and provide consistent and equal treatment
for a11 segments of the lawn care Industry.
Thank you for your attention.
1 follows:)
d by Google
ATTACHMENT A
LIST OF LOCAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIOMS
California
Hendocino County (1979)
Connactlcut
Town of Manchester (1983)
Ordfnance prohibits the application of chenlcals to trees,
ihrubs Ot property unless beekeepers within a 2 Mile radius of
application site are notified 48 hours In advance.
Florida
Surfslde (1983)
Ordinance prohibits application of pesticides to outdoor
property without prior notice to occupants of abutting properties
at least 12 hours prior to application. 'Danger* sign Mist be
posted for 3 days following application.
Idaho
Boise ( 1983)
Proposal considered to require notification of adjoining
property owners by registered mall and receipt of permission fron
those notified prior to pesticide application.
Illinois
Evans ton (1984-85)
Park Forest (1985)
Considering ordinance to require prenotlflcatlon of
application and sign posting following the application of
pesticides.
d by Google
Palo Heights (1985)
Wauconda (1984)
Ordinance prohibits coMnerclal pesticide application unless
property Is postad with warning signs every 15 feet of border for
72 hours after application.
Hinnetka (1985)
Lebanon (1983)
Ordinance bans all conwrclal spraying of herbicides for nor
agricultural reasons within town boundaries, unless approved by
town meeting vote. Ordinance arose after traces of 2. 4, S-T we?
found near power lines right-of-way.
Manchester (1984)
Ordinance prohibits application of any 'pesticide, hertlcfde
of fungicide [sic]' within town limits without receiving permission
of Mayor and Counci 1 . Areas to be sprayed sha1 1 be posted ten days
In advance with warning signs 100 feet apart.
Montgomery County (1985)
County Executive has proposed ordinance to require posting of
warning sign after commercial application of pesticides to outdoor
property. Posting reaulretnent would result In 270,000 sign per
year In county. Ordinance would also require retail establishments
to make signs available to customers purchasing pesticides over the
counter.
Massachusetts (1983)
d by Google
Brewster (1984)
Board of Health passed rules prohibiting tl>e use of IZ pesticides
(aldlcarb, OBCP, aUchor, atrazlne, bromacl, carbofuran, dachal, 1,
2-d1ch1oropropane, dinoseb, EDB, slnazlne and dlcanta) within the town.
Burlington (1983)
East Middlesex (1982)
Town Council adopted ordinance prohibiting the application of
pesticides that may ccme Into contact with person or the property of
another unless written permission has been obtained fron such other
person. Ordinance also regulated nicrowave transmissions.
Springfield (1982)
Leverett (1981)
Adopted by-law prohibiting application of pesticides to land area
greater than one acre unless permission has been obtained froM the
Board of Health. Board Is empowered to hold public bearing within
21 days of receipt of notice to consider whether to approve proposed
activity.
Town adODted by-law prohibiting application of pesticides to land
areas where pesticides may cone Into contact with person or property
of another, unless written permission Is obtained froi the other party
In advance.
Hendel 1 (1982)
Town adopted by-law prohibiting the use of pesticides without'
approval of the Board of Health. Prospective user must notify Board
90 days In advance. Board must hold hearing within 30 days of receipt
of notice.
d by Google
PUquwilnw Parish (1982)
Parish passed Ordinance prohibiting the application of ester
conpounds of phenoxy herblcldas and 16 other herbicides within the
boundaries of Plaquemines Parish.
Olivette ( 198«)
City Council considered proposal to require the posting of
warning signs for 72 hours following the comerciil application of
pesticides to lawns, trees and shrubs.
Hew Hampshire
Salisbury (1976)
Ordinance adopted prohibiting the use of cheaical defoliants
unless vegetation destroyed is replaced by desirable and useful
vegetation.
w Jersey
Bloowingdale (1981)
Denvnie (1984-8S)
Ordinance proposed to prohibit the area-wlde application of
pesticides unless newspaper notice is given 60 days In advance of
application, and those residents who so request and who live within
the target site ore notified at least 12 hours in advance of appli-
cation.
Application to ornamentals is prohibited unless the customer
notifies by written notice property owners within 200 feet at least
M hours In advance of application and adjacent property owners at
least IZ hours In advance of application.
d by Google
East mndsor (1984)
Ordinance adopted prohibiting aerial spraying of pestlcldas
unless newspaper notice is provided within 10 days of application,
and occupants within SOO feet of the target site are notified in
Mrlttan not less than 3 days before application.
The groun d spray 1 ng of pesticides Is prohibited unless all
occupants *(1th1n ZOO feet of the target site are notified In writlni
at least 3 days In a<lvance.
Evershaw Township (1984)
Adopted ordinance prohibiting non-agri cultural aerial applications
of pesticides and requiring prenotfflcatlon of aerial agricultural
applications of pesticides.
Ordinance adopted by Board of Health prohibiting the application
of 'pesticides, herbicides or defoliants" without a penalt from the
Board of Health.
Washington Township (1981)
Ordinance adopted prohibiting the application of pesticides by
■cans of ground spraying without a pennit from the Health Officer
and without notifying adjacent property owners and occupants at
least 48 hours in advance.
Huntington (1971)
Adopted ordinance establishing authority of Town Pesticide
Control Board to register pesticides and prohibiting the use of
unregistered pesticides within town limits.
Old Hestbury (1985)
Ordinance being considered to require 7! hour prior notification
to all residents llvlni) within 300 feetof the border of a property
where pesticides are being applied.
d by Google
Boslyn Harbor ( 1983)
Lakewood (19B5)
Considering ordinance to requiring the advance notification of
pesticide application by connerclal applicators.
Lyndhurst (1984)
Counci) passed but Mayor vetoed ordinance to require coMterclal
applicators to notify residents wtio registered at City Hall of all
pesticides applications performed within S houses of registrant's.
Orange Village (1984)
• all conoercial applicators of
_Sh_afcer Heights (1984-851
Envi rormental Board considering proposals for notification of
residents of outdoor pesticide applications performed by coiaercial
applicators.
Coluiftiana (1984)
Council CDmlttee presently considering regulation of the
ccMwrcial application of pesticides to trees. Applicators required
to give advance notification to all properties located within ISO
feet of the property bei ng treated .
Wisconsin
Saint Claire (1981)
Adopted ordinance requiring the posting of public property
sprayed trith pesticides. Posting shall consist of warning signs
every 100 yards to rcMaln'ln place for threa Months. Ordinance
also prohibits the use of phenoxy herbicides on public lands or
forests .
d by Google
City attorney has been asked to draft an ordinance to require
that citizens be given warnings of pesticide application to lawns
Township of Clover
Prohibit the use of herbicides on all easements, i.e.. roads,
pOMcr lines, pipelines, and for conifer release or Improveinent of
Mlldlife habitat, (use by farmers for other agricultural purposes
okay.)
Totmship of Union
Total prohibition of certain herbicides.
Douglas County
1 local papers of use of
Dalryland Township
Prohibition of herbicides except farm use may apply for exemptions.
Township of Kowensky
Township of Bradley
Requires pub1
lands, roadways, p
Township of King
Ho use of herbicides by Township.
Township of Tomahawk
Prohihited defoliants near utility lines.
d by Google
Cqwtock Lake Property Owner Association
Resolutfon to forbid aerial application In watershed.
Steven Point
No use of 2,4.-D In city parts, sc^oo1 grounds, playgrounds,
etc.
Township of Kennan
Prohibition of
Including rlghts-of-
Townshlp of Bass Lake
Township of Casey
A new ordinance drafted by Wisconsin's Public Intervenor's
office was adopted 7/19/84. It requires a pemit before applying
herbicides on lands subject to public use or any aerial application
of pesticides. Town may Impose 'reasonable requi renents* such as
prior notice, ground rather than aerial application, etc. Penalttlng
process could take as long as ISO days. Placarding required.
Township of Frog Creek
Adopted S/i4/84. Requires a hearing prior to use of "aerial
sprayed herbicide" for proof and evidence of non-toxic effect.
Residents may petition for election to vote on allowing serial
spray.
Township of Long Lake
llr
Township of Badge
No Chemical spraying on public property. Private property
owners must give pennlsslon prior to application by electric company,
etc.
d by Google
8tataaB± cf
In support cf H.It. 1910
legislation to ensure' that pesticides and herbicides
used in agricultural production are safe
before the Subccmnittee on De^rtmatt Operationsr
Besearchr and Foreign Agriculture
1^ 20 , 1985
He. Oiairman, X appreciate this c^portunity to ccnment on B.S.
1910 r legislation I introduced to prdiibit the sale of pesticides and
herbicides for agricultural production unless tests prove that such
SldasCances are not likely to endanger honans.
I on concerned that the use cf dangerous pesticides and
berbicides may pose serious health threats to consumers as well as to
agricultural workers. Once these pesticides and herbicides enter the
food diain, the long-tenn effects of these substances are largely
unknown, tie are also uisure to wbat extent these chanicals are
contaminating our ground water. Because of tbese concerns, I think
that pesticides and berbicides should not be used unless sgpcapriMa
tests indicate that they are unlikely to cause harm in bianan beings.
Tbe ethylene dibronide CEIB) crisis deoonstrated just bow little
we knew about the long-tenn effects of pesticide use for food pro-
duction. As you are probably all aware, a crisis arose in 19S3 vbai
traces of tbe pesticide OX were found in citrus fruit and grain
products. EIS was originally approved because it was assumed that the
dtenical was not dangerous, but ty the mid ISTO's it was clear that
SB caused cancer. By 1980 licproved detection technologies indicated
that HX residues mi^t be present on grain and fruit, and that ECS
was probably leaching into ground water-
In 19T7, tbe Qni£onaec£al Protection Agency (EPA) began on
extensive revi«v of the use of the chanical, but the aqaicy did not
suspend use of the pesticide during these studies. As soon as EBA
learned of tbe cancer risks associated with OS and that QB residues
were present in food and ground water, the pesticide should bave been
iomediately pulled off tbe narket. But EEA refused to ban tbe
pesticide. ^ 1983, the HB problon caught tbe attention ^ the
media, in December 1983, frustrated ty EIA Inaction on this matter,
several states began ordering food products off grocery shelves
because of SB contamination. Cbviously sn procedures were totally
inadequate to handle tbe crisis.
d by Google
210
- - Seiberling tege 2
^» WH crisis dsBnnstrated tte secixxts i
AngeroDS ppatitririea aod berbicridea nay pose seriois bealtb tbieats to
mirarn as weU as to agricultural iMOrters.
Fttr es^Oe, pcess zegorts state that tbe mst widel? used
ngr^f-nt t-m-ai herbicidg in ^r >rt-^p of QtiOf alaciiloc, taas beoi fn«»w^
to case fTmppf in cats. It is estiaated tbat 30 percent tf Cbio's
7.7 ■iiiii— 1 aczes of croplands are treated with alaciilor. QC ^»«tt—
ooncem is tbe fact tiiat traces of tbe (jyain^l taaTe been fomd in
four Cliio overs which serye as tbe, dclnklog water siqiply foe maof
Olio cities, tte berbicide can be taajwed fi^ water -■yr'''°° (»l7 t?
p«»r-anBg of fjte possible dantjecs associated wit^ t^i« becbicide,
Q& bas ordered fataers to wear i^xKrial pcotec^ve boots, goggles and
FT**T ijii;«iiiff irtiea osing <•*»■ cfaasical. EEK. has »}•*> tMTwn»H ^i^r-fii]
^cqing of tbe cbemical, aixi it has baiasd tbe use of tbe ctiPBical oo
potatoes ^'■■^^■g* tbe rhra imi a^ leave a residae on tlrii BU: E%
bas refused to fflwy^nil »tt uses of the hgrbi''i<V nrw-ii icce test
iofoiaatiai is available. According to tbe E^ess, w* r^tm^xt•mm natt-
one ct every 600,000 Waters who use tbe herbicide, 60 aay devdop
cancer frca tbe sdstance. But tbe Icaig-teoB effects of ingesting
«li¥'h1w tbroo^ tbe drinking water are mknown. Hitax alacdilar was
fijcnd to cause cancer in tats, &n sbould bme polled it oCf tbe
■arfcet JiiMiliiiii Iir Tbe general pdillc siiould mt have to worry that
meir iViT*Tntj water "'"*-»^'" dangerous pesticides and herbicides, and
f^ifp workers ■itfiii^ not be oeedLessly ■"p'ga^ to t"hi« danger.
9k aerioos prcbl^is with tbe ccrroit syst^ of pesticide
re^ilatica are obvious, mder tbe current systes, wben tests are
Inconr-luBi've Aoot Xix dangers of a particular pesticide, the use of
tbe pesticide or herbicide is ^proved. I think we sbould reverse
tbis oBBtMBtiCD, aod not acgci^e the use of ai^ aigricultnral pesticide
or tiw )ni-iA» nnia« aggcopciiStB tr^^ indicate ^\1^*^ it is QDlikely
tfaat it will endanger *"«" beings.
mder our currant regulatory franework, Q& bas no idea vbBth^
certain pesticu^s or hertaictdps already in use are safe or if tbqf
are hi^ily Jmgeious. Sx f*'*™'"'! ^nuCacturers rrfp^* certain
tests to <fcteimine tbe safety of tbeir own pcoatcts. a& is suiposed
to oversee tbe bests and tbeir results, but tbe aaowit of inforaiatton
available is f ri^iteningly ^bU. Ibe current law requires GA to
wei^ tbe <fangers and tbe aigosed benefits of tbe use o£ each
' '3e. Bwever, it is very difficult to flBlse this dete ^^--
d by Google
211
■ Seil»rllng Page 3 -
It has been argued that ceducing the availabili^ of pesticides
and herbicides will hurt fasoers ty curtailing fans production.
Baievez, to the extoiC that facners ace not forced bf competition to
bu^ pesticides and herbicides, their costs will be lower. And to the
extent that agricultural production i£ reduced, crop surpluses will be
reduced or eliminated, therety saving crop price st^^rt costs borne
ijg tbe American taxpayer.
B.S. 1910 would change the currait regulatory structure to ensure
that pesticides and herbicides used in agricultural production are
truly safe. Before EEK could reregister ary currently used agricul-
tural pesticide or herbicide, or ^prove ary new pesticide or herbi-
cide, the agency would be required to condict tests to determine i£ it
could endanger htmana. If the tests indicate that the substance is
likely to endanger human bein^, it could not be ^Dproved. n? en-
courage ISfi to move guicUy to conduct the prc^r tests, after three
years the bill would revoke the registration of ary agricultural
pesticide or herbicide already in use unless EPk tests were ccmplets.
Surely it is time we acted to protect the public a^inst the use of
dangerously toxic agricultural pesticides and herbicides.
d by Google
StitiB
int or the
Honori
CoMlltee
on
*gr
Departs
ent Operat:
Ion:
H»y
20,
, <!
Hr. CbBlraan, I ragrat that ay schedula pravanta
appaarlDg bafora the Subeomnittaa today, but I do apprei
opportunity to state ay vleua on the need to protect oui
and the Aaerlcan consuaer fron dangerous peatlcldea.
Is the Ranking Hlnorlty Heaber
Conalttee, I have long been concerned
In October 1964, By Coiuilttee unanlaiously laaued a report on
peatlclde registration by the Environmental Protection Agency. The
report detailed many problana uhlch plague the pesticide
registration process, notably the unlauful uork of laboratories
Hhlch submit data to the EP» and the inadequate EPA procedures for
paatlclde regulation and standard-setting. I am pleased to note
that pesticide registration progra* la under the scrutiny of this
Cooaittee, as uell as Government Operations, and that many probleaa
uncovered by our Investigations may be corrected by legislation.
These are certainly problems in all areas of pesticide
regulation, but I wish to give special enphasis to tha purity of
imported foods and the effectiveness of our government's prograa of
■onltorlng Imported foodstuffs. As ue all knou, aany foreign
countries allow growers to use a baffling array of pesticides uhlch
are restricted or prohibited In the United States. 1 am worried
that foods containing harmful pesticides may show up on our
supermarket shelves because Federal agencies do not have the data
base, technology, scientific expertise, enforcement capability, and
willingness to prevent adulterated food products fron entering the
country. This situation is simply unacceptable. I believe the
' should be protected from and warned of harmful
db,Google
of laported foodstuffs. I bd hopeful that the amendment
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticlde Act whlcF
Hr. Koberts, along with Hr. Heftel , plan to propose In t
hearings will begin to remedy this dangerous situation,
appears to address this problem oost directly. I wholet
support the requirement that th* Administrator of the Environment
Protection Agency cooperate and collaborate with the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Commissioner of the
Food and Drug Administration In identifying overseas pesticide us
patterns on food crops exported to the United States. infornatlc
on foreign pesticide use is absolutely critical to effective
testing of pesticide residues. The enactaenl of this provision
uill provide the first step in the foraatlon of an adequate data
base. I am also eager to learn what practical effect the
provisions of H.R. ZtiZ concerning the testing and registration a
pesticides will have on the purity of imported food.
In closing, I would like to commend the work of the
Committee and the intent of the proposed changes to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Redenticlde Act. As the varieties and
uses of pesticides increase, so must our research and protective
regulations. I an hopeful that ue can work together to protect t
health and safety of the American public.
d by Google
PCECUnvf CMRECtO*
d by Google
ni Laballlnq and s
■ InvlronHnUl FjroMctlon Ji^an
d by Google
THB MUBXUL FORBST FftOOUCTS A5SCX3ATKHI
BEFORE IBB
my 20, 1985
nie National Foceat Products Association sifipoctB the safe and
effectlvs use of pesticides in foccst managMent and In th*
manufacture of wood pcoducts> and wclooaicB th* opportunity to subait
these coanenta as th* SubcosBitt** considers posslbl* MMndaents to
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticlde Act (fifha).
Ihe National Forest products AsBOclation (NFFft) la a
non-profit trade association fotnded to pcmote the conservation and
renewal of forest resources and to iiipc<we forest practices and
utilization. NFPA reprassnts diractly and indiractly sore than 2,000
firas engaged in th* forest [coducts industry throughout the United
states. NFPA nonbers a^^y pesticides, and contract to hav*
pesticides applied, in forestsi nurseries, seed orchards, and wood
products Manufacturing facilities.
d by Google
As a user of peBtlcldtts, the forest products Industry has been
intecested in FIPRA (and Its tsgulatlons] since It was first enacted.
Our goals include: KialnCaining the safe use of forest and wood
product pesticidesr assuring the scientific Integri^ of EPA decisions
baaed on risk benefit analysisr and retaining our abili^ to gain
access to nev pestlcidss. In furtherance of these goals, RPPft submits
these views as the Subconilttee considers FIFRA amen^ents.
While there is oonsiderable interest in soaie quarters in
making scne najor changes in FIFRA this year, NFPA'a view, frcn the
Btan^olnt of a user. Is that FIFRA and its regulations have provided
an essentially well-conceived and functioning progrm to assure that
pesticides — which provide laportant benefits to the public — do not
p}Be an unreasonable risk to nan or the enviroment. Accordingly,
HFPA reconends that FIFBA be raauthorlied with no substantive
nils is not to say that there in no room for fine-tuning,
however, and NFPA would hove soie modest changes to suggeet if the
Subcoonittee determines that a simple r authorization is not
appropriate. In that regard, NFPA'snajor recooBMndatlon concerns the
need for an amendment clarifying FIFRA' s pceoiptlon of local pesticide
regulation. In addition] NFPA would support certain other wiendMnts
and ask Congress to be sensitive to the needs of pesticide users. Itie
ccmnents below reflect NFPA's position on these natters and on other
proponlB which are being debated widely and have already co«i« to the
Subcomittee* 8 attention.
d by Google
nie forest pcoductB Industry Bsks the Eubcoaalttee to consider
ttw usee — and in pftrticular, the Minor ot aall-qusntl^ UMr — as
it conaldece changes to the leglstratlon, rereglatrationi and state
special local need re^lstiBtlon pcocesses. Uthougb the forest
products Industry nuiagcs a luge acreage of focest landif the nisber
of acres tested annually, and the volme of pesticides used in forest
nanagwent arc quite oaall relative to the nation's iiajor agcicultuiol
crops. Additionally, the trend Is to register pesticides for quite
specific usesi for exanplei a pesticide registered for use on Loblolly
Pine tM^ not initially be registered for use on Douglas Fir. In aaiif
caaest each tree species requires a different registration, Qearly>
tbis makes the pcospective market even mailer.
Because of the relatively mall Hurket for most forest
pesticides, there is far lass incentive for a producer to seek a
registration for one of tbeae uses than for one of the nation's major
food cropa. In tact, with the current cost of researdi and
registration of a new pesticide estinated at more than $25 Kiillion, no
new pesticides are likely to be developed specifically for forestry.
The forest products industry inust rely on getting major crop
pesticides' rcgistrationa exfended to include forestry usee.
Therefore, access to new pesticides for forestry will depend, to a
large extent, on the difficulty registrants bove in meeting
requlments to add a new use to an existing label or to get a state
local need registration. Those regulatory hurdles are appropriate
only if they are no more stringent than necessary to assure that the
use will not pose an unreasonable risk to nan or the environnent.
d by Google
In that cegard, a brief example can illustiate the iaiE«ct of
BPA'B legistratlon requicoaents on ulnar uaes. One of oui caaipanlea
asked a pesticide pcoducec to add a new use to an eziating lab«l. Ih*
[eglsfcrant was amicus to be helpful, but noted that adding that use
to an existing pesticide label would require testing wblcb would cost
■ore than 100 tintes the amount of potential groea aalaa of the
pesticlds for that use. nwse studies were required by the
registration standard even though the product had been ueed safely for
years on other crops on surromding property at higher ^>pllcation
Even though the forest industry is not a najor user of
peetlcldeE, where th^ are neededi pesticides can drntatlcally
incr^ae forest productivity. In aoeie Bituatlons, one herbicide
treatment can make the difference between a site beccnlng a valuable
oonvercial forest and one that becones overgrown and has no comicrcial
Ibe forest products Industry asks that the Subcommittee keep
in mind the user, and particularly the user of onall quantities of
pesticides, in Its deliberations on PIPRA amen^ents.
ruira.,.tfrj{m hrmihcs mo spectm. bh;tms
The cancellation haarlng process provides needed projection
for pesticide usees by allowing thai to cdiallenge the health risk,
exposure, and benefit assesMients made by £FA staff, and present their
own data before an objective tribunal, NFFA would be hap^y to comnent
on specific proposals to change and possibly speed up the process, but
d by Google
220
does not favor auggeationB to change It tram an adjudication to a
luleaulclng. Frevioua adjudicatory hearings have aucoaedad adUiably
in laying out bimI testing all the relevant evidence on thsae
anotMOualy coapllcated Issues. Tteae hearings have helpad ensure that
the Agency'a ultltiata decisions are baaed on sound ecientlCic data
rather than on unfounded allegationa or faulty atudlas.
In addition, NFPA opposes any effort to repeal the so-callad
GraseleyUlen aMndwnt, PIFRA section 3(c)(8). It seese to be the
antithesis of sound public policy to advocate the repeal of this
section; the result would be having EPA initiate costly and tine
consualng Special Review proceedings without any evidence that there
is a real probles. Speci£iC3lly> the Adnlnlstratoi would no longer
need to base a Special Review on *a validated test or other
significant evidence raising prudent concerns of unreasonable adverse
risk to tian or to the anvicoment." wa have, of course, a selfish
interest in avoiding having to participate In purposeless proceedings,
but this Subcoawittee should be even aore concerned about the Agency
devoting Its limited resources to unjustified proceedings irtien it
should be allocating than to the iipottant work that needs to be done.
gALSE REEISTRATIOM MT^
BPA reacted appropriately to the discovery that soaw
fraudulent data prepared by IBT Laboratoriea (a teating laboratory)
had been sukaitted in support of pesticide registrations, BPA
assessed the extent of the false data, decided that no regiatratlons
needed to be suspended, and set priorities to fill the 'data gaps*
created by the discovery.
d by Google
EPK'm approach ma as it diould b«. Discovery of false data,
or B data gap fr^ any cause, should trigger an aaseaaaent by EPA of
the importance of the aiseing data in the contest of the rest of the
data on hand. If KPA has a large volune of studies supporting a
pesticide use, the discovery of a few false studies should not
autcBStically trigger a BuapansiMi or even a cancellation hearing
without regard to the strength of the reasining data.
Putthetaore, it is coapletaly Inap^opriate to adopt the
suggestion that a suspension of • pesticide registration ebould be
used in such b situation to 'punish* the registrant. Ihe questions of
(1) tdiether there Is a culpable party in need of punishMsnt, and
(2) whether s registration is valid, are — and ebould reaaln —
coe^letely separate, it is si^ly wrong to baee any registration
declaion on other than sound scientific principles. Even if punitive
Measures are i^tproprlate, they should not take the form of teaovlitg
froB the BScket a proAict which has proven valuable to users and to
the public in general.
PBEHIPtlQII OF mCAL PtUPTTPTlM BWJIlAtTflll
In paesing the 1972 atseiKkMnts to PIPRA, OongceaB granted
United pesticide regulatory authority to the states, nie legislative
history indicates that in sManding PIFIIA, Omgress Intended to abare
its authority with the states, but not with local jurisdictions.
Nonethclessr local juriedictionB have been enacting, and continue to
enact, restrictions that oreate considerable hardships for foresters
and hOMOwners trying to control weeds, insects, and other pests.
d by Google
Itiese local pesticide rsgulatlons «i« flourlriiing bccauM oourtSf not
beedlng tbe QmgieBalaiud Intent behind ttie current Ioh, ue not
invall<kUng thv.
Ibc last several years have seen a pcollferatlon oC peatlddi
reetrlctlons pccaulgated by counties, toMishlpsi and boroughs in at
least 14 states, iliese restrictions range fro* banning apaclfic
pestlcldas, to requiring persiita and notlficationi and even attainting
to ban all usa of pastiddas in a specific area. Rsstrictioaa sucti as
these can reduce forest productivity, stop teoaiticide appHcations to
protect buildings, or affect wbat hoBeoHnera u^ or ma^ not do to
protect their lams.
niest local restrictions are routinely baaed on far leas
scientific evidence than is used in the decisionuking process at the
state and federal levels. Aa a reeult, local regulations are llkaly
to plaoa unnaoaaaary raatrlctiona on beneficial uses of pasticldas.
If a regulation la [coperly based on scientific gro«mdB (i.e., a
lowing that there la an unreasonable risk and tbe regulation will
reduce the riak to reasonable levale], any casultlng loaa In benefits
frcM peaticlde use is necessary. Mhcn regulations are baaed on fear,
hysteria, or other •eotional unscientific gro«nde, bw^er, the
resulting lost benefits (e.g., reduced forest productivity or
increaaed riak of tar*ite daaaga) are unwarranted.
To aolva the growing pcobla* of local peaticlde regulation, an
aaemkant is needed to Section 24(a) of nPRA, whidi grants ILaited
pesticide regulatory authority to the atates. With the aaenitaent,
that section would readi "A Bfte , bgt nn politt'-i ■"h.^Wlalon of ■
d by Google
Stat«, may Ecgulate tltc nle and use of aiv faderolly regiateced
pesticide , , . .* This ammt^Kte would clarify and EeoHiliaBlse the
Intent of OingceBB in enacting Section 24 of FIFRA in 1972.
The forest [coducts industiy appreciates thie oppoctunl^ to
on aone of tha lasuea being raised in th* coiftazt of aanndlag
FIFRA.
lUcbael C Farrai
Vioa PreBld»nt,
BnrlTonient and Health
d by Google
^Wnter for rural affairs
Post Oltica Box 405
nion>(402)S4a442B
*
wmiii, t
Hit 15. 1985
noiablf Bcckl«y Icdell
bcimictce on Dcpirtacnt Opericioni, RcHiich,
aiHl Foreign Agriculture
•hlngton. D.C. 20515
ir Congreaiun Bedell:
The health riaka to vtilch fanera are eipoaed ai ■ re
nt.r (or Rural Alfaiia racantl; publiahed a at»ary of a
raint with cancer and a critique of the health effecta a
tied: It 'a Hot All Sunahina and Fceah Air.
uU o
1 atud
udiea
pecta
the X
link in
gecauie your aubccmittie ia currently conaidering re
uthor
latlon
e aubject, 1 would like to include theae papera in the h
d aak that they be »o includm.
ating'
nil',"
Sincerely^
db,Google
Farming and Cancer
Marty Strange and Liz Krupicka
n th»c f«riMra live
k in health; *n
lain Vinds or c
hanc»s of dying
e blood} about lAI
(3). piobably because Ihey a
d by Google
Table 1 Cancer and
teukenla. lip.
nwylona, non-Ko
IjBpho™
slomach, leuke<K
far
edi
Cor
Bing,
ed b:
S"i"h"gr
RayDond A
on. 19B2.)
Fie
Er
EMwiol
•£r
cnte."Gc
dcr. Pie
Ba
ublishln
>a]L
The
Lcuke
kinds of c
—
frciiu.
..„..
and the functioning ol the lymph fiystei
ts various forn.s. Is the lYgsl corniDii o(
gkins fliseaFp, and non-Hodgklns lynphon
E one o/ the nation's i>ok
be depr^ssingly effiden
ntE Hilh Beule leukcnia d
nt, about half »11 11. e
d by Google
h.r-fi.1 ag.
funtUon f,
(13). Ovt
people uni:
of I
ikcfDic, IhFsc cells
tioning ol oiher c _
s suffer fat gge. -anemia, achi g bo
e lyce of lpul.™ir''losely assKlaLerwt
hlch Dbnotiul blood eel.
irncf. E»ei
'ptlble as I
ns is liirlted. Host eplde
in about farm vitiims
>th certificate. Itnij
a until the disease sets
Trying 10 piece together
striken far
ghbors (11).
of this elpvalcd
kills quickly, a
]y many rural si
L there has been
a fariK a dairy fa.
d by Google
Uorld Var II
ealortd to crude
hose tournies no longer
uny of the >tcclBB.
ndlilans during ihc
These iKBStim have produced
C8l ..ethodol ogles,
r IhBt Isrofis -ho h
■ idcnce In those sludte
ion. The Nebraska study (11) first nde
■ in risk a-ong tntiitrs li.ing in heavy c
■ been strongly aC
ik faetor. Signif
-acre", while the
nlensltv of produ
udy. The Nebrasl
Iter risk of dying
The foraer Is a better
ter iieasure of intensity
tlors for corn production, they found thai
db,Google
i|!
I 111'
■i
'I
'ill 11
W i'
'ill
ii!
! P
I'il
Ui
;:;i!ii llij!!
ill) il, !i IM
I iiii i ij'iil iU
t i3ii j i jllill |l ii
ii.ii *'■
in!
'M'l
itlil
db,Google
Bll (12,17.22,23.25,26) t
these SIBILS. In lecenl years, the
left lew i.i:„luL~>s in li- dcbH<1»
produclton is nore connsn, found no /.-yt
Hodgkins disease) snong people occupati
found somF M^k relationships with ofie
studies, hogs wre found to be assucist
beef {other than dairy cattle) is also
TTie Search tor Causes
Corn, I
t find an
sconsin stud* d
int ly(ii|*osarct«S''(^s"?" *
.32,33). BI.V is paRsrd
d by Google
So. In Hay, 19B3, c
»iivi ronrwntBl (aclori
shed light on a nean:
probably Ihe only rei
ttiecrips of hov BLV can be tranuiitted to hunsns:
Bw Dilkj through direct contact with infected snimala;
ct5. So»e areas with high fiequewy of ELS also have
of human leukonla <]2, 39,40). Hcnetheless scientlmta
it la not (41, A2). The closest BLV haa been traced to
relative, the chimpanzee (43,46).
n fur
enbling BLV (45).
na] c
is not. NCI officials are careful not to
■ BLV-hunan leukemia connection, but they a
,f subjects to inte
between daiiy ft"
1). Tht focus on
imong children, ha
illy high risk of i
by vhich BLV is transmitte
of BLS (661 e:
York Slate Dcparfnent of. Health w
d by Google
Bred her findings
The New Yoik study i
itrogens, runs off flp
(KBirsc of the densiiy
ntmals near nitk (acil
post ul Bled I
dying Iron r
s of Che nation
p levels, public
a 321 elevated risk of
d by Google
of Long Istand), ■ccordlnE In P
Vatei Supplii. because vtlls ten
High nilote
and nitrti* reduce
■■et hcBOgl obi n Mi a
signKicantlir Incr
Uhen nicriie
in lal.cr
liv..-il6
tT). SoK
.r, the
body;
t Ions'" In
WoT-eov
rr. the
It to rule
contenlrBliOTis aS high as 300 nilligrsixs per liti
level recomn^nded as aafe by the Uarld h^r,] h C>r|_
people uho use well water, espetUlly farmers, had a gr
cancer than people who used public water supplies, thou
:onsidere<l groups of
r mortality In
(54), Tlie study
■ as high as 100
d by Google
e high leiAen
till be no epidi
i1 KlalES has pioapted aor
iniled br the Nsilonal Cane
tpidemiologlc studies like
s that WHiliI have
cancer in the Unlt*d
alltr is high,
the relationship
d by Google
Burnwister, Lpon F. and CearEe D. En
cted Ca
f Ep. 118:1,
, Leor F. . a
■nd farn pr
720-:
66:3,
6tor, Uon F, Can
march, 1961 461-&W.
MilhsiT., S.. ■■Otcupai
BKEW (PHS), Wash. D.C.. US C
mihan, Saouel Jr., "LeiAonia
, 19;
307-
■, Kenneth P. ■TarinlnB and norlfllity (mm Non-Hodsliln5 LyniphLima! A
control itiidy". Int. Jpurn. cf Cancer. (1962), !9:Z39-;47,
, J., S. Heyden.
1950-69. DHEW Pi
R C Kosenlot. H.M,
Springer F, Fulk H:
[AHA 232:1333-1336. 1
< and Deborah V. Vhltt
743-754. 19-
"LeukHDia Anfint Nebraska farae
<x_2Lhi. '0:3. 1979. 264-173.
' '- - "Epideolo logic
, Dtct. 14th Ed. F>A> tevla
ClBS of cancer inrtality In
75-760. Vash, D.C. - a band
S. for leukemia mortallcy.
Lemon, et. al. "Epldenlology of
". Neb. [ted. J.. 58:233-37, 1973.
r-li.v. i-,nr.r"~«nii . Oeiup. Hyg. 15:53-
:ytic leukenlB, an adult
!, P.. P. Sianiila-tiyk. L. Houien ei i "A retrospective
of (sncer relaiion to occiipaiiort NIOai. DHEW, Pul. No. 77-
ish, D>C> USGPO, 1977,
;, E.U. Jackson, M. Klsubei. "LeulitaU snd lymphona mrtality and
rsldence". At. J. of Enid. 87:267-274, 1968.
<y occupationsl level and cause of death" Vital
d by Google
lyaphoma
Ptot An issot Cancer Rm 7j*1. 1%6.
RETyTcTT-R Elvpback. el.al. "Lei*e»l8
1965-197
4. >tayo Clinic Prot. 5il7U-71B. 197B.
"Sirdar "c
ukose !"t^^"T?erarir"tolh"n''72- 56-60 Z
D. ■Wc'inrcich J: Ly-pha( jsche JetAeic
Blue 12:
241-244. 1966.
Kv^rnfors
t. B. Henrlckson. Hugosan. "A atatlst
village
bovine 1
eukoalB." Act Vet Scand 16il63-169.
Pri.ster.
W, Ma9onTJ.~"Hii«Bn cancer portaltiy
jMipulat:
Ml. liir cogntry, dn 10 SE states" J^ Na<_
Heath CW,
CG. Caldwell, P.C. Fenrino, "Viruses an
Olson
liter rcTmile
: J97-1305.
t_ 49:1463-
E of
Olson C, Hoss HE, MllJei JM. et al: Evidei.._ .
iiii IF, ddi t cat le. J Air Vcl_ tted «asoc 163:35!
Olson C, Miller LD, Miller JM: Bcle of C-type <
lynphosarcona. Blbl HacnstoL 39 9S-:20^ 1973,
Piper CI, and DA AbL JF Ferrer, el. al. "Servt
35: Ti'-lTb' ^yT^"'
■Ilk from d herd «!th high
Inst 33!l055-1064, 1964.
. N. BiiiBerl
n of human a
1:331-352. 1
Caldwell, CG. L. Baungi
e of 1
Olwted County,
n leuli^lB and
n of lynphoscarccaa
1467. 1973.
ovine C-lype (leukeala)
■357. 1973.
5e.«-epld™iologIC
1976.
, B.C. Kruse, and H.J.
d by Google
Van Dei
C-
Lewln.
Jnp
30 Oci
Kelling, and RP Custer, et. al. "^ythrD-IenkcBl*
ees fed milk from c(»is naturally infected with bo
Fes 34:;745-2J57. 1974.
J7^ Miller. "Serological evidence of tranmlssl
virus to chlnpaniees" Vet mcroblol li351-357, 1
Ew reports of a human leukemia virus" Science, Vo
, pp. 530-531.
y Ire
e Third
1 Cane*
Surve
cor relation
cancer death
1355. 1975.
Zaldi>er R.
una 80:289-295, J973,
Fertiliiers as ervironmenlal pollu
itrates (NsK03 and I:N03) u
Ity rates. Ejiperientia 33:264-265. 1977,
snsiel W, Gordillo 0,
: cancer in Colunbia 1
J. of the Natl Cancer
. Locke FB. Shinuiu i i
Taylor, K.
Treat Bent
sMed^ J 149:251-253, 1976.
icia Fraser, C. Chlloers, V. Ber.
d by Google
The Hidden Health Effects
of Pesticides
Marty Strange. Liz Krupkka and Dan Looker
World Var II priidLi.
roptiic Joss ol crop. They
trof rjfvcloping, vhether danage
Bllow Ie.«. and typhus
of DDT •'on a Nobel Priie [or Che
Icai conpounds of uhich DOT is a fan
hydrocBibons) in Ihp 1870-s got noLhliiR morr
•ffort (1).
the p
lug
■ op a
impre
ssi.
use
kille
alcho
Furl
soph
ugh
Tode;
eipen
l\Z
'bu"
r^
henl
ly r»
s food. At first,
infeacation which
ow used routinely
responsible',
psticides, developing
of chemical pest
the United States,
d by Google
pesticides HO Buch that lew
cipacity to nger in the food chain, and theJr carcinogenic (cancer-causifiEl
or banning' of several of the ust "effective" Inmecticides. Many of the fin
uiv« pesticides uer« curbed DDT was banned in 1?72. Dieldrln aldrin,
roMricted by the Eovlronaenial Prolectlon >genty (EPA).
;ely little uae of chlotinaleil hydrocarbons in Ihe U.S.
While
soae research showed ihai organic larn^,~ In the Mi
I o[[ financially as Ihelr pesticide using neighbors
farning, pesticide use has grown. Fron> 1972.
1980. pesticide use increased by 751. In the
AKrican larnEis for Ihe pesticides quadrupled
in Ihe klnda of pesticides
931. Sinilar figures apply to soybea
for Sn of the 13.7 billion fflrm jh-pi
(■ planting of Ihe same crop (monoculture
lion, encouriBlns ■
db,Google
i Jess cost-»ff«
bjr which plants converi: sunlight to cellulose
Ihcr arc. In 1976. the U
rs and comft.trcul pest app
eiBSf Bclnity in 30 ptrce
isoning in 121. Sone Dt c
ir. Sow arc lethal to him
lethal ihan tatle sail. Hos
reported In ntany lie-s
e comnon. are the flu-like
Ih.-
Oceupa
has
Breatly
tl^nt''"
th»
Pestle
b, for
lo"
ronwnl
Duld uy that if C
d by Google
c (blood) canters (14).
■n Qvn 10 mi
of orsanophuspliat
S Fanm-ra (airn Oil
nclU»„." D«i<
s uir at odds is Lakoi
ih risli "cosi" lo Ind.
Job is lo wig,, the b.fl.l,ts of chpi
d by Google
r«gtBti
TTie Sti
by f,o »
they pa:
pestiei.
of heal
f for danaer sulls. This tonfl
.. EfdcBC,' of po.cntially dang.
Ptjric^Hural rcsulBtory ag^ncl
s that farner* and other
o. ti.e i>anufactur«i ia
dC^'producIs^as^no? T"
ihe extent of the chemical's n
ifc, TheKi- dfUcate balances B
ion process.
us of Sone CcwMnly Used Ptstlci
ins the only L-idely used chemicals In Mi
icularly pnre or leis suEprd on healtl-
Meal Borketed is effective, EPA
sing people and i
-ei£hcd by EPA during its pes
e clalu
n food.
d by Google
Ml-
J ii-W |p!!rjii|
**! Issfl zllill nil -J
3
1 Slajl IcJSsIjIS-:- -S I
db,Google
ture yleldi s
y or the coaiM
:udl*i on the health
It of theie atudici
to the puliUc. In
iitlcldea. Newer
■k(
o
Ih
»;|
fclf
11
ly tl
the
int
™
tion
db,Google
lil
III
''I
Ife
S«S.-
»s,s
I ill
5 ?t ^ E ^ fi
'Is
ill!
ni
It
its
lit
11
I^sIsIjS la
S3
I!
iHiHil
t
l|!! ill
lid
pi
ill
>!|
;SJ1
SiS
SsST
tsil
It
db,Google
m
81 i
db,Google
S i
, iiS Si
l!
lal|Ht|lB l!l
I
db,Google
i I
Hi
ill
ill
if II
tisi
?*{ =
H
UlS t
ili
5
i!
I?
= !:
I
§11
I
db,Google
Is » .a
I I I
•« .- I
a *^ f.
II
ti
i I
1 I
i !
I*
5 i'i
s" *
I I
I 1
I J
; s
;■ I
1 in
s f
i 'i'i
i I
5 Sis
1 11
1 1
5 I i 5
-: i
« { i 1
t ^
s 1-
ill
36 r^
I" «3
db,Google
infornatlcm cDntaine.
release olghl thercfi
EPA ha« appeal e<'
urtil thi> appai
t flndlngE
■s safely,
al Blo-Ttsl
basis. In fac
eOl major stud
3S CDMiianlts u
thp rrgiEt
done by Independent Kientlaia nor
public, and EPA has had aerioua
1 loriBiilfltion of the
daiuge Monsanto. A federal diatri court agr
ohibiting EP* fioi. releasing auch data on any
ided In favor of EPA. peiticide hea tti test le
Iny pf Independeni Bcientists, Only EPa and t
ons increases the iisb that shoddy or even
d to support erroneous conclusions about a
■ I possibili become a rc-slity. Thai year,
Ic registration' tests, -as found'to have been lalsifying
' ' ,ai nearly three-quarcerE <5%) of the
of 1^0 chealcal registrations held by
183, a federal Jury faund three fonaer
.1 pesticide regul
liy EPA have been
rovide the
dlbllKy ol
pport of glyphoaate vere invalid, and chough
db,Google
Only sti of the
or rookeil.
being re-
otiginal TEgist
IBT studies and
II and III.
cheji night re
6lng
Morcovei. sonvc were originallr
Icldes. 'nils lag in the ic-imx.
ertly snalyied by l,« staff ^f b
■ -■ ' les of 60 active chemical ingredients. t (oun IhaL only 52!
cancer studies, 621 of the birth defects studies, and 511 of
e inpalrmenc studies were on file with EPA (23).
S2X
EPA has
public ar
ng'to thel
d by Google
rn, Blfalfa
■nd >orshuB) lo that coDpecina p
ughly Ch. s
■Ike period and pcaticidea Ktl c:
tB SOM chralcaU will not be
?ihB"Mch
tinie theif -111 preauubly conlinti
1?<c revteo of th«lr health effec
■ (0»>™tii <,
sed pesticide* In Hidweatern ajri
e table ndicale >.hen EFA inland
the pestic
ido If . ha5 na already d«.e ao
»ii "c.lled-
in" for use in preparing Che reg
If the data gathered in aupporc of a r*tlslrstIon standard for ■ pettlclde
caiea that EPA'a rlak criterl* are enceeded and that ther* nay be an
'erse rffect" on people or the envlroiuienc Jf the pesticide
Dur
public e
JifAk).. If a specie
up to 1D5 days .
cms ("Position
or envlroninenEBl effects are aerlOHS
of continuing to use the pesticide,
s case before takine any action to
he scientific data to calculate
tlnate Che risk to the public and th
hed and published (qb led a "Posltlo
far public ctmwnt (prliiarlly uaed
forMClon) and EPA then either dropa
pT). A»ng the possibilities:
y aeans changing the product
1. Participation la generally lial
. USDA, the Science Advisory Panel,
d by Google
by EPA that a pesticide
public guard agai
Under the weight of the
spec la
igflliO
(23) r
cpnily cQiiUudPd
of But.8
t"^^'U°^'qu
E nhdi..gs or a
The case of
cipal reglst
(Ian (TM).
0. tonslderrd slgnif.can.
Ian cm) began to mounl, h
nlluralln. The particular
■ ■, or NDPA,
ons xere filed by se
d by Google
presence
addition, EPA u
teitlng — CMC
of the 1»«1 « which EPA jird
clwc trilluralln Ittelf. uith
cancar In the kidneys, blsdde
Elanco
however
cane forw
■ rd w
th
decl
NDPA
proposed by
subm
analysis of 615 se
UplfS
of
NDPA
ingr
"ititl
s of 0.1
in Trefl
PP". Sine
n CTM). th
'e
"•sharply hight
ilseir. a risk which pr
risk associated
9 Test in which
: feeding test >
nif leant because
i with NDPA (the
It NDPA,
and tl
piobli
.11 nt
Treflan (TM),
of KDPA in Trefl
E than KDPA,
approved r
h NDPA
:C7/CB) K
A agreed that ttw
evleu of all pesticides
a notice ro that effecc.
d that aanufacturtrs had
than 1 ppa. In
tera health effect
e fed trifluralln
as part of the .e-
d feeding of nearly
test result* showed
even below the 1 ppn level
/exposure level, Elanco
U.SI of t
(TM)- Iron. 5
assuned for t
db,Google
f»Hor of 50 also.
tudy, was 1.08 In 1,000,
reduced level of NDPA
rlfluralin Itself, EPA
thai NDPA i
connercial
lo double d
trifluralln. aj
le>el of niLrD
Meantime, tl
the pesticii
More signlfl
ion) of getting cancer fro* Treflan (TM) vas
recalculated the risk
n had previously cons
tlie'ne-. lo^r risk 1e
higher risk le.el for ■
icluiion that
c bit/ the nen cnuple yi
be Eubjec o anolher sp
iggered by NDPA contamini
ill revised risk of
: as it had thought
a million, EPA
to let the level of
> and s half tines the
I analyic the
well during the apeclil
. It they tontiln
is the fact that for many
ng ppsLtcides «hlch had su
the time. If reduiring the
ptpct people In 1982, it .
d by Google
HI U»c»l Hgeda and t<^rf,
The FIFBA re
J sthe
lon-BBklng p
Dtsdur
cab c .nd t
Sont
pes
c or respond
pallerns. In
to pec
Iht in
"iJSs.
of
^Mt"when
te^lou
S p**l
"oui
fettJv. reg,
eney e>empci
«ubje
IBM rtglstr
t before e i
Jure*. Stat
needs (lect
lh»n It,. -■
on ;4(
)).
.o EP« approval,
:t). Theae
te the pesticide
n for p
p for
i for
5 do
Hlal
Iftervnt
I
Bel«en 19JB and 1982, t
199 per year to 714 (2W1 Int
Che u^ie of pesticides on high
io<^ crops of the Hldwest, thi
stitutt a
ts ,1...,;-.: =-.owciJ signillcM
erEency^exe.fptionEln"6ver JOO
cuDventing the nore itringent
rgency" tequesis increased fioiB
s for
n 10 a
» (23).
SLM
(soyb.
IF sane la true of special local need (SO) eienptlons. Nearly one fltUi
reglscticions were granted for use In corn and vheat belt scatci (13).
ihould be no niscake about vho has defined a "special local need." Wiile
parallB fariwri, farm oiEanJiaiions, goveronenl agencies, or pesticlda
!rs to request SLKi a study by the Rural Adtancenent Tund, a rural
y group Mottft Csfollna, ahowed that 9H of the ELN registrations
I In 25 state* studied were lequesned by the chenical lunulacturei . Only
1 by farmers or fam organizatlona. Moreover half tho 2,089
, s«ill g
e tcf
y plan
ie local need la dubiou . Further, it ahoold
i3t o! all SLN registrations granted In 19B1~
s ty tBT, the laboratory vhoae health atudlM
d by Google
H.R.1416
To protwt the American public from consuming potentiaJly una»fe pesticide
reliduBB on imported foodBtuffa; lo Foster prudent and equit&ble repilatoiy
requirementa and Btandarda for United StUet producers of agricultural com-
modities competing with producers in oCber countries in internttionaJ end
domestic markets; and lo improve the international exchange of iciendfic
information on tiie properties, aafety, benefits, and risks of pesticide use.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mabch 5, 1985
Hr. Heftbl of Hawaii (for binuetl, Hr. Baknbs, and Htb. Bubton of Califor-
nia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Agriculture
A BILL
To protect the American public from consuming potentially
unsafe pesticide residues on imported foodstuffs; ta foster
prudent and equitable regulatory requirements and stand-
ards for United States producers of agricultural commodities
competing with producers in other countries in international
and domestic markets; and to improve the international
exchange of scientific information on the properties, safety,
benefits, and risks of pesticide use.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repretenla-
2 tives of the Untied Stales of America in Congress assembled.
d by Google
1 Section 1. This Act may be dted as the "Pesticide
2 Import and Export Act of 1985".
3 Sec. 2. (a) Section 7(cKl) of Uie Federal Insecticide,
4 Fmigicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. I36e{c)(l)) is
5 amended by striking out "and" at the end of aubp&ra^apb
6 (B), by striking out the period and inserting "; and" at the
7 end of subparagraph (C), and by adding after subparagraph
8 (C) the following:
9 "(D) which he has exported during the past
10 year, and the destination of the exports, including
11 shipments of pesticide active ingredients, interme-
12 diates, or formulated products to subsidiaries or
13 other companies engaged in a business relation-
14 ship with the producer.".
15 (b) Section 7(cKl) of such Act is further amended by
16 striking out the iast sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the
17 following:
18 "The information required by this paragraph shall be
19 kept current and shall be submitted ta the Administra-
20 tor annually as required under such regulations as the
21 Administrator may prescribe. The Administrator shall
22 require pursuant to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph,
23 to the extent practicable in light of the transshipment
24 of pesticides and the availability of this information to
25 the producer, information on the nature and quantities
d by Google
8
1 of pesticides exported, the destination of the exported
2 pesticides, and the uses of the exported pesticides. The
3 Administrator shall cooperate and collaborate with the
4 Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, and the
5 Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration in
6 identifying overseas pesticide use patterns on food
7 crops exported to the United States. An annual report
8 shall be prepared by the Administrator for submission
9 to the Congress and to the United Nations, and for re-
10 lease to the public and other interested parties summsr
11 rizing the information received under this paragraph.
12 The report shall include the scope, frequency, and re-
13 suits of any pesticide residue monitoring tests conducts
14 ed by the Food and Drug Administration and the
15 United States Department of Agriculture on food im-
16 ported by the United States. The report may include
17 any recommendations the Administrator may wish to
18 offer for improving the reliability and usefulness of the
19 information received under this section and section 17
20 of this Act.".
21 (c) Subsection (d) of section 7 of such Act is amended tA
22 read as follows:
23 "(d) Confidential Recobds and Infobmation. —
24 "(1) Except as provided in paragri^b (2), any in-
25 formation submitted to the Administrator pursuant to
d by Google
1 subsection (c) shall be kept confidential and shaJl be
2 subject to section 10.
3 "(2) The Administrator may disclose to the
4 public —
5 "(A) the names of the pesticides or active in-
6 gredients submitted under subsection (c) which are
7 produced or used in producing pesticides pro-
8 duced, sold, distributed, or exported by an estab-
9 lisbment; and
10 "(B) any information the Administrator de-
ll tennines is necessary to submit under subsection
12 (cKlXAMiv).
13 "(3) The Administrator shsll take such steps as
14 axe necessary to limit the disclosure of commercial in-
15 formation submitted by producers when such disclosure
16 is not necessary to carry out this section or section
17 17.".
18 PBSnCIDBB AND DBVICBB INTENDED FOB EXPORT
19 Sec. 3. (a) Subsection <&) of section 17 of the Federal
20 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.
21 136o(aK2)) is amended to read as follows:
22 "(a) Pesticides and Dbvicbs Intended fob
23 ExPOBT.—
24 "(1) In oenbbal. — Notwithstanding any other
25 provision of this Act, no pesticide or device or active
26 ingredient used in producing a pesticide intended for
d by Google
261
5
1 export to any foreign country shall be considered in
2 violation of this Act —
3 "(A) if such pesticnde, device, or ingredient is
4 prepared or packed according to the specifications
5 or directions of the foreign purchaser, except that
6 producers of such pesticide, device, or ingredient
7 shall be subject to sections 2{p), 2(q), 7, and 8 of
8 this Act; and
9 "(B) in the case of any pesticide for which
10 any use or formulation has been cancelled, sus-
11 pended, or denied under this Act by the Admims-
12 trator or voluntarily cancelled or suspended, any
13 pesticide identified by the Administrator as an
14 acutely toxic pesticide, and any pesticide classified
15 for restricted use under section 3(d), if the Admin-
16 istrator, after consultation with the Secretary of
17 State and the Secretary of Agriculture and before
18 export, determines that appropriate officials of the
19 foreign country have —
20 "(i) submitted a request to the Adminis-
21 tradoD that such pesticide be exported to
22 such country;
23 "(ii) disclosed to the Administrator the
24 specific intended use of such pesticide in such
26 country, including the nature and quantity of
d by Google
1 the pesticide and the crops on which it will
2 be used;
3 "(iii) provided the Administrator with &
4 full descripUoD of the procedures instituted
5 by such country to educate users of such
6 pesticide in the s^e handling, application,
7 and disposal of such pesticide; and
8 "(iv) in the case of a pesticide used on
9 food crops exported in commercial quantities
10 to the United States, inform the Administra-
11 tor of any regulatory requirements estab-
12 liahed in such country which impose condi-
13 dons on the use of such pesticide in the
14 country that might affect the nature and
15 level of pesticide residues on such crops, in-
16 eluding the nature and level of pesUcide resi-
17 dues allowed in such country and the nature
18 and findings of any routine residue testing
19 done on such crops prior to export.
20 "(2) Infobmation. — Upon the receipt from a
21 foreign country of any information required to be pro-
22 vided under paragraph (1)(B), the Administrator shall
23 provide such country with information regarding —
24 "(A) any restriction or prohibition on any use
25 (rf such pesticide in the United States;
d by Google
7
1 "(B) the nature and estimated severity of
2 any unreasonable adverse effects on man and the
3 enviroRment identified by the Administrator
4 during the course of considering the regulatory
5 status of the pesticide in the United States;
6 "(C) the avaOability, upon request made to
7 the Administrator and subject to section 10 of this
8 Act, of regulatory and scientific documents con-
9 ceming such pesticide; and
10 "(D) in the case of any acutely toxic pesti-
11 cide, the acute hazards associated with exposure
12 to such pesticide.
13 "(3) Definitions. — As used in this subsection:
14 "(A) The term 'acutely toxic pesticide'
15 means a pesticide which —
16 "(i) has an acute dennal lethal dose as
17 formulated of no more than 40 miUigrams
18 per kilogram;
19 "(ii) has an acute dermal lethal dose as
30 diluted for use in the form of a mist or spray
31 of no more than 6 grams per kilogram; or
22 "(iii) has an inhalation lethal concentra-
23 tjon as formulated of no more than 0.04 mil-
24 ligrams per liter.
d by Google
1 "(B) The term 'cancelled, suspended, or
2 denied' means the cancellation, suspension, or
3 denial of any use with respect to that pesticide
4 and includes the voluntaiy withdrawal of the reg-
6 istration of such pesticide under this Act, or of an
6 application to register such pesticide under this
7 Act—
8 "(i) if such withdrawal occurs after the
9 issuance by the Adnunistrator of a notice of
10 intent to —
11 "(I) deny the registration of such
12 pesticide pursuant to section 3(cK6); or
13 "(n) cancel the registration of
14 such pesticide pursuant to section
15 6(hKl); or
16 "(ii) if such pesticide is voluntarily with-
17 drawn after it exceeds any of the R-PAB
18 (Kebuttahle Presumption Against Registra-
19 tion) or Special Review risk criteria, set
20 tortii in 40 CFR 162.11.".
21 (b) The table of contents in subsection (b) of section 1 of
22 such Act (7 U.S.C. 121) is amended by striking out the item
23 relating to subsection (a) of section 17 and inserting in lieu
24 thereof the following new item:
"(a) Policidei ind devicei inuiuled (or nport,
"(l)IngBn(ir»l.
"(2) InlormiliDn.
"(3) Delinitioni.".
d by Google
1 Sbc. 4. Section 5(b} of the Federal Insectioide, Fungi-
2 cide, and Bodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136c(b)) is amended b;
3 inserting before tbe period at the end thereof the following: ",
4 except that a temporary tolerance shall not apply to pesticide
5 residues on imported foodstuffs or feed".
6 Sbc. 5. Section 6 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
7 and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. ISSd) is amended by redesig-
8 nating subsection (f) aa subsection (g) and by inserting after
9 subsection (e) the following new subsection:
10 "(0 Revocatiok of Tolbrancbs. —
11 "(1) The Administrator shall revoke tolerances es-
12 tablished under the provisions of the Federal Food,
13 Drug, and Cosmetic Act when —
14 "(A) the uses of a pesticide associated with
15 the tolerances have been cancelled or suspended
16 or denied under this section; or
17 "(B) in the case of a pesticide registration or
18 registration application voluntarily withdrawn, if
19 the Administrator determines that the tolerance is
20 no longer needed or supported by the available
21 scientific data.
22 If the Administrator fails to revoke any tolerance
23 within 180 days after the cancellation or suspension of
24 use of a pesticide referred to in subparagraph (A) or in
25 the case of a voluntaiy withdrawal of a pesticide regis-
d by Google
10
1 tration or registration application referred to in sub-
2 paragraph (B) then such tolerance sh^Ul automatically
3 be revoked at the close of such day.
4 "(2) The Administrator shall establish a residue
5 action level at the time a tolerance is revoked for the
6 purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Federal
7 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act if the Administrator —
8 "(A) determines that residues of the pesticide
9 will unavoidably persist in the environment; and
10 "(B) makes a determination that such action
11 levels will not pose an unreasonable adverse e^ect
12 on man or the environment.
13 In establishing or revoking a tolerance, the Adminis-
14 trator shall take into account any probable impacts of
15 such actions on the competitiveness of agriculture pro-
16 duction in the United States in world and domestic
17 markets, with the goal of eliminating, to the extent
18 practicable inequitable burdens on United States pro-
19 ducers caused by pesticide regulatory actions and
20 standards estabhshed by diKerent nations.".
21 COOPEBATION IN INTBBNATIONAL BFPOBTS
22 Sec. 6. Subsection (d) of section 17 of the Federal In-
23 secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136o(d))
34 is amended to read as follows:
25 "(d) COOPBBATION IN INTBENATIONAL BffOBTS.—
26 The Administrator shall —
d by Google
"(1) in cooperation with the Department of State,
other appropriate Federal agencies, and -non^overn-
mental and international organizations, actively partici-
pate in, encourage, and cooperate with international ef-
forts to develop improved and uniform pesticide re-
search and regulatory programs, particularly efforts to
promote uniformity in the labelling and application of,
and setting of tolerance standards for, pesticides; and
"(2) provide countries which import pesticides
horn the United States with technical assistance, in-
cluding—
"(A) the estabUshuient of education and
safety training programs for the use, handling,
and disposal of pesticides; and
"(B) the development of comprehensive regu-
latory programs, including the monitoring of pesti-
cide residue levels on food crops.".
O
d by Google
H.R.1910
To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, uid Rodenlicide Acl (o provide th»t
pfulicidps thai are used in agricultural production do not endanger hiinun health.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Apbil 2, 1985
Hr. Sbibbrlino (for himself and Mr. Weaves) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture
A BILL
To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act to provide that pesticides that are used in agricultural
production do not endanger human health.
1 Be it enacted by the Seiiate and House of Representa-
2 lives of the United Slates of AmeTtca in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES.
4 Section 3(cK5) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
5 and Rodenticide Act is amended —
6 (1) in the first sentence thereof by striking out
7 "and" at the end of clause (C>, by striking out the
8 period at the end of clause (D) and inserting in lieu
9 thereof "; and", and by inserting at the end of such
10 sentence the following:
d by Google
1 "(E) when used for agricultural production in
2 accordance with widespread and commonly recog-
3 nized practice has been determined by the Admin-
4 istrator that it is not likely to endanger human
5 beings (including children who are permitted
6 under the Fair Labor Standards Act (20 U.S.C.
7 201 et seq.) to work in areas treated with pesti-
8 cides}."; and
9 (2) by inserting after the first sentence thereof the
10 following new sentence: "In determining whether a
11 pesticide is likely or not likely to endanger human
12 beings under subparagraph (E) of the preceding sen-
13 tence, the Administrator shall conduct appropriate lab-
14 oratory tests as the basis for ascertaining the potential
15 long-term and acute effects of the pesticide on human
16 beings (including but not limited to oncogenicity, muta-
17 genicity, fetotoxicity, reproductive effects, and behav-
18 ioral effects).".
19 SEC. 2. REREGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES.
20 Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
21 Rodenticide Act is amended to read as follows:
22 "(g) Reeegistbation of Pesticides. —
23 "(1) The Administrator shall accompHsh the re-
24 registration of all pesticides used for agricultural pro-
25 duction in accordance with this subsection.
d by Google
1 "(2KA) Within 120 days after the d&te of the en-
2 actment of this subsection, the Administrator shall pub-
3 Hsh in the Federal Register a list of pesticides used for
4 agricultural producUon in the order of their priority for
5 reregistration under this Act.
6 "(B) In establishing the list, the Administrator
7 shall—
8 "(i) give the highest priority on the list to
9 pesticides used in substantial volumes that result
10 in a postharvest residue in or on food or feed
11 crops or in postapplication residues in potable
12 ground water; and
13 "(ii) include among the pesticides accorded
14 the highest priority on the list the pesticides
15 shown to cause mutagenic effects in an appropri-
16 ately designed and conducted experiment using a
17 bacterial test system,
18 "(C) The establishment of the list by the Adminis-
19 trator shall not be subject to judicial review.
20 "(3) In accordance with the schedule prescribed in
21 paragraph 2(A), the Administrator shall conduct appro-
22 priate laboratory tosts of each such pesticide as a basis
23 for ascertaining the potential chronic and acute effects
24 of the pesticide on human beings (including but not
d by Google
1 limited to oncogenicity, mutagenicity, fetotoxicity, re-
2 productive effects, and behavioral eHects).
3 "(4) The Administrator may not reregister any
4 pesticide contained in the Ust published under para-
5 graph (2), unless the the AdminiBtrator determines, on
6 the basis of the laboratory tests conducted under para-
7 graph (3) with respect to such pesticide, that the use of
8 such pesticide for agricultural production in accordance
9 with widespread and commonly recognized practice is
10 not likely to endanger human beings (including children
11 who are permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act
12 (20 U.S.C. 201 et aeq.) to work in areas treated with
13 pesticides). The Administrator shall notify the regis-
14 trant of his decision and of his reasons therefor. The
15 Administrator shtJl promptly publish in the Federal
16 Register notice of such denial of reregistration and the
17 reasons therefor.
18 "(5) Effective 3 years after the date of enactment
19 of this subsection, the registration of any pesticide con-
20 tained in the list published under paragraph (2) is re-
21 voked unless the Administrator has determined pursu-
22 ant to paragraph (4), based on laboratory tests con-
23 ducted under paragraph (3) with respect to such pesti-
24 cide, that such pesticide is not likely to endanger
25 human life. The Administrator shall notify the regis-
d by Google
272
5
trant of the revocation and shall promptly publish in
the Federal Register notice of such revocation.
"(6) The Admuiistrator shall accomplish the re-
registration of all pesticides other than pesticides used
for agricultural production in the most expeditious
manner practicable, except that, to the extent appro-
priate, any pesticide that results in a postharvest resi-
due in or on food or feed crops shall be pven priority
in the reregistration process.".
O
d by Google
DEPARTMENT OF AaRICULTURE
Honorable E (Kika) de 1a Sana
Chalnnan, Connlttee on Agriculture
U. S. House of Representatives
Uashlngton. D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This Is In response to your request for a report on H.R. 1910, a Mil To anend
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act to provide that
pestlclctes that are used In agricultural production do not endanger human
health."
The Departaant does not recannend enactment of this bill.
The b111 ts designed to make several revisions to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act (FIFRA). These changes would shift costs for
laboratory testing from Industry to the Federal Government, be prohibitively
expensive for the Federal Eoverrment, be extremely time consuming and, in the
final analysis, could have significant negative inpacts on the costs of food,
feed, and fiber production due to reduced ability to control agricultural
Sections 1 and Z of the bill would require the Administrator of EPA to conduct
'appropriate' laboratory tests In the areas of oncogenicity, mutagenicity,
fetotoxldty, reproductive effects, behavlorsl effects, and other unspecified
testing, Some of t^iese tests are long-term, measured n years, and quite
expensive. The burden for- providing this data has in tf>e past been borne by
industry. The costs for shifting ttits burden to the EPA could be better
estlnated by them, but we believe It will be prohibitively costly. Although
Industry might gair by reducing costs of registration testing, the Federal
Government gets no offsetting benefits fron taking over the burden of paying for
data to support rereglstratlon.
Section Z of the bill also requires the Administrator to make a priority listing
of all agricultural pesticides within ISO days of enactment, and then to test
all listed agrlcuUura chemlcali prior to reregistering them. Any chemical not
so reregistered st the end of three years would be barred from further use.
Because of the physical and practical impossibilities of accomplishing such a
task. It could be anticipated that large numbers of agricultural chemicals would
be taken from the market with a concomitant decrease In productivity due to pest
losses. The amount of lasses would depend on the number of chemicals.
d by Google
Honorable E (Klki) de la Garza
As B Minor-point, Section 2 would require that Mutagenic tests be done through
'an appropriately designed and conducted experlnent using a bacterial test
systea.* The specific test system should not be specified In lav, as It night
not oe the best neasure In sll circumstances. Fixing scientific state of the
The Office of Hanagement and Budget advises that there Is no objection to the
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's
program.
-^<R^«>^
db,Google
H.R.2482
To uneiid die Federal Inieeticide, Ringkide, uid Bodenticide Act, wd for other
purpoMB.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Hat 14, 1985
Mr. Bbdbll (for hinueU Mid Mr. Bobbbts) introduced the following trill; wUch
WH referred U> the Committee on Agriculture
A BILL
To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, and for oUier purposes,
1 Be U enacted by the Senaie and House of RepreterUa-
2 tives of the United Stales of America in Congress asaembUd,
3 That this Act may he cited as the "Federal Insecticide, Fun-
4 gicide, and Rodenticide Act Amendments of 1985".
5 BESFBBESKCES TO THE FEDEBAL INBBCTICIDB, PUMOICIDB,
6 AND BODENTICIDE ACT
7 Sec. 2. Except as otherwise specifically provided,
8 whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
9 terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
10 provision, the reference shall he considered to he made to a
d by Google
1 section or other proviBion of the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
2 oide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.8.C. 136 et seq.).
3 DEFINITIONa
4 Sec. 3. (a) Section 2(e) (7 U.S.C. 136(e)) is aniended—
5 (1) in pwagraph (1) by deleting the second sen-
6 tence thereof.
7 (2) by deleting paragraph (ti.
8 (b) Section 20) (7 U.S.C. 136(1)) is aniended by deleting
9 the words "cancellation proceeding" and substituting there-
10 fore the words "a cancellation proceeding under section 6 (b)
11 and (d) or a rulemaking proceeding under section 6(a).".
12 (c) Section 2(n) (7 U.S.C. 136(n)) is amended to read as
13 follows:
14 "(n) Inobbdient Statbmbnt. — The term 'ingredient
15 statement' means a statement which contuns —
16 "(1) the name and percentage of each active in-
17 gredient in the pesticide product;
18 "(2) the name (and, to the extent found necessary,
19 the percentage) of each inert ingredient which the Ad-
20 ministrator determines must appear in the ingredient
21 statement because of the hazard which the Admioistra-
22 tor has determined may be posed by the presence of
23 that ingredient;
24 "(3) the total percentage of all inert ingredient* in
25 the pesticide product;
d by Google
277
3
1 "(4) if the product contains arsenic in any fonn, a
2 statement of the percentages of total and water aohible
3 arsenic, calculated as elementary arsenic; and
4 "(5) any other information concerning the cfaemi-
5 cal composition or identity of any active ingredient of
6 the product (for example, information on chemical
7 equivalency) which the Administrator requires to
8 appear on the ingredient statement in order that the
9 nature of the active ingredient is accurately repre-
10 sented.".
11 (d) Section 2(u) (7 U.S.C. 136{u)) is amended by maert-
12 ing after the words "or desiccant;" the words "or (3) any
13 substance or mixture of substances which contains an active
14 ingredient and which any person distributes or sells in any
16 State for use in manufacturing or formulating & pesticide or
16 for repackaging sm a pesticide;".
17 (e) Section 2(ee) (7 U.S.C. 136(ee)) is amended—
18 (1) by inserting at the end of clause (1) thereof
19 the words "unless the labeling specifically prohibits de-
20 viation from the specified dosage, concentration, or
21 frequency;"; and
22 (2) by deleting the word "or" in clause (3) thereof
23 and substituting therefor the words "unless the labeling
24 specifically states that the product may be applied only
26 by the methods specified on the labeling; or".
d by Google
1 (D Section 2 is further amended by adding at the end
2 thereof the following new subsections:
3 "(it) To DiSTBiBDTB OB Sbll. — The t«rm 'to diatrib-
4 ute or sell' (and grammatical variations thereoD means to
5 distribute, sell, offer for sale, hold for distribution, hold for
6 sale, bold for shipment, ship, deliyer for shipment, release for
7 shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer
8 to dehver: Promded, That the term does not include the hold-
9 ing or application of registered pesticide products or use dilu-
10 dons thereof b; any applicator who provides a service of con-
11 trolling pests without deUvering any unapplied pesticide to
12 any person so served.
13 "(gg) Pesticide Pboduct. — The term 'pesticide prod-
14 uct' means a pesticide in the particular form (including com-
15 position, labeling, and packaging) in which it is (or is pro-
16 posed to be) distributed or sold. The term 'pesticide' as used
17 in this Act shall mean 'pesticide product' when the context so
16 indicates.
19 "(hh) Pesticide Testing Facility. — The tenn 'pes-
20 ticide testing faciUty' means any person Uiat conducts any
21 test, study, survey, or investigation of the properties, effects,
22 or behavior of any pesticide (or any ingredient, metabolite, or
23 degradation product thereoD for or on behalf of any re^s-
24 trant, applicant for registration, or other person who sells or
25 distributes the pesticide (or contemplates selling or distribute
d by Google
279
6
1 ing it): Provided, That the term does cot include any person
2 solely on account of such person's participation as & coopen-
3 tor in Geld testing of a pesticide in compliance with an exper-
4 imental use permit under section 5 of this Act.
5 "(ii) Tbbhs of Reoistbation. — The term 'terms of
6 registratioD' means the requirements imposed on a pesticide
7 product under this Act concerning the product's composition
8 labeling, and packa^ng, and the restrictionB on its distribu-
9 tion, sale, and use.".
10 BEOISTBATION OF PEBTIGIDEB
11 Sec. 4. (a) Section 3(a) (7 U.S.O. 136a(a)) is amended
12 to read as follows:
13 "(a) Requibehent of Bboibtbation. — Except as
14 provided by this Act, no person in any State may distribute
15 or sell to any person any pesticide which is not registered
16 under this Act.".
17 (b) Section 3(c) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)) is amended—
18 (1) in section 3(c)(l)<DXii) t? striking out all of
19 the fourth sentence after "findings and determination of
20 the arbitrator" and all of the fifth sentence, and in sec-
21 tion 3(cK2)(BKiii) by striking out all of the second sen-
22 tence after "findings and determinations of the artntra-
23 tor" and all of the third sentence, and by substituting
24 in each case therefor the words "shall be reviewable
25 only in the United States court of appeals for the cir-
26 cuit in which the petitioner resides or has its principal
d by Google
6
1 place of business, or in the United States Court of Ap-
2 peals for the District of Columbia, upon a petition for
3 review Bled with the court by a party to the arbitration
4 within 60 days after the entry of the arbitrator's deter-
5 mination or within 60 days after enactment of the Fed-
6 era] Insecticide, Fungicide, and Bodendcide Act
7 AmendmeDts of 1985 whichever date is later. For pur-
8 poses of section 2112 of title 28, United States Code,
9 the arbitrator's determinadon shall be treated as if it
10 were an order of an administradve agency. The pardes
11 to the arbitration shall share equally in the fee and ex-
12 penses of the arbitrator, including any expenses of the
13 arbitrator associated with judicial review."; and
14 (2) in section 3(cK3) and 3(cK6) by adding the
15 words "or (7)" after the words "paragraph {5)".
16 (c) Secdon 3(d) is amended —
17 (1) in secdon 3{dKlKA) by deleting the words "on
18 the initial classification";
19 (2) in secdon 3(d)(lKCKi) by deleting the words
20 "by or under the direct supervision of a certi5ed appli-
21 cator." and substituting therefor the words "by a certi-
22 fied appUcator or under such degree of supervision of a
23 certified applicator as the Administrator may specify.";
24 (3) in secdon 3(d)(l)(CKii)—
d by Google
1 (A) by deleting the words "by or under the
2 direct supervision of a certiEed applicator" and
3 substituting therefor the words "by a certified ap-
4 plicator or under such degree of supervisioD by a
5 certified applicator as the Administrator may
6 specify";
7 (B) by deleting the last sentence thereof and
8 substituting therefor the words "Any such regular
9 tion shall be issued under section 6(a) of this
10 Act.";
11 (4) in section 3(d)(2) by deleting the words "he
12 shall notify the registrant" and all that follows and
13 substituting therefor the words "or that additional re-
14 strictions are required to prevent such effects, the Ad-
15 ministrator may act to provide such restrictions under
16 section 6(a) or 6(bKl)(B) of this Act."; and
17 (5) in section 3(dK3) by deleting the last sentence
18 thereof and substituting therefor the words "A petition
19 under this paragraph shall be treated as an application
20 to amend the registration and to modify or rescind any
21 regulation involved.".
22 ADHINI8TRA.TIVB BBTIBW; SUSPBKSION
23 Sbc. 5. (a) Section 6(a) (7 U.S.O. 136d(a)) is amended
24 to read as follows:
d by Google
1 "(a) RuLBHAKiNO Pbocebdinos To Detbbbiine
2 Whethbb Peodvcts Cause Unbbasonable Adverse
3 Effects on the Envieonment. —
4 "(1) The Administr&tor may by regulation deter-
5 mine —
6 "(A) that a use (or proposed use) of a pesti-
7 cide product (or category of products) causes or
8 will cause unreasonable adverse effects on the es-
9 vironment; and
10 "(B) the terms of registratioD, if any, imder
11 which the pesticide product (or category of prod-
12 ucts) may be distributed, sold, or used.
13 "(2) As part of a rulemalung proceeding under
14 this subsection, the Administrator may by order require
15 that one or more issues shall be determined solely on
16 the basis of substantial evidence of recoid presented in
17 a bearing conducted in the manner prescribed by sub-
18 section (d) of this section.
19 "(3) Any regulation issued under tiiis subsection
20 (and any refusal of a petition to modify or rescind such
21 a regulation) shall be reviewable only as provided by
22 section 16(e) of this Act.
23 "(4) The Administrator may not issue a notice of
24 inl«nt to cancel the registration of a product (or to
25 cancel it unless the terms of registration are modified)
d by Google
9
1 for one or more uses under subsection {b)(l) of this sec-
2 tion unless —
3 "(A) the AdnimiBtrator has published a final
4 rule under this subsection which concludes that
5 one or more uses of the product poses um^ason-
6 able adverse effects on the environment; or
7 "(B) the Administrator determines th&t the
8 question of whether one or more uses of the prod-
9 uct poses unreasonable adverse effects on the en-
10 vironment can be answered more quickly and ef&-
11 cientl; in an adjudicatory hearing under subsec-
12 tion (d) of this section than in a rulemaking pro-
13 ceeding, taking into account the cost to the Gov-
14 emment and to other parties and the time re-
15 quired for resolution of issues; or
16 "(C) the notice is issued on or before October
17 2, 1988, and concerns a product (or category of
18 products) which was the subject of an administra-
19 tive investigation or proceeding or investigation
20 commenced on or before October 2, 1986.
21 "(5) If a hearing results from a notice under sub-
22 section (bKl) or (b)(2) of this section or section 3(cK6)
23 based on a pesticide's failure to comply with a regula-
24 tion issued after October 2, 1985, under this Act, the
25 scope of the hearing shall be limited to —
HR 2482 IH 2
d by Google
10
1 "(A) whether the product complies with the
2 relation;
3 "(B) whether the regulation by its temu b
4 applicable to such a product; or
5 "(C) whether, because of significant infomm-
6 tjon that was not (and could not reasonably have
7 been) presented in the proceeding wherein the
8 regulation was estabUshed, it would be unreason-
9 able to require such a product to comply with the
10 regulatjon.".
11 (b) Section 6(b) (7 U.S.C. 136d(b)) is revised to read as
12 follows:
13 "(b) Cancellation. —
14 "(1) NoNCOMPLTiNG PBODtTCTS. — If the Admin-
15 istrator determines that any of the terms of registration
16 of a registered pesticide product (or category of such
17 products) does not comply with the provisions of this
18 Act or any regulation issued under this Act, or deter-
19 mines that use of a registered pesticide product (or cat-
20 egory of such products) in accordance with widespread
21 and commonly recognized practice generally causes un-
22 reasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Ad-
23 ministrator may issue a notice of intent —
24 "(A) to cajicel the registration; or
d by Google
11
1 "(B) to cancel the registration unless speci-
2 fied modificationH to the tenns of registration of
3 the product(s) axe requested by the registrantCs).
4 "(2) Ihpbopeb application, etc. — The Ad-
5 ministrator may bsue a notice of intent to cancel the
6 registration of a pesticide product, or to cancel the reg-
7 istration unless specified modifications to the terms of
8 registration of the product are requested by the reg^
9 trant, if the Administrfttor determines that Uie product
10 was registered (or that its registration was amended) —
11 "(A) in response to an apphc&tion that con-
12 tained or cited any information or representation
13 which the applicant knew or reasonably should
14 have known, at the time of filing the apphc&tion,
15 was false, inaccurate, or misleading; or
16 "(B) in response to an apphcation that con-
17 tained or cited any information which was ra-
18 quired to be submitted and which was false, inac-
19 curate, or misleading, if the Administrator del«r-
20 mines that cancellation of tiie registration would
21 be in the public interest, taking into account the
22 need to use the data to determine whether the
23 product may cause unreasonable adverse effects
24 on the environment if used during the period re-
25 quired for replacement of the information and the
d by Google
12
1 degree of care which the applicant exercised in
2 obtaining and submitting the information; or
3 "(0) in response to an apptication that did
4 not comply with the requirements of the Act or
5 regulations issued under the Act and tliat was
6 mistakenly approved by the Agency because of
7 clerical error or other improper ministerial
8 Agency action; or
9 "(D) in response to an application that was
10 approved on the haaia of the prior approval of an-
il other application that the Administrator deter-
12 mines is described by subparagraph (A), (B), or
13 (C) of this para^aph, if a notice of intent to
14 cancel the registration resulting from that other
15 application has been issued.
16 "(3) Notice; eequibed contbnts. — Each
17 notice issued under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsec-
18 tion shall state the reasons for and factual basis of the
19 notice. Each notice issued under paragraph (IMB) or
20 (2) of this subsection shall specify each required roodifi-
21 cation in the terms of registration.
22 "(4) PuBUCATiON OF NOTICE. — A notice of
23 deniiJ, notice of intent to cancel, notice of suspension,
24 or notice of intent to suspend issued under this Act
25 shall be published in the Federal Register and shall be
d by Google
287
13
1 sent by certified maO, return receipt requested, to tlie
2 registrant's or applicant's address of record on file with
3 the Agency. If the muled notice is returned to the
4 A^^ncy as imdeliverable at that address, if deliver? is
5 refused, or if the Agency otherwise is unahle to accom-
6 plish delivery of the notice to the registrant or appli-
7 cant after making reasonable efforts to do so, the
8 notice shall be deemed to have been received by ibe
9 registrant or appUcant on the date the notice was pub-
10 Ushed in the Federal Register.
1 1 "(6) BfVIBW BY 8ECBBTABT OF AOBICUL-
12 TUBE. — At least 60 days prior to issuing a notice
13 under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, the Ad-
14 ministrator shall provide the Secretaiy of Agriculture
15 with a document containing the substance of the ac-
16 tions proposed and the reasons therefor and an analysis
17 of the impact on the agricultural economy of the ao-
18 tions that could result from issuance of the notice and
19 any resultant hearing or order: Provided, That such
20 document need not be furnished if the notice imple-
21 menta a regulation issued under subsection (a) of this
22 section upon which opportunity to comment has been
23 furnished to the Secretary under section 25(a)(2) of this
24 Act. If the Secretary comments in writing to the Ad-
25 ministrator regarding the document within 60 days
d by Google
288
14
1 after receiving them, the Adnunistzstor shaU publish
2 tuch comments and an; Agency response in the Feder-
3 al Begister with the notice. The comment period estab-
4 lished by this paragraph may be waived or modified by
5 agreement of die Admimstrator and the Secretary.
6 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subsection
7 (b) or of secUon 25(d) or (e), if the Administrator deter-
8 mines that an immediate suspension under subaectioD
9 (c) is necessaiy, the Administrator may waive the re-
10 quirement of advance notice to the Secretary under
11 this paragraph and to the Scientific Advisory Panel
12 under sections 2S(d) and 25(e), and may proceed in ac-
13 oordanoe with subsection (c).
14 "(6) Rbqubbt fob hbabino; effect of fail-
15 UBR TO BEQUEST HBABINO. — The actioD proposed by
16 a notice of intent to cancel issued under paragraph
17 (1)(A). (IXB), or (2) of this subsection shall become
IB final and effective at the end of 30 days from the date
19 of receipt of the notice by the registrant or from the
30 date of publication of the notice in the Federal Regis-
31 ter, whichever occurs later, unless within that time the
33 Administrator receives —
33 "(A) a request from the registnmt (or firom
34 any person adversely affected by the notice) for a
35 bearing CMirenung the product, if the notice did
d by Google
IS
1 not specify modifications in the terms of registn-
2 tion that could be made in lieu of cancellation; or
3 "(B) with respect to each tenn of registration
4 found to require specified modifications in a notice
5 issued under paragraph (1)(B) or (2) of this sub-
6 section, either a request from the registrant (or
7 from any person adversely affected by the notice)
6 for a hearing concerning the product, or an appli-
9 cation from the registrant to amend the terms of
10 registration in the manner specified in the
11 notice.".
12 (c) Section 6(c) (7 U.8.C. lS6d(c)) is amended—
13 (1) in section 6(cKl) by deleting the second sen-
14 tence thereof and substituting therefor the words "A
15 suspension order may prohibit the distribution or sale
16 of the pesticide product, may prohibit use of the prod-
17 uct, or both. No suspension order may be issued under
18 this subsection unless the Administrator has issued or
19 at the same time issues either (A) a notice of intent to
20 cancel the registration of the pesticide product under
21 subsection (bKl) of this section, or (B) a notice com-
22 mencing a rulemaking proceeding with respect to the
23 product under subsection (a) of this section."; and
d by Google
16
1 (2) in section 6(c)(4) by deleting the word "clasBi-
2 fication" and substituting therefor the words "the
3 terms of registration".
4 (d) Section 6(d) (7 U.S.C. 136d(d)) is revised to read as
5 follows:
6 "(d) Public Heaeings and SciENTmc Rbvibw. —
7 "(1) If a hearing is requested pursuant to subsec-
8 tion (b) or (e) of this section or section 3(cK2)(BKiv) or
9 3(c)(6) of this Act, or if the Administrator convenes a
10 hearing under subsection (aX2) of this section, a heaj-
11 ing shall be held after due notice for the purpose (sub-
12 ject to subsection (a)(5) of this section) of receiving evi-
13 dence relevant and material to the issues raised by the
14 request for hearing, or to the issues stated by the Ad-
15 tninistrator if the hearing is convened under subsection
16 (a)(2) of this section. Any interested person may inter-
17 vene in such a hearing. The hearing shall be held in
18 accordance with the provisions of subchi^ter 11 of titie
19 5 of the United States Code, except that the burden of
20 persuasion in a hearing held in response to a notice
21 issued under subsection (bKl) of this section or under
22 section 3(cK6) of this Act or convened under subsection
23 (a)(2) of this section shall rest with the party or parties
24 contending that use of the pesticide product does not
25 cause unreasonable adverse effects on tiie environment.
d by Google
17
1 The Administrator may by regulation prescribe rules of
2 procedure for bearings under this subsection.
3 "(2) Upon a showing of relevance and reasonable
4 scope of evidence sought by any party to a public hear-
5 ing, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue a sub-
6 poena to compel testimony or production of documents
7 from any person. The Administrative Law Judge shall
8 be guided by the principles of the Federal Rules of
9 Civil Procedure in allowing and controlling discovery
10 and in making any order for the protection of the wit-
11 ness or the content of documents produced and shall
12 order the payment of reasonable fees and expenses as a
13 condition of requiring testimony of the witness. On
14 contest, the subpoena may be enforced hy an appropri-
15 ate United States district court in accordance with the
16 principles stated herein.
17 "(3) Upon the request of any party to a public
18 bearing and when in the judgment of the Adminiatra-
19 tive Law Judge it is necessary or desirable, the Ad-
20 ministrative Law Judge shall at any time before the
21 hearing record is closed refer to a committee of the
22 National Academy of Sciences relevant questions of
23 scientific fact involved in the pubUc hearing. No
24 member of any committee of the National Academy of
25 Sciences established to carry out the functions of this
d by Google
18
1 section shall have a. financial or other conflict of inter-
2 est with respect to any matter considered by such com-
3 mittee. The committee shall report in writing to the
4 Administrative Law Judge aa soon as practicable after
5 such referral on these queBtiona of scientific fact. The
6 report shall be made public and shall be considered as
7 part of the hearing record. The Administrator shall
8 enter into appropriate arrangements with the National
9 Academy of Sciences to assure an objective and com-
10 potent scientific review of the queBtions presented to
11 committees of the Academy and to provide such other
12 scientific advisory services as may be required by the
13 Administrator for canying out the purposes of this Act.
14 "(4) Ab soon aa practicable after completion of the
15 bearing (including the report of the Academy), the Ad-
16 ministrator shall evaluate the record of the hearing and '
17 any findings and conclusions of the Adnunistrative Law
18 Judge and —
19 "(A) if the bearing was requested in response
20 to a notice mider subsection (b) of this section or
21 section 3(cK2}(BKiv) or 3(c)(6) of this Act, the Ad-
22 ministrator shall issue an order either revoking
23 the notice, canceling or denying the registration,
24 or requiring modification of the tenns of re^stra-
25 tion of the product. Such order shall be based
d by Google
19
1 only on substantul evidence of record and shall
2 set forth detailed findings of fact upon which the
3 order is based; or
4 "(B) if the hearing was convened under sub-
5 section (aK2) of this section, the Administrator
6 shall make and set forth detailed findings of fact
7 based only on substantial evidence of record and
8 shall include such findings, and the record of the
9 hearing, in the record of the rulemaking being
10 conducted under subsection (a) of this section.".
11 (e) Section 6 is further amended by adding at the end
12 thereof the following new subsections:
13 "(g) Pdjalitt; Eeopenino of Peoceedinob. — The
14 Administrator may issue regulations govenung the right to a
15 hearing under this section with regard to the denial of any
16 appUcation for the registration of a product contfuning an in-
17 gradient which was the subject of a prior notice of intent to
16 cancel. Under such regulations, due weight shall be given to
19 the desirability of finality of prior proceedings and determina-
20 tions and to the extent to which the applicant had a prior
21 opportuni^ to participate in earlier proceedings.
22 "(h) Qbneeal.—
23 "(1) VOLUNTABT CANCELLATION. — A registrant
24 may at any time request that any of its product regis-
25 trations be cancelled or be amended to delete one or
d by Google
2M
20
1 more uses. The Adnmiistrator shall approve such a re-
2 quest unless the product is the subject of a cancella^n
3 proceeding under section 6 and the Administrator de-
4 termines that the pubhc interest would be served by
5 disapproving the request and continuing siteb cancells-
6 tion proceeding.
7 "(2) Cancellation afteb five tbabs. — The
8 Administrator shall cancel the registration of any pesti-
9 cide at the end of the five-year period which begins on
10 the date of its rogistratioD (or at the end of any five-
11 year period thereafter) unless the registrant, or other
12 interested person with the concurrence of the regis-
13 trant, before the end of such period, requests in accord-
14 ance with regulations prescribed by the Administrator
15 that the registration be continued in effect.
16 "(3) ExiHTiNO STOCKS. — The Administrator may
17 permit the continued use, the continued distribution or
18 sale, or both, of existing stocks of a pesticide product
19 whose registration is suspended or cancelled under any
20 provision of this Act to such extent, under such condi-
21 tions, during such periods, and for such uses as be may
22 specify if he determines that such distribution, sale, or
23 use is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act
24 and will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
25 environment.
d by Google
1 "(4) Petition. — Any person may petition the
2 Administrator to cancel or suspend the registration of a
3 pesticide product, or to issue, modify, or rescind a reg-
4 ulation under this Act.
5 "(5) Additional inpoemation. — If at any time
6 after the re^tration of a pesticide the registrant has
7 additional information regarding unreasonable adverse
8 effects on the enviromnent of the pesticide, he shall
9 submit such information to the Administrator. For pur-
10 poses of this paragraph, 'infonnatioD' shall include fac-
11 tual information and expert opinion regarding risks or
12 beneBts.".
13 BEC0BD8
14 Sec. 6. Section 8 (7 U.S.C. 136f) is amended to read as
15 follows:
16 "^EC S. RECORDS.
17 "(a) Authobity To Rbquibb Rbcobds. — The Ad-
18 ministrator may by regulation require any producer, regts-
19 trant, applicant for registration, applicant for or holder of an
20 experimental use permit, pesticide testing facility, or com-
21 mercial applicator, or any person who distributes or sells any
22 pesticide —
23 "(1) to prepare, and to maintwn for reasonable
24 periods of time, such records as the Administrator finds
25 to be necessary for the effective implementation or en-
26 forcement of this Act;
d by Google
22
1 "(2) to furnish to the Adminutrator reports stat-
2 ing the location where the records are nuuntained; and
3 "(S) to furnish a copy of any such record to the
4 Administrator upon written request.
5 "(b) LiHTTATiONS. — The Administrator may not, under
6 the authority of this section, require any person to maintain
7 records of —
8 "(1) financial data or pricing data;
9 "(2) personnel data, except for data concerning
10 exposure of employees to pesticides or ingredients of
11 pesticides, or concerning health effects on employees
12 that could reasonably be attributable to such exposure;
13 or
14 "(3) research or test data (other than data relating
15 to registered pesticide products, data relating to any
16 products for which an application for registration or for
17 an experimental use permit has been Sled, or data re-
18 lating to the conduct of testing at a pesticide testing
19 facility).".
20 msPBCTiONS
21 Sec. 7. (a) Section 9(a) (7 U.S.C. 136g(a)) is amended
22 to read as follows:
23 "(a) AuTHOBiTT To Entbb, Inspect, and Copy. —
24 Officers or employees of the United States or of any State,
25 duly designated by the Administrator, are autliorized at rea-
26 sonable times, as provided by this section —
d by Google
1 "(1) to enter uiy place where any pesticide,
2 active ingredient, or device is distributed or sold, in
3 order to inspect and obtain samples of any pesticide,
4 active ingredient, or device being distributed or sold at
5 such place, or of any packaging or labeling of any such
6 pesticide, active ingredient, or device;
7 "(2) to enter any place where there are located
8 any records required by or under this Act, or any place
9 reported pursuant to section 8(a) as a location where
10 such records are maintained, in order to inspect and
11 obtain copies of such records;
12 "(3) to enter any pesticide testing facility, in order
13 to inspect the facili^ and the testing being conducted
14 at the facility, and to inspect and obtain copies of any
15 records required by or under the authori^ of this Act
16 to be maintained by the pesticide testing facili^; and
17 "(4) to enter any pUce where such officer or em-
18 ployee has probable cause to believe that the Act has
19 been or is being violated by any person other than a
20 person acting in the capacity of a private apfdicator, in
21 order to inspect such place to obtain evidence of suob
22 violation.".
23 (b) Section 9(b) (7 U.S.C. 136g(b)) is amended to read
d by Google
24
1 "(b) Wabbants. — Officers or employees of the United
2 States or of any State or political subdivision thereof, duly
3 designated by the Administrator, are empowered to obtun
4 and to execute warrants authorizing —
5 "(1) entry for the purposes of this section;
6 "(2) inspection and copying of all records required
7 under this Act; and
8 "(3) seizure of any pesticide or device which is m
9 violation of this Act.".
10 (c) Section 9 is further amended by adding at the end
11 thereof a new subsection, to read as follows:
12 "(d) Pbocedube. — Before any entry or inspection of
13 any premises not open to the general public is made under
14 this section, the person conducting the inspection shaD
15 present to the person in charge of the premises appropriate
16 credentials, and a written statement of the reason for the
17 inspection and whether a violation of the law is suspected.
18 Each inspection shall be commenced and completed with rev
19 sonable promptness. If the person conducting the inspection
20 obtains any samples of pesticides or devices, prior to leaving
21 the premises he sh^ give to the person in charge of the
22 premises a receipt describing the samples and, if requested
23 and practicable, a portion of each such sample equal in
24 volume or weight to the portion retained. If an analysis of
25 any such sample is made, a copy of the results of such anaJy-
d by Google
1 sis shall be furnished on request to the person in charge of
2 the premises.".
S PBOTBCTION OF TRADE 8ECBET8 AND OTHBB
4 INFOBHATION
5 Sec. 8. (a) Section 10(d) (7 U.S.C. 136h(d)) is amended
6 in paragraph (3) by deleting the word "If' in the first sen-
7 tence thereof and substituting therefor the words "Except
8 with respect to determinations requiring disclosure of infor-
9 mation in inert ingredient statements in accordance wiUi sec-
10 tion 2(n) of this Act, if '.
11 (b) Section 10 {7 n.S.C. 136b) a further amended by
12 adding at the end thereof the following:
13 "(h) DiscLOSUBB TO STATES. — The Administrator
14 may disclose to any State any data or information acquired
15 imder the authority of this Act if the Administrator has first
16 determined that the laws and regulations of the State prohibit
17 disclosure of the data to any person who would not be enti-
18 tied to obtun the data from the Administrator under this
19 Act.".
20 (c) Section 10 (7 U.S.C. 136h) is fiirther amended by
21 adding at the end thereof the following:
22 "(i) DiSCLOSUBE TO FOBBION CklVBBNMBNTS. — Not-
23 withstanding any other provision of this Act, the Administra-
24 tor may disclose data or information obtained under the au-
25 thority of this Act to the government of another country if —
d by Google
1 "(1) a bilateral treaty or Bgreemeot exists be-
2 tween the United States and that country au&orizing
3 the mutual exchange and protection of data and infor-
4 malioii pertaining to pesticides; and
5 "(2) the Adminstrator, after consultation with the
6 Secretary of State and ^ter notice and opportunity for
7 public comment, has determined tiiat the laws of that
8 country provide protection equivalent to that provided
9 by this Act against disclosure of the data or informa-
10 tion and against use of the data or information to sup-
11 port any application for, or decision to grant, any li-
12 cense, permit, or other action to allow the production,
13 distribution, or sale of a pesticide under the laws of
14 any country; and
15 "(3) the Administrator determines that the par-
16 ticular disclosure is in the national interest; and
17 "(4) the Administrator notifies any applicant or
18 registrant who submitted the information or data of the
19 disclosure.
20 "(j) Infobuation Rbobived Fboh Fobbion Gov-
21 BBNUBNTS. — Notwithstanding any other provision of this
22 Act, section 552 of titie 5 of the United States Code, or any
23 other provision of law, the Administrator shall not be re-
24 quired to disclose any data or information concerning pesti-
25 cides if —
d by Google
301
27
1 "(1) the Administr&tor obtained the data or infor-
2 mation from the government of another country;
3 "(2) that goTeminent required the Adminiatrator
4 to agree not to disclose the data or information to the
5 public as a condition of furnishing it to the Administra-
6 tor;
7 "(3) the Administrator could not otherwise obtfun
8 the data or information; and
9 "(4) that goremment has not informed the Ad-
10 ministrator Uiat the data or information may be dis-
11 closed to the public.".
12 UNLAWFUL ACTS
13 Sec. 9. (a) Section 12(a) (7 n.S.C. 136j{a)) is
14 amended —
15 (1) in subsection (aKD by deleting the words "dis-
16 tribute, sell, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, dehver
17 for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliv-
18 er or offer to deliver, to any person — " and substitut-
19 ing therefor the words "to distribute or sell to any
20 person — ";
21 (2) by revising subsection (aKlXA) to read as
22 follows:
33 "(A) any pesticide product which is not reg-
24 iBtered under section 3 or whose registration has
26 been cancelled or suspended, except to the extent
d by Google
302
28
1 that distribution or sale otherwise has been au-
2 tborized by the Administrator under this Act;";
3 (3) by revising subsection (^2XB) to read as
4 follows:
5 "(B) to refuse to (\) prepare, muntaln, or
6 submit any records required under this Act or by
7 regulatioDB issued pursuant to this Act, (ii) submit
8 any reports required by this Act or by regulations
9 issued pursuant to this Act, or (iii) allow any
10 entry, inspection, copying of records, or sampling
11 authorized by this Act.";
IS (4) in subsection (aKSMF) by deleting the words
13 "to make" and substituting therefor the words "to dis-
14 tribute or sell, or to make";
15 (5) in subsection (aKSHJ) by deleting the words
16 "section 6" and substituting therefor the words "this
17 Act";
18 (6) by amending subsection {aK2)(K) to read as
19 follows:
20 "(E) to violate any cancellation order issued
21 under this Act;";
22 (7) in section (aH2)(M) by deleting the words "sec-
23 tion 6" and substituting therefor the words "this Act";
24 (8) in subsection (aK2K0) by deleting the word
25 "or" at the end thereof;
d by Google
1 (9) by striking the period at the end of subsection
2 (aK2)(P); and
3 (10) by adding at the end thereof the following:
4 "(Q) to violate any regulation prescribed by
6 the Administrator to carry out good laboratory
6 practice standards;
7 "(R) to distribute or sell, to make avulable
8 for use, or to use any pesticide product which is
9 the subject of an exemption under section 18 in
10 violation of the terms of the exemption;
11 "(S) who is a registrant, an applicant for
12 registration, or a pesticide testing facility, to false-
18 ly or misleadingly represent any information relat-
14 ing to the testing of any pesticide (or any ingredi-
15 ent, metabolite, or degradation product thereof),
16 including the nature of any protocol, procedure,
17 substance, organism, or equipment used, observa-
18 tion made, or conclusion or opinion formed if such
19 representation is made to the Agency, or is made
20 in any document or record which the person
21 making it knows or reasonably should know will
22 be furnished to the Agency or will become a part
28 of any records required to be maintained by this
24 Act or by regulations issued under this Act; or
d by Google
1 "(T) who is a registruit, an applicant for
2 registratJOD, or a pesticide testing facility, or who
3 distributes or sells any pesticide, or who is a com-
4 mercial applicator, or who appUes any pesticide
5 for hire, to violate any regulation issued under the
6 authority of this Act.".
7 (b) Section 12 (7 n.S.C. 136j) is amended by adding at
8 the end thereof a new subsection (c) to read as follows:
9 "(c) Acts op Ofpicbes, Agents, Etc. — When con-
10 atruing and enforcing the provisions of this Act, tlie act,
11 omission, or ffulure of any officer, employee, agent, or other
12 person acting for or employed by any person shall m every
13 case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or ffulure of such
14 person as well as that of the person employed.".
15 PENALTIES
16 Sec. 10. (a) Section 14(a) (7 U.8.C. 1361(a)) is
17 amended —
18 (1) in subsection (a)(1)—
19 (A) by inserting after the words, "commer-
20 cial applicator," the words "applicant for registra-
21 tion, or any pesticide testing facility, or any";
22 (B) by deleting the word "distributor" and
23 substituting therefor the words "person who dis-
24 tributes or sells any pesticide or device,";
25 (C) be deleting the words "$5,000" and sub-
26 stituting therefor the words "$25,000";
d by Google
805
81
1 (D) by adding after the words "offense." the
2 words "Each daj such a violation continues shall,
3 for the purposes of this subsection, constitute a
4 separate offense.";
5 (2) in subsection {aK2)—
6 (A) by deleting the words "$1,000" each
7 time they appear and substituting therefor the
8 words "$5,000";
9 (B) by deleting the words "$500" and substi-
10 tuting therefor the words "$2,500";
11 (C) by adding at the end thereof the words
12 "Each day such a violation continues shall, for
13 the purposes of this subsection, constitute a sepa-
14 rate offense."; and
15 (3) in subsection (aK3) by deleting the period at
16 the end thereof and substitutmg therefor the words ":
17 Promded, That if the person neither resides nor has his
18 principal pUce of busmess m the United States, the
19 Administrator may designate a site for the hearing in
20 the United States which is reasonably convenient for
21 the parties."; and
22 (4) in subsection (a)(4) by adding the words "the
23 economic beneflt (if any) resulting from the violation,"
24 immediately after the words "to continue in business,"
25 in the first sentence thereof.
d by Google
1 (b) Section 14(b) (7 U.S.C. 1361(b)) is amended—
2 (1) in subsection (b)(1)—
3 (A) by inserting aiter the words "conunercial
4 applicator the words "applicant for registration, or
5 any pesticide testing facility, or any";
6 (B) by deleting the word "distributor" and
7 substituting therefor the words "person who dis-
8 tributes or sells any pesticide or device,";
9 (C) by deleting the word "misdeme&nor" and
10 substituting therefor the word "felony";
11 (D) by deleting the words "one year" and
12 substituting therefor the words "two years"; and
13 (2) in subsection (b)(2)—
14 (A) by deleting the words "30 days" and
15 substituting therefor the words "one year";
16 (B) by deleting the words "$1,000" and sub-
17 stituting therefor the words "$5,000"; and
18 (3) by deleting subsection (b)(4).
19 (c) Section 14 is further amended by adding at the end
20 thereof the following new subsection:
21 "(c) Subpoenas. — The Administrator may, in conneo-
22 tion with administrative proceedings under subsection (a) of
23 this section, issue subpoenas compelling the attendance and
24 testimony of witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum, and may
25 request the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce
d by Google
807
SS
1 any subpoena under this section. The district courts shall
2 have jurisdiction to enforce such subpoenas and impose sanc-
3 tions.".
4 INDEHNITIES
5 Sec. U. Section 15 (7 U.S.C. 136m) is amended by
6 adding a new subsection at the end thereof to read as follows:
7 "(c) Limitation. — Notwithstanding any other provi-
8 sion of this Act, no indemnity payment under this section
9 shall be made on account of any suspension of registration of
10 a pesticide product which occurs after the effective date of
11 this subsection.".
12 ADUINISTBATIVE PBOCEDUBE; JUDICIAL EEVIEW
13 Sec. 12. Section 16 (7 U.S.C. 136n) is amended by
14 adding at the end thereof a new subsection, to read as
15 follows:
16 "(e) Review of Eegulationb. — (1) Any regulation
17 issued under this Act and first published in the Federal Reg-
is ister in final form after the effective date of this subsection or
19 any refus^ of a petition to modify or rescind such a reguhi-
20 tion shall be reviewable only as provided by this subsection.
21 Any person may obtain judicial review of such a regulation or
23 refusal by filing a petition for review in the United States
23 court of appeals for the circuit wherein the person resides or
24 has its principal place of business, or in the United States
25 Court of Appeals for the District of Coliunbia. Any petition
26 under this subsection for review of a regulation shall be filed
d by Google
34
1 within nztj days from the date of promulgatioii of the repiU-
2 tion as detennined by Uie AdminiBtrator in the Federal Keg-
3 ister. Any petition under this subsection for review of a reAu-
4 al to modify or rescind a regulation shall be Gled within sixty
5 days after such refusal. The scope of review shall be as speci-
6 fied in section 706 of titie 5, United States Code. The com-
7 mencement of proceedings under this paragraph shall not,
8 unless specifically ordered by the court to the contrary, oper-
9 ate as a stay of the regulation.
10 "(2) Action of the Administrator with respect to which
11 review could have been obtained under paragraph (1) of this
12 subsection shall not be subject to judicial review in any sus-
13 pension, cancellation, or denial proceeding under this Act or
14 any appeal therefrom, nor in any proceeding under section
15 13, 14, or 16(c) of this Act or any appeal therefrom.".
16 DISPOSAL AND TBANSPOBTATIOIf
17 Sec. 13. Section 19(a) (7 U.S.C. 136q(a)) is amended
18 by inserting after the words "canceled under section 6(c)"
19 the words "on or before October 1, 1985".
20 DELEGATION AND COOPEBATION
21 Sec. 14. Section 22 is amended by adding at the end
22 thereof a new subsection, to read as follows:
23 "(c) Effect on Cebtain Othbb Laws. — In ezerds-
24 ing any authority under tliis Act, the Administrator shall not,
25 for purposes of section 653(bMl) of Title 29, United States
26 Code, be deemed to be exercising statutory authority to pre-
d by Google
1 scribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupa-
2 tional safety or health.".
3 AUTHOEITY OF STATES
4 Sec. 15. Section 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v<c)), is amended
5 in subsection (c)(1) by deleting the period at the end thereof
6 and substituting therefor the words "Promded, That such a
7 refpstration shall expire and be of no further effect, without
6 further action by the Administrator —
9 "(A) at the end, of the period, if any, provided as
10 the duration of the registration by the State which ap-
1 1 proved it; or
12 "(B) 10 days aft«r the date the Administrator
13 publishes in the Federal Register a notice stating that
14 the State which issued the registration has informed
15 the Administrator that the State no longer desires the
16 registration to continue m effect.".
17 AUTHOBITT OF ADMINIBTBATOB
16 Sec. 16. (a) Section 25(a) (7 U.S.C. l36w(a)) is amend-
19 ed by revising subsection (a)(4) to read as follows —
20 "(4) CONOBESSIONAL BEVIEW OF BEOULA-
21 TiONS. — Notwithstanding any other provision of this
22 Act, simultaneously with the promulgation of any rule
23 or regulation under this Act, the Administrator ahall
24 transmit a copy thereof to the Secretary of the Senate
25 and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The
26 rule or regulation shall not become effective imtil the
d by Google
36
passage of 60 calendar days after the rule or regulation
is so transmitted.",
(b) Section 25<c) (7 U.S.C. 136w(c)) is amended—
(1) hy inserting after the words "notice and op-
portuni^ for bearing," the words "or by issuance of
regulations,"; and
(2) by deleting the words "prescribe regulations
requiring" in paragraph (5) thereof and substituting
therefor the word "require".
O
d by Google
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
RODENTICIDE ACT
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1985
House of Representativbs,
subcommitteb on department operations,
Research, and Foreign Agriculture,
commntee on agriculture,
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:40 a.m., in room
1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Berkley Bedell (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Brown, Staggers, Volkmer, Roberts,
Morrison, Gunderson, Evans of Iowa, and Combest.
Also present: Representative E (Kika) de la Garza, chairman of
the committee, and Representatives Heftel and Synar.
Staff present: Phillip L. Fraas, counsel; John E. Hogeui, minority
counsel; Mark Dungan, minority associate counsel; Glenda L.
Temple, clerk; Bernard Brenner, Nick Ashmore, Timothy J. Galvin,
and Gary R. Mitchell.
Mr. Bedell. The subcommittee will come to order.
There is a Democratic caucus on and some of the other members
had other things to do, but I am sure they will come here as we
proceed.
This is a continuation of the hearings that we had all day yester-
day on FTFRA. I understand that our colleague, Mike Synar, will
be our first witness this morning.
First of all, we are privileged to have the chfiinnan of the full
committee with us.
Mr. de la Garza, do you have any statement you wish to make?
The Chairman. No.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Combest, do you want to say Emything?
Mr. Combest. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. If not, we are glad to have you here, Mike. We look
forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. HIKE SYNAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Synar. Thank you very much, Berkley.
I will enter my prepared remarks into the record Emd just sum-
The purpose for which I come to the hearing this morning is not
to endorse any particular proposal but to share with you the re-
sults of an extensive investigation of EPA's pesticide r^istration
(311)
d by Google
312
activities conducted by the Environment, Energy, and Natural Re-
source Subcommittee, which I have the honor of chairing. It is my
hope that this information will be useful to this subcommittee in
formulating sound legislative proposals.
Our investigation identified a number of serious weaknesses in
EPA's pesticide registration activities which are summarized in a
report approved unanimously by the Committee on Government
Operations last October. Most of these weaknesses were not due to
deficiencies in the law, but rather to inadequate Etdministration,
implementation, and enforcement of the law. For this reason, the
committee's report made a number of recommendations for admin-
istrative improvements, but noted that, if EPA's response to t^e
recommendations was inadequate. Congress might find it necessary
and appropriate to address these problems legislatively.
Berkley, I will admit that some improvements have been made.
However, these changes are really insufficient. Therefore, I think
legislation should be enacted to mandate further improvements.
I understand that EPA has prepared a l^islative proposal which
the administration refused to allow the Agency to submit to Con-
gress, but you and Mr. Roberts from Kansas introduced the propos-
al as a basis of debate, and I want to commend you and him for
that, emd also your other work.
Unfortunately, EPA's proposal may not go feu* enough in that it
merely gives the Administrator additional discretionary authority
without really providing any assurance that that new authority
will be used effectively.
The investigation which we did revealed that the flexibility
which Congress has provided to the Administrator of EPA in en-
forcing the law has provided a cover for bureaucratic footdragging,
inefficiency, and in^ion in the face of resistance from the r«;ulat-
ed industry. As a result, the original intent of Congress, the etected
representatives of the people, heis been thwarted by unelected offi-
cials. It is for that reason, Mr. Chftirman, that I would like to make
the following recommendations:
I recommend that the subcommittee incorporate in its legislative
proposal certain speciffc mandates and, where necessary, deadlines
for their achievement. A good example is the re-registration of
older pesticides. Twelve years after that legislation was eneicted,
registration standards have been set for only 76 of more than 600
chemicals, out of an estimated 50,000 registrations subject to the
re-registration requirement. I urge the subcommittee to consider
reestablishing a reasonable deadline with appropriate milestones
for completion of the re-registration process.
Now a similar problem exists with respect to the special review
process. Originally it was devised by EPA to provide more expedi-
tious decisionmaking than was possible under the normal adjudica-
tory process. Our investigation showed that the special review proc-
ess has, in fact, lengthened the period of time required to reach
final determinations.
I would recommend that the subcommittee consider incorporat-
ing into the law a specific timeframe during which EPA must act
at each stage of the special review process, similar to the legislative
deadlines now imposed on outside parties in the special review
process.
d by Google
313
Another area which has caused our subcominittee concern was
EPA's failure to act promptly to cancel registrations for products
when it found that £my one of the essential safety studies was
based upon fabifled or misleading data submitted by International
Biotest Laboratories. This is a situation which I hope your subcom-
mittee will act to rectify legislatively.
Another area which I hope this subcommittee will address is how
to assure that, once a pesticide registration has been canceled, im-
ported food products which have residues of such pesticides above
normal background levels will not be eillowed into this country.
As your subcommittee is aware, this has occurred with DDT £md
EDB. This not only presents an unwarranted risk to the American
consumers, but I think even a more significant point is that it
places our American farmers at a competitive disadvantage in the
marketplace.
Now I know the subconamittee is aware of the serious problems
that we are facing with regard to ground-water contamination. For
this reason, I would also ask you to consider including lemguage to
insure that information be required on the ability of all pesticides,
including those currently registered, to contaminate ground-water
by leaching into the soil and that, unless adequate labeling can be
devised and enforced to prevent such occurrences, the registration
will be canceled.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee may want to consider
inclusion of legislative provisions to insure a community's right to
know about the potential dangers of pesticide manufacturing oper-
ations In their area.
I know these recommendations represent very strong medicine,
but, as one who grew up on a farm and who comes from a famUy of
farmers and ranchers, I firmly believe that farmers and other
users of pesticides, as well as consumers of a^icultural products,
have a right to expect that their pesticides will be safe and effec-
tive when used according to the EPA-approved labeling.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members who
are here today for your time on this very important issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Synar appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much, Mike.
Mr. de la Garza, do you have any questions?
The Chairman. No.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. I don't have Euiy questions, except I need to alert
you to a problem we face, and that is that one of the m^or prob-
lems we face is lack of financial resources in order for EPA to do
the job properly in the timely fashion that you are suggesting. I
guess a concern that I would have is if we put in specific time re-
quirements but, we don't give them the money with which to do
the job, we have a heck of a problem on our hcrnds. I presume you
are aware of that difficulty.
Mr. Synar. We are, and that is usually the answer we get from
EPA when they come down here.
A couple of things I might note: EPA, as an agency which has a
responsibility to protect the health cmd safety of individuals, has a
d by Google
314
higher responsibility, I think, to make the demands on OMB to
give them the type of resource necesseiry. The reason they have
that responsibiHty is simply because it is impossible for any of us
in this body to put an economic value on human life. Yet, with the
continuous exposure which the American public has to pesticides,
it may be penny wise and pound foolish to not make the necessary
resources available.
I am aware of those budget restreiiats. I hope that E^A will con-
tinue to fight for additional resources and make this a priority
item.
Mr. Bedell. We certainly appreciate your su^estion. I would
hope you would keep track of what is happening in our subcommitr
tee and in our full committee. If there are things that you think we
are missing in what should be done, I hope you would at least talk
to me, Mike, or check with our subcommittee or some of the mem-
bers of the subcommittee or the full committee. We eu-e going to try
our damest to do what is best. Our plans are definitely to move
forward with FIFRA legislation; at least that is certainly the chair-
man's plan, to try to move forward.
Thank you very much for your testimony and for your interest in
this issue.
Mr. Synar. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. We next have a panel consisting of Al Meyerhoff,
senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco;
Ms. Nancy Drabble, director of Public Citizens' Congress Watch,
Washington, DC; Mr. Brian Turner, director of l^islation and eco-
nomic policy. Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO; Mr. Jack
Sheehan, legislative director. United Steelworkers of America; and
Mr. Jay Feldman, Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides.
Will all of you come forward?
We have a large number of witnesses today, and we need to get
through by 12 o'clock. We are going to require that you stay within
your 5-minute period. When that time is up, I will simply have to
mention it to you. If you need two or three more sentences, that is
understandable, but we are going to have to stick to our time.
In the meantime, the ranking minority person on our subcom-
mittee, who is a reeil great help in this particular issue, Mr. Rob-
erts, has arrived.
Do you have fmything that you want to say, Pat?
Mr. Roberts. No, Mr. Chairmeui.
Mr. Bedell. We will go ahead, then, with Mr. Meyerhoff first.
STATEMENT OF ALBERT H. MEYERHOFF, SENIOR ATTORNEY,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.. ACCOMPANIED
BY LAWRIE MOTT, PROJECT SCIENTIST
Mr. Meyerhoff. I will try to keep my remarks very brief, Mr.
Chairman.
My name is Albert Meyerhoff I am a senior attorney with the
Natural Resources Defense Council. With me is Lawrie Mott,
project scientist, to answer any questions of a technical nature that
you might have.
d by Google
We appreciate the opportunity to testify at these important hear-
on necessary amendments to the Federal pesticide law,
As Congressman Synar noted, it is the position of the Reagan ad-
ministration that FIFRA should be reauthorized for 3 years with-
out cheinge. This essentitdly echoes the views of the chemical and
food industries, although it is reported that they are seeking legis-
lation through both FIFRA and the farm bill that would preempt
State authority to regulate pesticides in food and local authority to
regulate pesticides.
In a statement provided to this subcommittee in writing from the
Environmental Protection Agency, FIFRA was characterized as a
fundfimentally sound environmental law, one of our biggest assets.
Of course, all of this fli^ in the face of reality. An unbroken litany
of r^wrts from congressional subcommittees, from the GAO, from
the National Academy of Sciences, and elsewhere have all docu-
mented that FIFRA heis failed. It provides, at best, an illusion of
safety, no more than that.
Consider ground water protection. For many years we thought
that pesticides did not provide any s^iRcant threat to ground
water. The finding of DBCP in ground water in California in 1979
broke that false sense of security. A recent report released last
month entitled, "The Leaching Fields," from the California Assem-
bly Office of Research, found 57 different pesticides in more than
3,000 wells.
The chart that I brought this morning documents where those
pesticides have been found in 28 of California's coimties. They in-
clude such pesticide as DBCP, EDB, DDT, 2,4,5-T. You can almost
pick your poison throughout the valley. Fifteen hundred or more of
those wells have been found unflt for human consumption, for
washing, and for other use.
We think California is a harbinger and that, if FIFRA is not
amended to specifically address ground water now, we are going to
have an environmental time bomb on our heinds.
A Cornell study last year found that 67, 68 percent of rural
Americans have pesticides in substantial quantity in their ground-
water, 75 percent of people living in the West. We think this is in-
tolerable and we would urge the Agriculture Committee and the
Congress to adopt specific amendments to address the threat to
American health posed from ground water.
Of course, the remaining issues of consumer protection, the food
chain, eind farmworkers — all of which, again, are a case study in
failure. Take the food chfdn. We found that EDB, after 10 years of
having been found by the National Camcer Institute to be a proba-
ble human carcinogen, was finally pulled off the market. It re-
mains in the food chain.
EDB was not an aberration. Consider the EBDC's, for alphabet
soup, if you will. EBDC's are one of the most widely used fungicides
in the country. They are used on one-third of our tomatoes, over
half of the potato crop, two-thirds of the mushrooms, 100 percent of
all the beinanas brought into the country. They have been linked to
birth defects, cancer, genetic mutations.
When you cook a product containing the EBE)C's, it breaks down
into another chemical, EITU, also a carcinogen. There are no toler-
d by Google
316
ances for ETU in the food. DuPont did one study. They found that
23 percent of the ceinned fruits and vegetables they tested con-
tained ETU— eigain, not an aberration. There are literally dozens of
pesticides in fresh and processed foods that are known or suspect
carcingens for which tolerances have been set with false or fraudu*
lent data or no data at eill, an illusion of safety.
Then there is consumer protection. I will give just a couple of ex*
amples, and I will be brief.
Pentachlorophenol: In 1978 the Environmental Protection
Agency placed penta into RPAR, as you know, an expedited process
to get particularly suspect chemicals regulated as quickly as possi-
ble. RPAR was originally intended to be completed within 300
days. No RPAR has ever been completed within 300 days. Seven
ye£us after penta went into RPAR a final decision was released by
the agency.
First, in 1981 EPA proposed a decision that would prevent over-
the-counter sale of penta. The reason for that was that as early as
1974 HEW in studies found penta linked to birth defects. In 1978
there was additional data demonstrating that a dioxin contaminant
contained in penta might cause cancer. So in 1981 EPA said, "Well,
let's get this off the market at least for home use. Let's not have
consumers buying this over the counter."
Thirty-two or thirty-three closed meetings then occurred between
EPA officials £md representatives of the wood preservant industry.
Another decision was issued in 1974, this time on industry letter-
head. When there was a flurry of controversy, that decision was
withdrawn.
Last year we received a final decision that was reported in the
New York Times and the Washington Post indicating that penta
should no longer be sold over the counter; it should be restricted;
there should be a Consumer Awareness Program.
I have with me this morning a cem of pentachlorophenol bought
at a local hardweu-e store. You can still buy this prtxiuct. You can
?ut it on your deck. You can put it on your children's playground,
"ou can do whatever you want with it. That is because this deci-
sion, this 8-year process, has now been challenged in the courts and
before EPA as having been unfair to the industry.
This is the consumer protection we were getting from EPA.
There are many other examples of this. We have a statute here
that is fundamentally deficit. It is not protecting the public health.
It deserves immediate attention by the subcommittee and amend-
ments that will do so.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyerhoff appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
We will now hear from Ms. Nancy Drabble.
STATEMENT OF NANCY DRABBLE, DIRECTOR. PUBLIC CITIZEN'S
CONGRESS WATCH, ALSO REPRESENTING CONSUMER FEDERA-
TION OF AMERICA AND PUBLIC VOICE FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
POLICY
Ms. Drabble. Thank you, Mr. Chairmam.
d by Google
317
I am Nancy Drabble. I am the director of Public Citizen's Con-
gress Watch. Public Citizen is a nationwide consumer organization
with 80,000 members. I aim also speaking today on beheilf of the
Consumer Federation of America and Public Voice for Food and
Health Policy, two other major consumer organizations.
Our groups have worked for many years on food safety issues,
and we became particularly concerned about pesticide residues on
food in 1983 when we observed the EDB debacle and the failure of
testing of pesticide residues used on food.
However, the core statute regulation pesticides, the Federal In-
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, remains unchanged.
After many years of documentation of FIFRA's failures and several
congressional reports and critical anfUyses by the National Acade-
my of Sciences and GAO, nothing has happened.
However, we applaud the intention of your subcommittee to
move ahead to amend FIFRA this year. Our coalition of 40 con-
sumer, environmental, labor, religious, and health groups heis
united together to express support for the bill that Congressman
George Brown £md Senator William Proxraire will be introducing
soon to correct the fundamental defects in FIFRA. I have a letter
here today that we have sent off to the Agriculture Committee de-
scribing this bill and endorsing it, which I would like to submit for
the record.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, it will be entered in the record.
[The letter follows:]
d by Google
CAMPAIGN FOR PESHCIES: R£P(»M
Dear Representative.
The Agriculture Covnlttee will soon begin action on aamndmenta
to FIPRA (The Fadaral Ineactlclda, Fungicide and Rodentlcide Act).
ThlB year, environmental, coneunar, health, reltgioua and labor
organiiationa have joined In the Campaign for peatlclde Rafora to
Bupport FIFRA reform anendmentE being aponaored by Congreaanan
George Brown (D-CA). These critically needed smendnanta will make
the use of peaticide chemical! leaa dangeroua by improving the FIPRA
law through the following health and environmental protectlonai
1. EPA muBt require paatleide manufecturera to complete
health and aafety teaf under deadlinea.
Theae studies are necessary to determine whether pesticides
cause cancer, infertlllcy, aterllity, birth defects, nerve damage,
nenetic mutations, or chronic diseases. Congress mandated these
tests in 1972, but 13 years later EPA haa full health and safety
data on only 6 out of 600 active ingredients used In pesticides.
A 1982 study by the House Agriculture Subcommittee on
[>epartment Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture reported
that 84% of registered pesticides locX adsquato cancer tests, 93%
locX adequate genetic mutation testa, and 70% lack birth defects
tests. The National Academy of Sciences reported in March 1984 chat
only 10% of pesticides have health and safety data sufficient to
aasess health hazards. The Brown bill requires peaticide
manufacturers to conduct the necessary tests under deadlines and
allows EPA to bill registrants for the coat of the tests if they are
not Initiated promptly.
1. EPA must prsvent further pesticide contamination of
groundwater.
According to EPA, 16 different pesticides have been detected in
the groundwater of 23 states. For enanple, an April 1985 study of
lova wells found pesticide contamination in 40% of the public
drinking' water supplies analyzed. The potent carcinogen ED6 has
been discovered in water in Connecticut, Haesachusetta, Georgia,
lifornia, and Hawaii. A
cudy found 57 pesticides in 28 counties.
cultural use. It i^usc start proceedings to
iin four to sii months, unless the affected
db,Google
3. EPA »u»t not r>^l»f r p^atlcla— that e»u«« birth
ni* California Dapartiiiant of Food and Agricultura haa
Idantlflad 22 paaticldaa which nay ba taratogana (eauaa birth
defacta). EPA finally banned tha harblclda 2,4,S-T nalnly bacauaa
of lt» taratoganlc haiarda. but It dalayad yaara aftar laboratory
taata indlcatad birth dafact potantlal and only actad vhan hunana
Buffered birth defecta. Only one axpoaure to a teratogenic
peeticida at an early atage of pregnancy can cause birth dsfecta,
etillbirthi or spontanaoua abortion. Thaaa peatlcidas can alao
cauae aterlllty or infertility In proapectlva parent*.
Tha peatlclde reform bill atopa the problem of paatlclda-
Induced birth defects by prohibiting raglatratlon of taratoqana.
Given the availability of numeroua affective non-taratogenic
peaticidea, no justification sxiats for the continued hone and
agricultural uae of this relatively snail, but dan9aroue, group of
pesticidaa.
salduea of cancelled paatlcldes arrives at
cana regularly, endangering consunari and
EPA haa allowed tolerance residua limits
>n after a pesticide has been cancelled.
] eliminate tolerancea for DDT for Bore
than 10 yeara after cancellation. Theae anendnenta prohibit
tolerancea for banned peaticidea except when reaiduea unavoidably
pcraist in the environment, and prohibit the import of food with
reaiduea exceeding the tolerance.
U.S. export of banned, unregistered and highly toxic peatlcidas
haa caused fatal Injuriea and environmental destruction abroad. In
addition, tha residuea of such pesticides return to the U.S. on
imported food. Developing countries In particular need timely
warning when hazardous pesticides are being shipped to them. In
addition, these countries need Information about Why these chcnlcala
are restricted or banned in the U.S. The current law requirea
cancelled or suspended pestlcidaa {which may not be the Doat
Under the Browti reform bill, pesticide manufacturers would notify
the EPA of exports annually, and EPA would provide the relevant
foreign country with information about the pssticide, allowing that
country the opportunity to request tha import of the banned,
suspended or restricted pesticide.
db,Google
ThB paaclcld* ratoTB bill •■tablistias a public rlgbt-to-know of
eha Identltlaa and haalth haiards of paaelcldoa BBDufacturad in
local coaiBunitlas. Rcaldanta would alao ba abla to obtain
information on tha proiiaity of paaticida plants to raaidantial
naighborhooda and plana for eMeE9ancy avacuation in caaa of an
accident.
6. BPA Muat aatabliah a worXar protaction program.
In 1972, CongrcBi gave EPA juriadiction over paaticida aafaty
for workera. but 13 yaara later EPA haa not aatablialiad an
occupational health progran. Thaaa anendBcnta raquira BPA to atart
auch a program and to adopt worker aafaty regulatlona.
. rawova Janqaroua paaticldaa fro» tha
t ba atraawlinad.
BPA'a paaticida cancellation prcneaa ia notorioualy c
and lengthy, BOraetimeB taking up to 10 yeara. Juat the cancellatioD
hearing for a aingle paaticida can taka two to four years. In tha
meantime, people suffer continued expoaure and eat food with
residue! of the dangerous paaticida. Alio, the fact that
cancellation hearings take so long and cost so much money acta as a
diaincantlva to atart a hearing in the firat place.
The Brown reform bill sinplifiea cancellation haaringa, givaa
citizens the right to initiate and participate in such hearings, and
sets deadlines on completion of each phase of the hearing process.
Despite repeated critical analyaia, the EDB fiaaco, the Bhopal
dtaaatar, and calls for raform from the national Academy of
Sciences, the GAO, and several Congreaalonal conniitteeBi the
nation'a paaticida lav remains fundamentally flawed. Conaumers,
workers, and farmera continue to be aubjected to unknown health
riaka because of grave deficiencea In the law. Thia llluaion of
paaaage of a reform bill thia year.
Nancy Drabble Al Heysrhoff
PUBLIC CITIZEN'S NATURAL RESOURCES
CONGRESS WATCH DEFENSE C
d by Google
INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTHBirT. APL-CIO
Terry ShafBr
1 VOTERS
6«ne Klnrnielman
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AHERICA
OF AHBRICA
'ICK TRADES [
TEXAS CENTER FOR RURAL STUDIES
WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVEHOR
Juanita Co«
TEXAS CHAPTER, UNITED PARMHORKERS OF AHERICA, AFL-CIO
d by Google
MORTHNEGT COALITION FOB ALTEBMATIVES TO PBGTICIDBB
CENTER FOR sc EHCE IN THE PUBLIC IHTEREGT
Char-lie Hcrowiti
FARMWOHKER JUSTICE FUNC
SU CLIHICA FAMILIAR. BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
Mike Kerr
STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EHPLOYEEG
NATIONAL NETWORK TO PREVENT BIRTH DEFECTS
Hike Lemov
: REPRESENTATION
RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO WORKERS
d by Google
323
Ms. Drabble. Thank you.
This legislation which has half the number of amendments of
last year's FIFRA bill represents a lean and serious effort to cor-
rect the fundamental flaws in the law. Five key parts of the bill
would curb pesticide contamination of ground water, stop the expo-
sure of Americans to imported food that contains residues of
banned pesticides. It requires pesticide manufacturers to finish
long overdue health and safety tests. It gives local communities a
right to know about dsmgerous pesticides produced in their aresB.
It also provides for more public participation in the rulemakiDg
Let me briefly outline those key sections of the hilt. I would men-
tion before I go ahead, though, that unfortunately the EPA draft
bill failed to address even one of those questions.
First, the bill would prevent future contamination of ground
water. Nearly haif the Nation gets its drinking water from ground
water. Many people are increasingly concerned over the chemicals
in the water they drink. EPA has identified 16 pesticides in the
ground water of 23 States. A study that just came out of Iowa just
last week found pesticides in 40 percent of the wells that were sam-
pled. It found six commonly used pesticides that are used in Iowa,
including the herbicide atrazine, which was found in 35.9 of the
wells sampled.
Under the Brown reform bill, we tackle this problem by saying
that EPA would have to move to cancel a pesticide found in ground
water unless the affected State could take steps to eliminate future
contamination or the label could be changed to stop additional con-
tamination. Label restrictions could include restrictions on geo-
graphical areas where the pesticide could be applied or restrictions
on use in certain kinds of soil like sandy soil or where there was a
high water table. We think such kinds of restrictions can work.
While we cannot eliminate the current pesticides that have al-
ready leached down through the soil into the ground water, at least
we should try to prevent further damage.
Second, the bill prevents approval of pesticides that cause birth
defects. The California Department of Agriculture has identified 22
pesticides which may cause birth defects.
In our society we place a high value on making sure that women,
pregnant women, are not exposed to substances which may cause
miscarriage, stillbirths, or spontaneous abortions, but under the
current law EPA can approve pesticides which cause birth defects,
but why should we accept the risk from this small, but dangerous
group of pesticides when alternatives exist?
We advocate a strict approach to pesticides that may cause birth
defects because it takes only one exposure at an early stage of
pregnancy to produce tragic results.
lliird, the bill requires better notification of foreign countries of
pesticide exports and stops import of food with residues of banned
pesticides. A recent Harris poll revealed that the public ranks pes-
ticide residues on food as the No. 1 hazard in food. Now this out-
ranks cholesterol, salt, sugar, artifical coloring, artificial flavors, or
any other hazard in food. Pesticide residues were ranked No. 1.
Consumers are clearly fed up with the daily dose of pesticides
that they are getting at the dinner table. The Brown reform bill
d by Google
324
would prohibit imports of food with residues exceeding tolerance
limits.
Fourth, the bill requires EPA to finish getting the missing health
and safety data on pesticides. They were told to do this back in
1972, but Eis of today they have only got complete health and safety
data on 6 out of the 600 pesticides that are subject to reregistra-
tion. This is a scandal, smd in the bill that CongresBman Brown
will be introducing they are put on a tight schedule so that they
would finish getting those tests back in in the next 6 years.
Last, the bill gives local communities a right to know about pesti-
cides produced in their neighborhoods, and other witnesses will ad-
dress that.
We believe that now is the time to act on FIFRA reform. In the
last year the news that the public has gotten about pesticides has
been all bad from the EDB debacle to the Bhopeil disaster to stories
about the dangers of chemicals on lawns.
This subcoDunittee has an opportunity to play a historic role in
leading the way to modernize FIFRA. We stand ready to help in
any way we can, and we look forward to working on the issue with
you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Drabble appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. BsnELL. Thank you.
Mr, Turner.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN TURNER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATION AND
ECONOMIC POLICY. INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am here today on behalf of the Industrial Union Department,
representing 55 nationtil and international unions and their 5 mil-
lion industrial workers who are affiliated with us.
The Industrial Union Department strongly supports the package
of FIFRA amendments about to be introduced by Congressman
Brown and Senator Proxmire with support from the campaign for
pesticide reform.
Our testimony here will select out the issues of community right
to know for special attention.
Let me point out, sir, that workers are particularly vulnerable to
the failures of FIFRA to adequately protect public health in the
use and production of dangerous pesticide chemicals. Workers don't
just occasionally use a pesticide product; they come into contact
with these chemicals on a daily basis, often on a level of contact
which goes far beyond anything that the normal public or the gen-
eral public would experience.
However, there is a dangerous lack of information on the health
hazards of the maissive quantities of chemicals being used as pesti-
cides and used in the United States. All too frequently, the public
and the press only focus on these dangers, however, after some ter-
rible tragedy. The recent case of Bhopal has been mentioned al-
ready and will be again.
Let me remind you of the story of ethylene dibromide, which I
think is a terrible and classic example in that regard. In the early
d by Google
1970'8, after the OSHA act was passed, a standard for ethylene di-
bromide exposure was adopted by OSHA that was CEilled an indus-
try consensus standard; that is to say, the industry suggested level
which they considered to be safe. It was a small numl^r of parts
per million.
In 1981 research was done at NIOSH showing that for every
1,000 workers who were exposed at the then-approved level in pro-
duction and use of EDB, for every 1,000 exposed at the approved
level, 999 of them would develop cancer and die as a result of that
exposure. Yet, for 2 years after that information became available
OSHA did nothing. At the end of that 2-year period some States
and counties started removing food products from the shelves of
their grocery stores because they were concerned about tiny,
minute bits of EDB that might show up in a cake mix or a pancake
mix.
Then after EPA had banned the use, and FDA had banned the
use of EDB in a number of applications, even then the protection
for workers was denied as the Occupationsil Safety and Health Ad-
ministration refused to implement an emergency standard for
EDB. This is a tremendously deadly carcinogen.
We only got a standard on worker exposure to EDB's after going
to court at the end of this incredible sequence of events where the
threat to life and health couldn't have been more clear.
Now we know already that some States and localities have suc-
ceeded in passing right-to-know laws. Many others have been de-
feated in that effort by opposition from the chemical industry, and
others have succeeded in part as a result of actions through the
courts.
This bill establishes a critically needed Federal right to know
which will complement existing provisions in the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act, and RCRA. Specifically, the Brown amend-
ment to section 7 of FIFRA would require all pesticide producers in
the United States to submit to EPA ^e type and amounts of pesti-
cides and intermediate chemicids which they produce annually; a
summary of the health and environmental risks posed by these
chemicals and an assessment of their potential for public exposure;
the location of all pesticide manufacturing plants in the United
States and abroad; and information on the proximity of those
plants to populated areas; plans for evacuation, where appropriate,
m the event of a health emergency; and information on the t^pe,
quantity, uses, and destination of pesticides being exported from
the United States to other countries.
We commend the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, for holding these
hearings to focus on the weaknesses of the Nation's major pesticide
law. We urge the committee and Congress to adopt a Federal right
to know and other amendments which will soon be introduced by
Mr. Brown.
Both public and worker concern is at a very high level, and this
is the year we believe for comprehensive FIFRA reform.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sheehan.
d by Google
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SHEEHAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA
Mr. Shbehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Jack Sheehan. I am the l^jislative director of the
Steelworkers Union.
The union strongly supports the campaign for pesticide reform
amendments to FIFRA which Congressman Brown will soon intro-
duce. The amendments address the numerous areas in which the
FIFRA law is weak.
As my coUoEigue, Mr. Turner, has just pointed out, it is all too
often that the Federal Government and industry fail to act to pro-
tect worker health until the public perceives a general health
threat and applies pressure in a crisis atmosphere.
It is our hope that we can prevent fatal worker accidents and
dangerous working conditions through improvements to the Na-
tion's primary pesticide law before the crisis occurs.
Our organization is particularly concerned about the current
lack of protection for workers from health hazards posed by pesti-
cide usage and production. Though Congress gave EPA jurisdiction
over pesticide safety for workers back in 1972, the Agency has
never enforced a worker safety r^ulation. The few regulations
they have adopted are ineffective due to the fact of the Agency's
self-doubt about enforcement authority. Though the Agency is in
the process of developing new worker safety standards and regula*
tions, they still remeiin doubtful about their ability to enforce ^ese
measures.
The packfige of amendments we support provides for the estab-
lishment of a worker protection program at EPA. Specifically, this
includes the founding of an occupational health program staffed
with health professionals who can develop and implement pesticide
exposure standards and safe work practices. These amendments
clear up ambiguity in this area and remedy a regulatory situation
which leaves workers unprotected.
Mr. Brown's bill specifically would. No. 1, require EPA to estab-
lish an occupational health program for protection of workers who
are involved in the manufacturing or application of pesticides.
Two, require EPA to coordinate its worker heeilth and safety
standards and enforcement activities with standards and enforce-
ment activities undertaken by OSHA.
Three, issue regulations for the protection of employees who tire
exposed to pesticides. Such r^ulations would include, for instance,
requiring protective clothing, protective equipment, procedures for
emergency medical treatment, medical surveillance, and so forth.
Now, in addition, this bill will provide antiretaliation or anti-
blackmail protection for pesticide workers. This provision protects
workers through a provision which makes it an offense to dis-
charge or adversely affect the employment status of any employee
because the person filed a complaint against his or her employee or
exercised other rights under FIFRA.
Mr. Chairman, a number of the environmental regulations now
include the antiblackmail provision, as also does, for instance, the
primary labor protection act, OSHA.
d by Google
327
In conclusion, we urge the subcommittee to adopt these worker
protection provisions. Working people should no longer bear the
brunt of e weak national pesticide law. Congress should take the
corrective measures and actions through the adoption of the com-
prehensive improvements to FIFRA being sponsored by Congress-
man Brown, luiown as the Federal Pesticide Reform Act of 1985.
Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Mr. Feldman.
STATEMENT OF JAY FELDMAN, NATIONAL COORDINATOR,
NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST THE MISUSE OF PESTICIDES
Mr. Feldman. Good morning.
I am Jay Feldman, national coordinator of the National Coalition
Against the Misuse of Pesticides, We are a membership organiza-
tion of some 300 community-based organizations across the coun-
try, including farmers, farmer organizations, consumers, euid vic-
tims of pesticide exposure. Several of our members testified yester-
day, and I believe expressed to you some of their concerns from
their own individual experiences.
What you have heard so far during this hearing does not de-
scribe a situation that is new. It is just one that is worse than last
time we were here.
The victims of pesticides who call NCAMP on a daily basis cry
out and are now in larger and larger numbers demanding that
there be adequate controls in place both to protect exposure on the
farm and in their homes. People want controls and assurances that
this subcommittee cannot now offer them under the existing
FIFRA statute, including protection from pesticide contaminated
£iir, water, and food. As a result, these people have taken the pesti-
cide issue to town councils, city halls, State legislatures, and, where
possible, the courts. Clearly, the protection emanating from this
subcommittee and the Congress is not sufficient. The deficiencies
exist in many areas which I would like to discuss.
What I would like to do, however, in first getting to this issue is
to start with the public disclosure. Some of the other issues which
other members of this panel have addressed such as the ground
water contamination are also of great concern today and, given the
limited time to talk, I won't touch on some of those that have al-
ready been addressed.
We have today a serious breach of the American public's trust in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S, chemicetl cor-
porations, and, in fact, the operation of the Federal pesticide con-
trol law.
The public does feel misled by the marketing of chemical prod-
ucts that it assumed were fully tested and determined to be safe by
the Government. Those who have been harmed have asked ques-
tions on health effects to which there are no answers.
While people are told to trust the EPA and chemical manufac-
turers, some inside the Agency, inside the EPA, continue to this
day to point out serious deficiencies in the Agency's reviews of
safety studies, maintaining that, and I am quoting an EPA staff
person, "Trust conferred on the Agency may have been misplaced."
d by Google
328
I have provided to you this morning a memo, a March 20 memo,
that has been given to us from inside EPA, not the publication,
from someone working inside EPA.
We implore this subcommittee not only to investigate the recent
allegations on faulty EPA reviews, which I will discuss below, but
consider the importance of allowing the public to review and dis-
cuss without FIFRA-imposed constreiints all matters pertaining to
health and safety studies on which EPA makes its critical toxic
pesticide use decisions.
You have in front of you evidence, I believe, of bogus EPA re-
views which continue to underlie safety decisions. I would like to
provide you with an astounding example of the extremely impor-
tant need for openness in this area of EPA decisionmaking, open-
ness which we don't have today.
It goes back to the cut-and-paste reviews of industry and safety
studies in which EPA quotes verbatim and without attribution the
r^istrant's own evaluations. The implications of this are some-
what unbelievable. It now appears that at least of the six pesticides
that EPA tells the public on a daily basis is fully roistered, fully
rer^istered, that that one pesticide of the six that we know of, ite
registration has been based on a bogiis evaluation by the Agency.
This is a pesticide called metalaxyl. It is a fungicide widely iised in
agriculture today.
In discussing this matter, I leave out any reference to individuals
involved since this example is being raised to illustrate to the sub-
committee that the system in place is not adequately protecting the
public.
Contained in the March 20 memo is a reference to not only meta-
laxyl, but another insecticide, also the subject of tx^us reviews.
What you Bee here is a pattern of inadequate reviews, lack of
access on the part of the public to actually review in a public
forum that same underlying data, public exposure on a deuly basis
to these sfune pesticides without any knowledge that in fact the
product may not be fully tested.
In this case, in terms of the memo you have in front of you, you
have a scientist saying that the determinations made by the
Agency were wholly inadequate and not based in fact.
In conclusion, and the reason I focus so much on this particular
memo is that it suggests that we have a system in place that is
plEigued and riddled by inadequate oversight, inadequate protec-
tion, inadequate public review. Our feeling is that you can act
quickly and fully in this area by looking at these amendments that
have been referred to today, by looking at this situation referred to
in the memo, and open up the process for public review, right to
know, in a very serious way.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and look forward to
working with you in the future to work out some of these prob-
lems.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Feldman appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Feldman.
Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
d by Google
Mr. Meyerhoff, in your statement where you were talking about
the issue of ground water, you indicated that it was nearly impossi-
ble to clean up following contamination. Do you feel that there
should be some standards set for tolerance levels in ground water?
Mr. Meyerhoff. It is our position that the tolerance system in
the food chain has been an unmitigated disaster £uid that the
American public is not prepared at this time to accept a certain
level of EDB or DBCP or any other pesticide chemical in ground
water; that if we take steps now at the supply side, if you will, to
prevent the contamination of ground water, that is a much better
course.
It is the farm community here that is most at risk. About 90 per-
cent of rureil America gets its drinking water from the ground
water. This report that I mentioned from California, I think, was
t«lling. At one point it refers, just looking at it, talking about
drinkmg water and it says:
sufTera an intangible but important loee by being
Dublic resource uiat is valued for ita purity. The
a if it is not deeerv^, by being
I think that the duty to protect ground water from contamina-
tion lies squarely with the petrochemical industry. They have to
take sufficient steps in testing their products for environmental
fate and for toxicolt^ceil effects to insure that that water is not
going to be polluted in the first place, at least to the best practical
means.
Mr. CoMBEST. But you reedly don't feel the tolerance levels have
sufficient improved protection
Mr. Meyerhoff. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which is the pri-
mary statute dealt with by Congress to protect ground water, has
addressed 6 pesticides, 6 out of more than 600 active ingredients;
three of thc»e have already been canceled. At this time, no, I don't
think it has.
There is legislation in California that on Friday passed the agri-
culture committee — it has the support of the Governor in that
State — that is similar to the legislation that Congressman Brown
and Senator Proxmire are introducing here.
For those chemicals that are likely to get into ground water, it
provides that if there is contamination, and either the State or the
r^istrant doesn't take steps to prevent further contamination,
then that pesticide is canceled for that use.
Mr. CoMBEST. You mentioned home use of pesticides in jrour tes-
timony, as well. In some of yesterday's testimony we heard continu-
ing suggestions from people who wanted to further regulate and li-
cense certain commercial home lawn care companies to require
various types of additional restrictions. Do you feel that tiiere
would be a potential — in short, if we impose further regulations,
that what it is going to do is affect considerably the cost and is
going to drive people into using their own — individuals going in
EUid spraying their own yards, gardens, whatever; that in reality
what we may be ending up with is people who have absolutely no
knowledge of the use of the pesticides; and that we might reedly be
looking at a potential that could cause contamination worse than it
is now without further regulation?
d by Google
Mr. Meyerhoff. I think that is already happening. I think that
the home use products that the consumer can buy over the counter
now are frequently unsafe or potentially unsafe. The average con-
sumer goes into a market or a store and he or she is under the
belief that the product has been tested, that it has been found safe,
approved by the Government. Nothing on the label would indicate
otherwise, £ind nothing is further from the truth.
Captan, which I have here in my hand, a very widely used agri-
cultural pesticide, is a home use product. It is a relative of thylida*
mide. It has been linked to birth defects, cancer, a variety of other
potential chronic health effects. You can buy it over the counter.
The studies that were done originally on captan were done by
IBT. They were found to be invalid. The chemical was put into
RPAR in 1980, 5 years ago. We are still waiting for a decision.
Whether the product problem is an untrained applicator, the
product problem is an untested chemical you buy over the counter,
or the problem is the chemicEi] getting into the drinking water and
the food supply, we have this parade of horribles because the stat-
ute is deficient, in my judgment.
Ms. Drabble. Also, if I might comment on that briefly, the provi-
sions in the Brown reform bill that would affect commercial appli-
cators are really quite modest. There are two major ones. One
would require commercial applicators to keep records of their ap>
plications, which under good business practice they ought to be
keeping now anyway. The requirement for records does not apply
to farmers or private applicators, so it does not affect them.
Second, it gives EPA the authority to set stondards for indoor ex-
posure, which is an area which EPA has neglected. It does not
memdate that EPA do that, but it gives them that authority.
In eiddition, it says that commercial applicators should make
sure that their employees are trained, and I think right now that
they would say they should be training their employees to apply
pesticides in the most safe way. The amendments meike that re-
quirement for some training explicit.
Mr. CoMBEST. Mr. Chairman, may I please finish this question?
Mr. Bedell. Of course.
Mr. CoMBEST. On the ground water protection section in your
statement, where you indicate that a State should develop a plan
to prevent further contomination, do you have Emy idea about what
something of this nature might cost? Is is just a suggestion? Do you
have actual implementation suggestions of how one would go about
in the Stete developing a plan that would prevent further contami-
nation potential?
Ms. Drabble. I think one thing we can do is look at the Stete of
Wisconsin. They passed a ground water law there, and they are
trying to prevent further contomination of their ground water. The
kiiid of plan that a Stote would develop is to look at the different
kinds of soil, look at the geographic areas in their Stote, and see
where they have a problem with the pesticide leaching down into
the soil, and then either prohibit the use of the pesticide in certain
areas that are particularly dangerous, where it is going to get into
the drinking water, or place restrictions on the label so that people
who are using the pesticide meike sure that they don't use it m cer-
tain areas, or use it in such a way — for example, not irrigating for
d by Google
331
a few days after application of the pesticide — that it won't leach
down into the soil; it would have time to evaporate.
Mr. CoMBEST. Is there any estimate of the cost incurred? Was
that Wisconsin, did you say?
Ms. Drabble. No, I don't think so, because that is a relatively
recent law. It has only been in place, I would say, less than 1 year
right now.
In cost I would say, whatever costs there are — and no doubt
there will be some — they have to be balanced against the impor-
tance of preventing the contamination of drinking water, which is
a very high priority and also can have some very heavy costs in
terms of people's health and hospital bills along down the line.
Mr. CoMBEST. How would you suggest that cost should be spread?
Would you think it should be done by taxpayers' expense in the
States? Should it be done by industry? Should it be done by Eigricul-
ture? How would you suggest that that cost be spread or borne?
Ms. Drabble. Well, the cost would be — there would be restric-
tions placed on the pesticide. Those restrictions would indicate
when the pesticide should or should not be used. I don't know that
it is a matter of ass^ing the cost in any way other than that.
Mr. Meyerhoff. Clearly, the cost of conducting the relevant tests
of environmental fate and toxicity should be borne by the chemical
compimy itself, in my opinion. That is what the law should provide.
Mr. CoMBEST. They should bear the cost of testing to see whether
or not there is a contamination?
Mr. Meyerhoff. If their product is going to get into the drinking
water in the first place.
Ms. Drabble. In some instances right now, EPA is requiring
tests to find out whether pesticides are leaching down through the
ground water for new registrations of pesticides, and in some in-
stances, on an ad hoc basis, EPA has imposed some restrictions on
the label on the use of the pesticide to try to make sure it doesn't
get down into the ground water. Some of those tests are already
beir^ done, and they are part of the normal obligation under
FIFRA. But under our legislation, that would be done on a more
systematic basis.
Mr. Meyerhoff. One problem is that with point source pollution
it is easier to know who the culprit was, if you will, to be able to
define some responsibility. But with nonpoint source pollution,
with pesticide type of contamination, it is harder.
Is it the farmer's fault that he applies a pesticide according to
the directions on the label and with the Government's approval? Is
it what chemical company actually produced a particular product
that is being found in ground water in the central valley? Who is
going to pay for the cleanup? All of those issues are very difHcult
issues.
Mr. CoMBEST. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I apolt^ize for using my
time. I would like to pursue that further, but I appreciate your in-
dulgence.
Mr, Bedell. Mr. Roberts.
Mr, Roberts. I have no questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans.
Mr. E^'AN3 OF Iowa. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson.
d by Google
Mr. GuNDBRSON. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Do you have more questions, Mr. Combest?
Mr. CoMBEffT. No, thank you.
Mr. Bedell. You have some products there that are apparently
sold over the counter that you feel are health hazards; is that cor-
rect?
Mr. Mbybrhoff. They are products that we think EPA has
dragged its feet on, has not made a fmai decision on that protects
the public, or, where EPA has made a decision, that industry has
then blocked that decision in the courts.
Pentachlorophenol is one example of that. As I said, early data
in 1974 linked it to birth defects. Adioxin is a contaminant; yet,
you can buy it off the shelf and put it on your deck. A pregnant
woman could be using this or a 2-year-old child could be expoeied to
it. We think that that is unconscionable.
It is the same thing with captan. There are questions about
captan that need to be answered. It is taking 5 and 6 years to
answer them or more since it even went into RPAR; yet, I can buy
it over the counter with no warning on the label, no indication that
it is a potential teratogen, no indication that it could cause birth
defects.
Mr. Bedell. I assume that EPA did check that and roistered it
for sale; is that correct?
Mr. Meyerhoft. Well, it was certainly registered for sale, based
upon primarily IBT studies that were found to be invalid, when it
was originally registered. Then, in 1980, it was put into this RPAR
process, the special review, to determine whether or not it should
be restricted or taken off the market. We are still waiting wiih
bated breath for EPA's decision.
I want to make one other point, too. I was looking at this captan.
Eighty-eight percent of what is in this particular product is an
inert ingredient. EPA, under FIFRA, has systematically failed to
require any chronic health data for the inerts, the so-called inerts,
that are in pesticide products. Those are inert as to pests. Likewise,
under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, more than 500 pesticide
inert ingredients have been given blanket exemptions from the tol-
erance requirements of that act. Some of those inerts — and a full
list is appended to my testimony — include such chemicals as vinyl
chloride, a very probably human carcin(^n; benzene; the glycol
ethers; ethylene dichloride; formaldehyde — aXl bad actor chemicals,
a variety of solvents. Yet, EPA requires no chronic data and ex-
empts them entirely from the tolerance requirements. We find that
to be totally unphantomable.
Mr. Bedell. One of the issues is apparently this issue of private
right to sue. I need to understand that better, as to just what the
concern is and what changes you would like to see in that regard.
What is the issue here? You can sue at this time. What is it you
want different about it?
Mr. Meyerhoff. I am sorry, I couldn't hear the question.
Mr. Bedell. Right now you can bring suit if you feel you have
been harmed, as has already happened. What is it that you would
like to see different about the opportunity to sue?
Mr. Meyerhoff. The thrust of the private right-of-action provi-
sion is that right now we can't depend upon EPA to even enforce
d by Google
the provisions of FIFRA as written. The private right of action
would give the citizen both the right to bring a tort action, if he or
she chose to do so, but also to sue concerning the misuse of a prod-
uct, if it was used in violation of a label; if, under the FIFRA, it
had an unreasonable adverse effect — to bring a suit directly, rather
than waiting for the Government to act,
Mr. VoLKMER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bedell. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. VoLKMER. Suit against whom?
Mr. Meyerhoff. It could be against the applicator. It could be
figainst a chemical company. It could be agfiinst the Government.
Mr. Bedell. Can't you do that now if you feel you have been
damaged?
Mr. Meyerhoff. You can bring a — go ahead.
Ms. Drabble. You can only bring an action for damages if you
feel that your property has been damaged or you have been person-
ally injured. You can bring a personal injury action against whoev-
er you feel has harmed you. But what you cannot do is bring an
action saying that that corporation or that person has disobeyed
the law and has failed to comply with the law.
One of the things under the private right-of-action section we do
is say that, if someone wanted to sue an applicator other them a
commercial applicator, they would have to notify the State and
EPA for 60 days before bringing the suit, to give EPA or the State
an opportunity themselves to bring an enforcement action, to allow
them to enforce the law. It was only if the State or EPA failed to
enforce the law that then the private citizen would have a chance
to go ahead and bring the suit.
Mr. Bedell. The whole issue is not damage; the whole issue is
that now you can sue if you feel you are damaged, and you would
like to see the law chemged so you could bring suit to see that the
law was enforced, even though you may not have been damaged; is
that what the issue is?
Mr. Meyerhoff. No, you would be damaged.
Ms. Drabble. Yes; usually there would be two parts to it. You
would have been damaged, but edso there would have been a viola-
tion of the law.
Mr. Bedell. If you have been damaged, right now you can brii^
suit, can you not?
Ms. Drabble. Right; but part of that suit cannot be an allegation
that the law was disobeyed.
Mr. Meyerhoff. You can bring an action in tort but you cannot
bring an action for violation of FIFRA. If a product was misused —
say, drift on a home in a suburb, something like that
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer, do you have any questions?
Mr. Volkmer. No.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. We appreciate your testimony. It is a very difHcult
issue for many of us.
Mr. Meyerhoff. I have a free can of pentachlorophenol for any
member of the subcommittee who
Mr. Bedell. I b^ your pardon?
d by Google
334
Mr. Meybrhoff. I have a fi*ee can of pentacblorophenol if anyone
would like to have it.
Mr. Bedell. I think you've got us all scared to use it now.
[Laughter.]
Thank you for your testimony.
Next we have a panel: Jack Early, president. National A^cul-
tural Chemicals Association; accompanied by Carl Kensil, vice
president, Ciba-Geigy Corp., and vice chairman of the NACA board
of directors; and Scott Ferguson, general counsel for NACA.
We are having to hold our testimony to the 5-minute period, Mr.
Early.
Mr. Early. I understand that, Mr. Chairman, yes.
Mr. Bedell. We would appreciate it if you would try to hold to
your time. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF JACK D. EARLY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AGRI-
CULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY CARL
J. KENSIL, VICE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND W.
SCOTT FERGUSON, GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. Early. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
I am Jack Early, president of the National Agricultural Chemi-
cals Association. I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Carl
Kensil, on my left, vice chairmfui of our board of directors and the
president of the Ciba-Geigy Corp., agricultural division, and on my
right is Scott Ferguson, our general counsel.
You, Mr. Chairman, and others on your subcommittee have
called upon all of us — industry, agriculture, government, and spe-
cial interests— to be part of a process to address some of the nag-
ging concerns in pesticide regulation. We are here today to help,
Mr. Chtiirman.
In giving our pledge to help, we add one observation: We believe,
as we think many here do, that any amendments to FIFRA should
reflect the testimony given before the subcommittee last month by
EPA's Dr. John Moore, that FIFRA, and I quote, "is fundamentally
sound environmental law." This statement reinforces commente
made last year before this subcommittee by EPA's then-Adminis-
trator William D. Ruckelshaus, who testified that FIFRA is, and I
quote, "basically a sound and workable statute which gives EPA
authority to act on several fronts without waiting for chemges in
legislation."
We agree with these EPA views and urge the subcommittee not
to make extensive revisions to FIFRA suggested in H.R. 2482, H.R.
1416, and H.R. 1910, and other bills that we believe will yet be in-
troduced.
We understand that H.R. 2482 has been introduced as a biparti-
san effort to encourage constructive dialog on FIFRA. While this
bill may achieve that laudable objective, enactment of the bill, the
Heftel and the Seiberling bills, would cause severe iitjury to our in-
dustry and perhaps to our agricultural customers.
FIFRA currently strikes a careful balance among many legiti-
mate concerns and interests. Changes proposed in bills before this
d by Google
335
subcommittee would upset that important balance. Let me give you
some examples.
Scrapping the present cancellation procedures in favor of rule-
making would speed removal of products from the mairket, but at
the cost of procedures that ensure due process, where literally mil-
lions of dollars of investment, crops, health, and the livelihood of
thousands of members of the public ride on the product's registra-
tion.
Wholesale data disclosure to foreign governments would make
EPA's administration of FIFRA easier, but may cause data owners
to lose their intellectual property rights and their investment in
the data.
Abolishing indemnification to those iryured by the Federal sus-
pension-cancellation actions and imposing fees on the registration
of pesticides may appeal to the Federal budget-watchers, but would
expose pesticide mainufacturers and distributors to potentially cata-
strophic financial risks and operating costs.
These are just a few examples of the highly objectionable modifi-
cation proposed in H.R. 2482, H.R. 1416, H.R. 1910. The proposals
simply go too far. Some modest changes to FIFRA are worth con-
sidering. However, we would submit that major amendments are
not only unnecessary, but also potentially dangerous.
I would like to turn now, briefly, Mr. Chairman, to an assess-
ment of EPA's implementation of the current law and how it re-
lates to the decision on the scope of FIFRA amendments.
As EPA has previously testified, the agency has embarked on a
vigorous program to address administratively the longstanding con-
cerns in pesticide regulation. This effort has gone a long way in re-
storing EPA's credibility and the timeliness and scientific quality
of its r^ulatoiy decisions. I will not repeat now the specifics of
what progress EPA has made, other than to observe that this pain-
ful administrative process has relieved Congress of the need for
making many statutory changes.
But, some modest legislative work remains that will still retain
the carefully crafted balance in FIFRA that has served us so well.
I would like now, in my remaining minutes, to discuss areas for
constructive FIFRA amendments. We are not asking for a so-called
wish list, Mr. Chairman, of improvements, solutions to remote
problems, or ways to make our lives amy easier. Instead, in the
spirit of compromise, we offer ideas of FIfkA changes that are not
in our specied interest and may assist you in preparing an accepta-
ble bill.
The suggestions which follow are prepared in our firm conviction
that FIFRA should not be open to substantial changes, in whatever
form. If our understanding is mistaken and FIFRA is, indeed, to be
overhauled substantially, we, too, have ideas to amend FIFRA in
the public interest and to maintain proper balance.
For example, there are ambiguous FIFRA provisions affecting
the use of data supporting registrations, compensation for data,
and responsiveness of competing registrants to data call-ins. There
are local jurisdictions and communities which supersede this Con-
gress' judgment in FIFRA and EPA's scientific and regulatory as-
sessments with their own. There are potential conflicts and gaps
among the Federal statutes affecting many of these issues.
d by Google
We do not plan to pursue these issues, Mr. Chairman. We believe
that FIFRA can function well with a few changes. Let me recom-
mend just a few changes, if I may.
No. 1, imposing stiff penalties on those who would willingly folsi-
fy any data to support a pesticide registration.
No. 2, immediate suspension of pesticide r^istrations if EPA
learns that the registrations were obtained on tJie basis of deliber-
ately falsified data.
Three, mandatory timetables for identifying and filling the data
gaps.
Four, EPA inspection authority for laboratories developing data
in support of r^istrations.
Fifth and finally, Mr. Chairman, congressional authority to in-
crease funds for EPA that is dearly needed to increase their re-
sources to deal with the issues.
Mr. C^Etirman, this completes our testimony. We would be de-
lighted to respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepEired statement of Mr. E^ly appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thaink you very much, Dr. Early.
Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. I have no questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. I have no questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you, Mr. Chturman.
Just one question: we all recognize the need for additional fund-
ing at EPA. We all recognize t^e budget problems. Do you have
any suggestions other than general revenue on how we might deal
with that? I know it is an unpleasant task. I Eun a&aid what we are
going to face in this Congress, if you have watched the history thus
far, is every authorization bill that has been in front of the Con-
gress thus far has frozen the funding level for 1986 at 1985. I think
the chances are better than — much better than — 50-50 that we will
freeze EPA's funding.
How do you respond to that? If we freeze it, is it going to present
real problems in the review and certification of chemicals? I just
would like to hear some comments from you. Doctor.
Mr. Early. Mr. Gunderson, we have addressed that area of pesti-
cide fees and other issues. Let me read you where we stand on that.
It is our view, first, that a system of pesticide registration fees
would dramatically increase product costs, resulting in increased
consumer prices, and it would have an unfair and disproportionate
impact on small business.
Second, a user fee such as registration fee is a revenue-raising
measure that would require additional review with attendant
delays by appropriate House and Senate committees other than
these committees.
Third, such fees would impermissibly and inevitably move more
decisions on funding, the scope and direction of EPA's pesticide
r^ulatory activities from Congress to the r^ulated community. It
is in the public's and the industry's interest that an independently-
functioning and financing EPA continue to exist.
d by Google
337
Finally, the cost of operating the pMticide program confers no
direct pesticide benefit on the pesticide applicants, but rather
meets the responsibility of the Federal Government that requires
this registration process.
I don't think we have any ideas, Mr. Gunderson, that we think
that this ought to come from private funding. We think it is in the
public's interest. I recognize the dilemma that you are facing and
that we are facing, too, in trving to find additional resources and
funding for an area that probably requires more funds and more
resources.
Mr. Gunderson. I think you would agree, though, that based on
the position you have, you are really saying you are content to live
in 1986 with the 1985 funding level. You are a pro around here.
Really don't you think that is what is going to happen?
Mr. Early. I think EPA is going to have to make some choices
on what issues and what areas they pursue, because their funds
and resources are going to be limited.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. VoLRMER. I have no questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Dr. Early, you said you weren't going to submit all
your ideeis for improvement. I would urge you to do so. We want to
hear all of the suggestions people may have for improvement. We
may not do everything you would like to see us do, but we would
urge you to do that.
How large is your industry? At the manufacturing level what is
the annual dollar sales?
Mr. Early. The last f^res we had, Mr. Chairman, it was some-
thing in the neighborhood of $5 to $6 billion, I believe.
Mr. Bedell. $6 billion?
Mr. Early. Yes. That would be domestic and export market com-
bined.
Mr. Bedell. If we were to have a smedl tax, percentage tax, on
that, we could get the needed money we cannot get out of Govern-
ment, and it would appear to me that that could be small enough
that it would not impose a big burden upon the user.
What would be your reaction to that?
Mr. Early. I tlunk obviously I would have some concerns about
that, imposing a tax on my industry.
Mr. Bedell. Well, 1 percent would not be — I would think would
not be — a terrible burden to any manufacturer. One percent, if you
are right, would bring us $60 million, which would do a big job for
us.
Mr. Early. The tax perhaps would show as a much greater
burden on some of our smaller companies and some of the small
businesses that are in the process of
Mr. Bedell. One percent?
Mr. Early. It would certainly increases the prices that would be
passed along.
Mr. Bedell. J understand. I am not trying to sell it. It just seems
to me, if your industry is that big and if we do have this terrible
problem of inadequate funds to properly review the things that
d by Google
need to be checked, we should at least consider the idea. If it was a
$100-inillion industry, then I would see the idea as unfeasible, but
with your industry that large, I would think there would be some
merit to the prop(»al.
Mr. Early. Let me assure the chairman that we and our indus-
try would be delighted to work with you to see if there are some
ways that we could explore some opportunities on how we might be
able to fund the agency, either through additional Government
funding or some other way. We would be glad to work with you,
Mr. Chairman, on that.
Mr. Bedexj.. You talked about falsified data. I can understand
the concern if somebody deliberately falsified it, but I assimie that
if the data is false, whether it was deliberate or not, the problem to
the public would be the same; would it not?
Mr. Early. I think this goes back to a problem that we developed
during the IBT case, and you are familiar with that, I believe. It
has been referred to several times.
Unfortunately, what happened with IBT is that most of my in-
dustry was caught up in the process also unknowingly, having data
generated for them, and they submitted it in good faith.
Mr. Bedell. Sure.
Mr. Early. I think that we say it should be willingly and know-
ingly false data. If someone submits data, you or I submit data to
the agency in good faith and we believe it is in good faith, why
should we have to pay the penalty for that? That is why we are
saying to go back to those that knowingly and willingly put that
information forward.
Mr. Bedell. I understand from the manufacturer's standpoint,
but I am asking from the public's standpoint. If the data was false
and you, therefore, have something on the market that should not
be there, from the public's standpoint it would not really matter
whether it was knowingly or unknowingly; the effect is still the
same on the public. If our concern has to be with the public, there
maybe should be some different consideration for the manufacturer
as to what is to be done, but as far as the chemical being used by
the public, it would seem to me it would be the same. Do you dis-
agree with that?
Mr. Early. I don't know that I really disagree with that. I think
that EPA has the authority now under existing law that if they be-
lieve that data that was submitted to support that registration is
false, for whatever reason, they have the authority to deal with it
appropriately. They can either ask for additional data or they ctm
cancel, suspend, or declare an imminent hazard. They can do a lot
of things. "They have a lot of authority in that area.
Mr. Bedell. The witness in the previous panel indicated he had a
chemical that the EPA had not thoroughly reviewed, although, it is
still being sold. Do you know if that is a common problem or not?
Mr. Early. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. I have not seen
that internal memo that was referred to. I have not had a chance
to read it.
Mr. Bedell. No, no, not the memo. He had a can of something
there; I don't know what it was. He said it was registered at a time
when they did not have as much knowledge about the chemical.
Mr. Early. Oh, the captan.
d by Google
Mr. Bedell. It is still available for sale without any marking on
the product, as I understood him.
Mr. Early. It may be a difference in judgment on whether or not
something in the scientific evidence supports moving eihead by can-
cellation or suspension or whether it does not. In other words,
there may be a difference of opinion, depending on your viewpoint.
I assume that EPA has their scientists evaluating that process. If
they reach a decision that a product should not be sold across the
counter, they take steps to stop that.
Mr. Bedell. You are proposing mandatory time tables, I think,
are you not?
Mr. Early. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Bedell. In those timetables, what would you do if EPA
doesn't keep to the timetables?
Mr. Early. I think we have some lemguage we would be glad to
share with you in that area. I think the Administrator should have
the authority to cancel or suspend the product if they do not meet
those timetables. You have to be pretty severe.
If we are serious about filling the data gaps, we have to put an
obligation on our registrants that says either you do or you get
your product off the market.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much.
Are there any further questions?
If not, we appreciate your testimony.
Mr. BJarly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Our next panel consists of Ms. Maureen Hinkle, National Audu-
bon Society; Ms. Barbara Bramble, National Widlife Federation;
Mr. Robert Wasserstrom, senior associate. World Resources Insti-
tute; and Mr. Charles Horwitz, Farmworker Justice Committee.
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN K. HINKLE, DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURAL POLICY, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Ms. HiNKLE. Mr. Chairman, I have with me today Edith Mea-
cheim, who is my associate, find she directs the intemationed pesti-
cides program for Audubon. She will give testimony on internation-
al pesticide regulation.
Mr. Bedell. My understanding is you are going to take 5 min-
utes between you, and we don't care if you have 1 or 10 as long as
you only take 5 minutes total.
Ms. Hinkle. I think I have a good record of using less than my
time. I hope so.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I was glad to
hear that Jack Early agrees with the Congressman from Oklaho-
ma, Mr. Synar, on the data gap situation and imposing a mandato-
ry time table on the fulfilling of data gaps.
I would also like to comment on the registration fee that you dis-
cussed with Jack Early. Audubon is in favor of Congress mandating
to EPA to impose a system of registration fee collection. 0MB in
1980 passed back EPA's request for additional appropriations
saying that no additional funds would be approved until a registra-
tion fee system was imposed. The philosophy was that the benefici-
ary should pay for the coet of the review of the pesticides.
d by Google
340
Industry does benefit from this review because they have a short-
er review period and they, therefore, have a longer meirketing life.
They have earlier market entry and a longer patent term if they
have a more efficient review.
It is interesting for us that there are various interpretations of
whether FIFRA is an adequate piece of legislation or not. It seems,
in our view, it is a pendulum. In 1981 industry said, "Please change
it. It needs to be changed." Then in 1982 they said, "We don't need
a change at all." Now again they are saying, "We don't need a
change at all."
We believe that EPA has made steady progress in pesticide r^u-
lation after the Gorsuch-Burford backsliding of 1981 to 1983. They
have taken some initiatives in ground-water contamination by pes-
ticides as well as regulation of toxic inerts contained in pesticide
regulations.
However, we believe that legislation is required for both ground-
water contamination by pesticides and inert ingredients in order to
keep EPA on track on these two issues.
EPA has given support for the concepts of providing citizen
standing to initiate cancellation hearings and also to strike the in-
demnification clause, which is section 15. This gives Congress every
reason to act on those two issues.
Congress needs to give EPA a harder push to establish a provi-
sion to enact a community right to know and to place a lid on spe-
cial local registrations.
We also hope that you will l^islate in the area of false, mislead-
ing, and fraudulent data, since we are all in agreement on that.
In r^ard to Jack Early's statement that data sharing with for-
eign governments is not required, we respectfully disagree and
have a section in our testimony that would show that this would
not be a wholesale disclosure to foreign governments, but there are
adequate reasons for sharing data with State governments and
with certain foreign governments.
I would like to comment on H.R. 2339, which was introduced on
May 2 by Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut. This would authorize
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of EPA to
study methods to accelerate the use of integrated pest management
and to discourage the use of pesticides to meet domestice cosmetic
marketing standards.
In view of the fact that EPA essentially regards its mandate as a
licensing authority for four past decades and they have only had it
for one decade, the authority for regulating pesticides for one
decade, nevertheless, the sale and use of pesticides has continued to
Increase every year for 40 years. At the same time our understand-
ing of the environmental and health implications of this increase
in chemicals has remained inadequate.
In view of the fact that pesticides are ending up in our drinking
water and in our blood and our fat tissue and in our food, this H.R.
2339 would initiate positive steps for reducing the unnecessary use
of pesticides. Therefore, we are extremely enthusiastic about H.R.
2339 and urge you to incorporate it in H.R. 2355, which is the au-
thorization for this fiscail year, or to include it in a comprehensive
way in legislation this year.
d by Google
341
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hinkle appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Ms. HiNKLB. Could Mb. Meacham have 2 minutes?
Mr. Bedell. Ms. Meacham, I don't mean to be difficult. How long
is your statement?
Ms. Meacham. Very, very short.
Mr. Bedell. My understanding is it was understood that you had
5 minutes and you could take part of it. We will give you a few
minutes here.
STATEMENT OF EDITH D. MEACHAM, AGRICULTURE POLICY
ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Ms. Meacham. Thank you.
If I may just briefly outline our interest in international pesti-
cide export controls and present a few suggestions which we be-
lieve will help improve the situation.
First, we would urge you to tighten loopholes in the current pes-
ticide export notification system by enacting a policy of informed
request. This provision would require that foreign governments
submit a request for a canceled or suspended pesticide to EPA
before the pesticide shipment leaves this country. This would allow
importing governments greater control over what enters their
country.
Furtlier, we would urge you to expand the catteries which re-
quire notification by including voluntarily withdrawn, restricted
use, and acutely toxic pesticides.
Ilie problem of monitoring on imported produce for ill^al pesti-
cide residues also disturbs us. We would urge you to improve the
Food and Drug Administration's ability to carry out its monitoring
responsibilities by requiring importing countries to disclose the in-
tended use of canceled or suspended pesticides which they import.
Further, we would ask that U.S. chemical companies be required
to submit an annual report to EPA stating the amount and desti-
nation of any pesticides, intermediaries, or formulated products
which they have exported.
Finally, we would ask that Congress enact provisions which
would require U.S. agencies to work through intemationEd chan-
nels to help developing countries set their own reseeirch and r^u-
latory programs.
Pesticide use in developing countries is growing exponentially.
We feel that the United States must work with botJii industrial and
developing nations to insure that this growth does not result in sm
explosion of problems.
The United States has played a leadership role in this area
before, and we believe that it is time to take up thise role once
again.
I would like to submit for the record an article on this subject
which I wrote for Audubon Action, our bimonthly newspaper
which goes out to our half million members.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, it will be entered with your pre-
pared statement.
Ms. Meacham. Thank you.
I think it will further demonstrate our interest in this issue.
d by Google
342
Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Meacham appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Ms. Breunble.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA J. BRAMBLE. DIRECTOR, INTERNA-
TIONAL PROGRAM, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, AND
ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
Ms. Bramble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am director of the International Program of the National WUd-
life Federation. The federation is the Nation's largest conservation
organization. It has over 4.5 million members and supporters who
are dedicated to the wise use and management of natural re-
sources.
The federation's constituency has had a longstanding awareness
of the strong link between sustainable development and intelligent
use of natural resources.
I am also speaking here this morning on behalf of the Institute
for Public Representation, which is a public interest law firm
formed by Georgetown University Law School smd the Ford Foun-
dation.
We are dismayed by the proliferation of pesticide use that is de-
stroying fish and wildlife, poisoning humems, and threatening the
natural balance of predators and prey. We, therefore, support the
pesticide reform legislation which is being sponsored by Kiepresent-
ative George Brown eaid Senators Proxmire and Harkin, which will
strengthen the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
The principal provisions of that legislation would increase protec-
tion of developing countries against pesticide misuse, augment the
control of pesticides that endanger U.S. citizens, and assure public
participation in important decisions concerning pesticides.
I would also like to mention that there are some similfu" provi-
sions in H.R. 1416 which has been introduced by Representative
Cecil Heftel, which addresses some of the same imfwrt emd export
issues.
While these bills will not solve all pesticide-related problems,
they are needed efforts to address some of the known inadequacies
in the current FIFRA legislation.
The National Wildlife Federation endorsee the whole package of
the FIFRA reform bill that will be introduced by Representative
Brown, but we are particularly concerned about the export of haz-
ardous pesticides to developing countries where they are often mis-
used causing acute poisonings as well as long-term health effects
and environmental contamination.
Canceled and suspended pesticides are routinely allowed to be ex-
ported from the United States, but, moreover, the current export
notification provision does not give developing countries sufficient
or timely warning of the hazards of pesticides that they are receiv-
ing. This leads to severail problems.
First, I am sure you all have heard of the circle of poison in
which pesticide residues which have been used on food crops in for-
eign countries may remain as residues and imported into this coun-
d by Google
343
try on food products. FIFRA does not now require the automative
revocation of food tolerances, the legally permitted amounts of pes-
ticide residues in food, when a pesticide is canceled or suspended.
In addition, this means that an imported food shipment may le-
gally contain as much residue of a canceled pesticide as was per-
mitted when that pesticide was used in the United States prior to
the cancellation.
But even where the residue exceeds the tolerance or there has
never been a tolerance set for that pesticide on a particular food
product, we have found in several research efforts that the FDA
does not always act to preclude the shipment entering the country.
liie Brown bill would require the revocation automatically of tol-
erances after a cancellation, and it would also prohibit an import
shipment when the residues exceed a tolerance.
Mr. Chairman, you have also suggested an alternative method of
reaching this same result, which would be to only permit a food
import, shipment import, if a country has a regulation to keep can-
celed and suspended pesticides from being used on that crop. This
alternative is also worth pursuing.
I want to turn now just briefly to the misuse of pesticides in de-
veloping countries themselves. As you probably know, safe use of
f>esticides is hard enough in this country, but in developing coun-
tries pesticide misuse is magnified by poverty, illiteracy, the high
cost of protective gear, the lack of water for washing after pesticide
use, and inadequate, if any, training for applicators.
To add to these enormous obstacles, this country and several
other pesticide exporting countries have adopted a double standard
which specifically exempts pesticides made for export from impor-
tant legal safety requirements. For example, under section 3 of
FIFRA pesticides made only for export need not go through the
registration process. This means that even if an importing country
asks EPA for information about the health and safety effects or the
efficacy of certain products, EPA has no information to give.
In addition, not all of our pesticide container labeling require-
ments apply to exported pesticides. Manufacturers for pesticides
destined for abroad need not label them with instructions for
proper use.
liiere is a notification system in the FIFRA legislation now, but
it is faulty in several ways. The shipment-related notice is not re-
quired to precede the shipment. Therefore, the importing country
is not given the opportunity to consider the hazards of the chemi-
cal before receiving the pesticide.
The one further problem I would like to point out is that, despite
the fact that we do give notification for suspended and canceled
pesticides, we do not routinely do so for restricted use. Those are
the chemicals which are, in fact, most dangerous to use.
You will find that, while DUT would normally have a notifica-
tion to a foreign importing country, parathion would not. That pes-
ticide alone may be responsible for as much as 80 percent of the
p^ticide poisonings in Central America.
I would like to endorse the amendments which are in the Brown
bill, particularly with regard to notification, broadening the notifi-
cation system to developing countries, and requirii^ compilation of
information on pesticide exports.
d by Google
344
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bramble appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedeix. Thank you.
Mr. Wasserstrom.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WASSERSTROM, SENIOR ASSOCIATE
AND PROJECT DIRECTOR, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Mr. Wasserstrom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Robert Wasseretrom. I am a senior associate and
project director at the World Resources Institute Public Polity Re-
search Center here in Washington.
In collaboration with Richard Wiles, I have recently completed a
study of pesticide regulation and farmworker safety in the United
States which will be published by WRI within the next few days.
I appreciate this opportunity to offer my views to the Bubcommit*
tee.
Since FIBHA was enacted in 1947, American agriculture has
become heavily dependent on synthetic pesticides which now repre-
sent a $4.1 billion a year market for chemical memufacturers.
Because EPA has been unable to codify appropriate uses for
these chemicals as the law requires, significant problems of human
health and safety, particularly for feuners emd agricultural labor-
ers, remain.
hi part, such problems stem from the ambiguous nature of
FIFRA itself and from the agency's convoluted efforts to balance
the price of pest control against the need to limit human exposure.
This difficulty has recently been underscored by specialists at
EPA's own Economic Analysis Branch.
"While pesticide producers, users, and consumers benefit from
the use of pesticides," they wrote, "costs are distributed dispropoi^
tionately throughout the population in terms of acute and chronic
toxic effects such as cancer.'
Although conclusive proof is not available, ample evidence sug-
gests that such costs are borne mainly by farmers, field hands, and
agricultural laborers.
In our view, the following recommendations would lead to a
more effective national policy concerning agricultural workers and
pesticide safety:
One, EPA should calculate occupational exposure levels for all
workers employed in agriculture. These standards should be at
least as high as those developed by OSHA. Even better, EPA might
use the so-called "will endanger" test taken from section 211 of the
Clean Air Act. This test enables the agency to act on the basis of
risk alone without a strict assessment of economic benefits.
To carry out its mandate, EPA should create a new Occupational
Health and Safety Branch within the Office of Pesticide Pn^rams
which would replace the existing one-person Farmworker Safety
Unit,
Revised standards for both acute and chronic exposure must be
set as soon as the relevant data are collected and should assure
that agricultural workers receive the sfune degree of protection as
other workers eryoy under OSHA.
d by Google
345
If such data are not forthcoming in a timely fashion, the agency
should adopt a procedure now used in California under the State s
Birth Defects Prevention Act which tdlows officials there to carry
out the necessary studies themselves or contract it through a repu-
table laboratory at the memufacturer's expense.
Meanwhile, EPA should set emergency regulations by undertak-
ing a worst-case analysis of existing evidence. Should the studies
outlined above subsequently indicate that less stringent regulations
might apply in particular cases or regions, EPA or State officials
may then make the appropriate adjustments.
Finally, responsibility for enforcing these r^ulations must be
transferred from State agricultural officials to health authorities
who would adhere to strict Federal guidelines.
Two, classification of pesticides should be tightened or reflect the
new standards and additional resources must be allocated to ac-
complish this task expeditiously. All pesticides should be grouped
into three m^or categories depending on their relative toxicity, the
danger of human exposure, and epidemiolt^cal evidence of intoxi-
cation.
Thus, for example, chemicals which do not appear to be particu-
larly harmful in laboratory studies may turn out to cause signifi-
cant damage when actuetlly used in the field. Such information
should figure into EPA's calculation of how dangerous these chemi-
cals are and who should be permitted to apply them.
Furthermore, we support the idea that EPA should require man-
ufacturers to pay a registrant's fee for each new compound placed
on the market. Such fees would be higher for chemicals in category
1 than for those in categories 2 or 3 and would effectively share the
burden of epidemiological surveillance and monitoring with the
chemical industry.
Three, the best scientific information currently available sug-
gests that protective clothing does not shield either applicators or
field hands who must return to treated areas before the corre-
sponding reentry periods have expired. Until safer methods are
developed, EPA should enforce reentry rules with no special allow-
ance for protective clothing except where positive scientific evi-
dence shows that it is effective.
Since very few agriculturtil tasks must be performed immediate-
ly after pesticides are applied, this procedure is unlikely to repre-
sent a severe hardship for most farmers and would rectify one of
the most glaring inconsistencies in current regulation.
Four, under existing procedures certified applicators exercise
genereil responsibility for supervising the laborers who mix, load,
and spray pesticides but need not be present when treatments
occur. To solve this problem, EPA should immediately assure that
everyone directly involved in handling such chemicab undergoes a
degree of training at least equivalent to what certified applicators
now receive.
Whether these measures succeed will depend largely on EPA's
willingness to develop and implement a coherent national prt^am.
As past experience with FIFRA has demonstrated, partial remedies
are not the answer. Pesticide misuse cannot be corrected by put-
ting more detailed instructions on product labels.
d by Google
We ui^ Congress to take the steps that an effective national
strat^y demand. Like medicines, pesticides are both a vital part
of modern life etnd a [wtential hazard. In neither case can narrow
interests be allowed to set the terms of public policy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasserstrom appears at the con-
clusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Wasserstrom.
Mr. Horwitz.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES HORWITZ. FARMWORKER JUSTICE
COMMITTEE
Mr. HoRwrrz. Themk you, Mr. Chairmem.
My neune is Charles Horwitz. 1 am speaking for farmworkers, cli-
ents who have been injured by pesticides in the course of their em-
ployment. Farmworkers are the No. 1 occupational health victims
of pesticides.
I have represented farmworkers in pesticide poisoning cases and
also death cases since 1976 for the Migrant Legal Action Program
and recently for the Farmworker Justice Fund.
All of the farmworker laborer and human protective provisions
in the Brown-Proxmire bill are necessary, we believe, to insure
minimal labor occupational health and safety protections for farm-
workers under FIFRA.
FIFRA is the main labor protection statute that I believe your
Agriculture Committee deals with. Yet, how many members of the
Agriculture Committee regard FIFRA as a labor protection statute,
since FIFRA never mentions farmworkers, workers, employers, or
occupational safety or health. Take a fresh look at FIFRA, I ui:ge
you, and try to find one clue that this law is supposed to be a labor
protection statute.
The lack of enforcement of FIFRA for farmworkers and the gen-
eral public is a very serious problem. Mr. Wasserstrom has docu-
mented in his paper recent lack of enforcement, reduced enforce-
ment of FIFRA by EPA which shows a bad situation is getting even
worse.
What the Brown-Proxmire does is to try to remedy these prob-
lems with several labor protection provisions which require EPA,
one, to enact enforceable worker protection regulations. Right now
EPA says that the regs at 40 CFR 170 are not enforceable even
though they have been on the books since 1975.
It would create an occupational safety and health unit within
EPA. EPA does not have such a unit right now. They have no in-
dustrial hygienist that we know of, for example, no medical doctors
who work on the issue of worker protection within EPA.
It would provide for an amtiretaliation provision and it would
also provide for a private right to sue, which, as you remember,
this subcommittee in 1981 passed and it also passed the entire
House, although it did not pass the House Agriculture Committee
by one vote, 21 to 20. Similar provisions such as those we are 8up>
porting today, as I said, were passed by your subcommittee and by
the full House.
d by Google
347
Because of the lack of time, I am just going to focus on the pri-
vate right to sue, the citizens' suit provision, and I am going to give
several reasons why we think it is essential to be passed.
In this era of reduced Government support at all levels for r^u-
latory enforcement, it is essential to give private citizens the means
to help themselves and not have to beg the Government to help
them. Citizens should be able to have this kind of protection be-
cause, without it, they are going to have to rely on EPA and the
States which the GAO in 1981 and many similar studies have
shown that simply has not been up to the job.
Recently EPA has made it even more difficult for anyone to find
out how many pesticide injuries occur in this country. Section 20 of
FIPHA requires EPA to monitor pesticide exposure, "pollution of
man and the environment."
Unfortunately, EPA is not performing this function and EPA has
no record of how mfmy enforcement actions it has taken against
pesticide applicators who have injured human beings, livestock, or
the environment. Although the EPA's Pesticide Instant Monitoring
System, PIMS, has recorded over 60,000 injuries over the past sev-
eral years, the system v/as not programmed to disclose how many
of these incidents involved humans nor to describe how many
workers, residents, or other pesticide victims have been injured.
Recently, EPA stopped any further public dissemination of PIMS
material and PIMS is now closed. The EPA is sort of a blind guard-
ian. It has closed its eyes and does not try to get this information
anymore on a regular, voluntary basis.
We have urged unsuccessfully that EPA mandate pesticide re-
porting requirements in a petition in 1979 which they rejected.
I urge you to vote for the private citizen suit provision because of
the serious practical difficulties victims, not only farmworkers, face
in litigating pesticide poisoning cases. This bill provides a Federal
forum which is a very small but helpful step in the right direction.
It is true, as some of you have mentioned and asked Mr. Meyer-
hoff and others earlier, that victims can go into court and sue on
tort damages if they are injured, but they cannot go into Federal
court now unless they have diversity of citizenship.
Let me share some of the background of the problems which
farmworkers face. First of all, 65 percent of all pesticide poisonings
that are agricultural involves crop^lusting pilots who negligently
permit spray drift to injure people and the environment. Yet, very
often victims such as farm or forestry workers and rurtil residente
cannot afford to take time off from work even though they are se-
verely poisoned. Only a few report involuntary pesticide poisonings
to governmental authorities.
For example, in California they have about 1,500 cases a year re-
ported to the State officials. That is only 1 percent of the total
number.
I am just going to conclude by saying that, with this provision, it
would make it a little bit easier for a farmworker in one State to
sue in Federal court where right now he only has the option of
going into State court or begging EPA or the States to help him.
We believe that asking the Government so far to help them with
pesticide [wisonings is a futile gesture.
Thank you.
ST-6M O-W 1!
^d by Google
348
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much.
Mr. Combest.
Mr. CoHBBST. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I should say at this
juncture that my lack of questions does not indicate lack of a keen
interest or some pertinent questions that I do have of the witnesses
dating back to a several year period. However, in the interest of
time, I am deferring those questions in that I do want all members
of the panel that have been scheduled to have their say.
I want to say at this juncture, which I should have said at the
b^inning of the hearing, that I welcome all the witnesses to this
process and thank them for their input. We share your sense of
concern. Mr. Bedell and I have introduced a bill that hopefully will
be a vehicle for improvement for all parties.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Mr, Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison. Mr. Chairman, just a question of Mr. Horwitz
based on his \ast comments.
You indicated that a very small percentage of farmworkers sup-
posedly injured by pesticides actually recorded that injury and that
they did not take time for treatment because they could not afford
to. Whatever happened to industrial insurance or workers' compen-
sation? My experience is that payments are made immediately if
someone is actually injured.
Mr. HoRwrrz. Sir, in 25 States farmworkers are explicitly or im-
plicitly excluded ^m workers' compensation. That is No. 1.
No. 2, studies have shown that farmworkers simply do not know
about their rights to workers' compensation for various reasons.
The fear of retaliation of complaining to the grower is a real prob-
lem. Testimony in California and many other States has shown
that, if you want to be foolish, you complain and then you are out
of a job. Farmworkers cannot aifford to take that kind of risk. The
antiretaliation provision that is in this Brown-Proxmire bill would
provide that kind of protection, the antiretaliation provision.
Mr. Morrison. Aren't the major agricultural areas covered,
though, with industrial insurance? I know certainly the State of
Washington is, as well as California.
Mr. Horwitz. It is true. Texas just recently passed one. So now
the major agricultural States have it, but, mind you, migrant farm-
workers by definition migrate from Texas up the Middle West
where many States don't have it, from Florida on the east coast,
and they don't have protection in those States. Some farmworkers
migrate 3, 6, or 9 months out of the year, and they are in those
States without protection of workers compensation. Like I say,
workers' compensation studies have shown it is simply not known
as an available remedy for farmworkers and they do face the risk
of being fired if they complain.
Mr. Combest. As a farmer for 30 years, I have never seen the
particular problem that you point out as severe, but I eim going to
take your word for it because your testimony is part of what we
are taking under consideration, as Mr. Roberts has indicated.
Mr. Horwitz. Thank you, sir.
d by Google
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. No questions.
Mr. Bedell. On the export of chemicals that some of you talked
about earlier, is what you want simply notification of the danger of
using that chemical? Is that as far as you wish to go?
Ms. Breimble, I think you talked about it.
Ms. Bramble. Yes, I did. Thank you.
We have talked about it over a long period of time, about how
far we think we can go with that concept. Obviously, a lot of people
have suggested that we should simply prohibit the export of pesti-
cides which are totally cancelled for use here. That would be
simple and it would certeinly be something we could justify.
There has been a lot of thought given to whether that is realistic,
what would happen if you did that. There certainly are producers
in many other countries who are exporting the same chemicals.
Frankly, unfortunately, more and more of some of the bad actors
are being made in developing countries themselves.
I think in the long run the only solution is going to be sensible
development of regulatory systems in each country. If we can pro-
mote that by the process of an improved notification system with
timely notification, with technical assistance from EPA find AID
here in this country for the AID countries, we would probably go
more in the long run toward alleviating the human health and en-
vironmental problems in developing countries than a simple, per-
haps emotionally satisfying, but not particularly helpful straight
ban. That is at least where I come out now.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Wasserstrom, you talked something about pro-
tective clothing. I am sorry, I did not comprehend what you said.
What was that all about?
Mr. Wasserstrom. In the rush to abbreviate my remarks, I think
I probably truncated the point I was trying to make.
Currently, EPA has adopted a procedure of establishing reentry
intervals for farmworker protection, certain intervals of time, 24
hours, 48 hours in some cases, after which the pesticide has to dry
or settle before workers can be ordered to return to a field. In most
cases that provision is suspended if the farmer provides his work-
ers with so-called adequate protective clothing.
In reviewing the scientific evidence about protective clothing, the
rate at which pesticide residues penetrate protective clothing emd
so on and so forth, it turns out that there is very little evidence to
support that kind of waiver. It seems that most protective clothing
in fact is easily penetrated by available pesticides. What we are
urging is that that kind of exemption be abolished, except where
scientific evidence becomes available to show that it is viable.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much.
Are there any further questions?
If not, we appreciate your testimony very much. Thank you.
Our next panel is Mr. Lloyd Cline, National Cotton Council, and
Mr. Harold Collins, National Agricultural Aviation Association.
Mr. Combest has asked permission to introduce Mr. Cline. We
will recognize Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much.
I am certainly proud to introduce to this subcommittee one of my
constituents from Lamesa, TX, a gentleman who is not only widely
d by Google
350
recognized for his expertise in agriculture in west Texas, but across
this country and is here today representing the National Cotton
Council.
I would like also to acknowledge the participation etnd attend-
ance of Mr. Shelton from Hereford, TX, who is here with the Na-
tional Agricultural Aviation Association. We welcome both of you
gentlemen from Texas to Washington.
Mr. Cline. Theink you.
Mr. CoMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedeix. Thank you, Mr. Corabest.
As chairman, I would like to thank you for your participation
and attendeuice with this subcommittee.
Mr. Cline, I can assure you that he is very conscientiously work-
ing in his duties on this subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF LLOYD CLINE, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
COTTON COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY JIM BROWN
Mr. CuNE. Thank you very much.
I am Lloyd Cline of Lamesa, TX. I am testifying today both as a
concerned farmer and as a vice president of the Nationcd Cotton
Council which represents cotton producers, processors, and han-
dlers in 18 of these great States of ours here in the United States.
I also have with me Dr. Jim Brown with the National Cotton
Council, to my left, who is here to assist me in answering any ques-
tions that might be of a technical nature that you might raise.
We have submitted copies of a more detailed statement that we
would like to have considered and put into the record.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, your statement will be entered in
the record.
Mr. CuNE. Thank you, sir.
My comments here today will be a summary of that statement.
Basically, Mr. Chairman, we support a simple 1- or 2-year reau-
thorization of FIFRA. Should the act be open for amendments,
however, we respectfully surest that consideration be given to the
following concerns:
We strongly believe that the Federed Government should retain
sole authority for setting pesticide residue tolerances. Allowing
States to set tolerances would result in mass confusion. One pesti-
cide could have as many as 50 different tolerances of that same
commodity.
By the same token, we believe overall authority for r^ulating
pesticides should remain in the hands of the Federal and State gov-
ernments rather than at the county and the city level.
We think Congress was r^ht in allowing restricted-use pesticides
to be applied either by a certified applicator or under his supervi-
sion. We believe this provision should be retained.
Congress also was right in providing that a pesticide should not
be denied registration just because another pesticide is already ro-
istered for that use. Yet, EPA is using this so-called lack of essen-
tiality as a consideration for cancelling pesticides and for decisions
on conditional registration of new products. We think Congress
should make clear to EPA its intent in this regard.
d by Google
351
We support keeping the requirement that EPA compensate
owners of pesticide stocks whose registration has been suspended
and ]at«r canceled, and pay for their disposal.
We strongly favor requiring all imported farm commodities and
products processed from them to meet our residue tolerance stand-
ards.
We further believe that FIFRA should be amended to metke clear
that EPA has statutory authority to set pesticide action levels as
well as the tolerances.
We strongly oppose einy amendment to insert a so-called "private
right-of-action" provision in FIFRA. Instead of enhancing protec-
tion under FIFRA, such a provision would only serve to encourage
additional lawsuits.
For similar reasons, we also oppose fuiy new provisions to give
the public standing to initiate suspension or cancellation hearings.
On the matter of registration guidelines, considerable prepress
has been made toward developing them in such a way that poten-
tial pesticide registrants will know what registration requirements
are. However, there appear to be continuing incidents of registra-
tion being delayed because requirements not covered in the guide-
lines have been added. In the caae of pond or aquatic studies, the
agency doesn't seem to know what the requirements should be.
We strongly oppose transferring einy authority over the farm use
of pesticides from EPA to OSHA. Such action would only increase
Federal ctsts and place additional regulatory burdens on farmers.
We believe the present Federctl pesticide applications standards
are adequate, and we oppose establishment of unnecessary buffer
zones, unworkable notification requirements, and other standards
without valid scientific proof as to their necessity.
We also oppose any increase in pesticide r^istration fees. They
would result in higher pesticide costs that would be passed on to
farmers and ranchers.
We also have serious reservations about eliminating adjudicatory
hearings because of the serious consequences on farmers and
ranchers. We think the current two-stage process is neither too
long nor unfair.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we want to commend EPA for the new
approach it took in revising the section of FIFRA relating to ex-
emptions for emergency use of pesticides. Instead of developing and
proposing new regulations on its own, the agency established a 21-
member negotiating committee to write them. The committee In-
cluded representatives of farm organizations and other user groups,
environmental organizations, the farm chemiced industry. State
pesticide and health agencies, USDA, and EPA.
We would hope to see EPA take such an approach on more of the
major pesticide regulatory issues.
Mr. Chairmein, thank you for allowing us to be here today and to
express our views and concerns in this matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cline appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Theink you, Mr. Cline.
Mr. Collins.
d by Google
STATEMENT OF HAROLD COLUNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AVIATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. CoLUNS. Mr. Cheiirman, thank you for giving the Agricultur-
al Aviation Association ein opportunity to testify today.
Along with the testimony, we have made two attachments to it
which we would like to offer for your further consideration in the
record, sir.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, the attachments will be entered
in the record.
Mr, Collins. Thank you.
My name is Harold Collins. I am employed as the executive di-
rector of the National Agricultural Aviation Association, headquar-
tered in Washington, DC. The organization is a federation of State
and regional associations throughout the United States. The mem-
bers of the association include individual agricultural aviation busi-
nesses, agricultural pilots, allied industries who supply the prod-
ucts and services we use, international persons and companies
from 18 nations around the world.
In this country we represent about 3,000 operating companies
who own emd operate approximately 10,000 agricultural aircraft, of
which 900 are helicopters and the rest are fixed wing.
During the course of a normal year, whatever that is, we fly ap>
proximately 2,600,000 hours. We consume approximately 90 million
gallons of aviation fuel, which we believe to be very energy effi-
cient. We apply seed, fertilizer, and crop protection chemicals.
With r^ard to the hearing, NAAA, sir, has not had time to com-
municate with its board of directors and the legislative committee
on the recently introduced legislation.
As a consequence, Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that we
might be able to provide you with additional comment in the
future in a timeframe consistent with your subcommittee's needs,
if that would be appropriate.
Yesterday, based on the testimony of Representative Seiberling, I
want to relate to the subcommittee that EPA did not bem the aerial
application of Lasso or Alachlor, as had been suggested. That was
entirely a Monsanto decision, according to Mr. Steve Shatzow, who
is EPA's Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs. Immediately
following Mr. Seiberling's testimony yesterday, I went and ex-
plained the situation to him and he is consistent with that now.
In fact, Monsanto has recently supplied new data to the agency
which may, indeed, result in the reinstatement of the aerial appli-
cation method to the Lasso label.
For future consideration, we would like to offer the following
thoughts to the committee: Earlier this year NAAA participated in
and was one of the numerous sponsors of a [>esticide waste disposal
conference held in Denver, CO. Attendees to this conference includ-
ed numerous State, Federal, and public entities, all of whom were
vitelly concerned with pesticide waste disposal, as we are.
Our observations from that conference are attached to this testi-
mony, which is copied from our association magazine. We hope you
will find that helpful.
Based on ideas generated at this conference, NAAA would like to
suggest that the subcommittee consider requiring that pesticide
d by Google
wafite disposal be regulated exclusively under section 19 of the
FIFRA rather than the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
We believe that private and commercial pesticide applicators
alike are simply unable to comply with RCRA. If we use the exist-
ing technolc^y available to us today to create waste disposal regu-
lations under FIFRA that are both practical and attainable, I be-
lieve the agricultured community would welcome the opportunity
to be able to comply with the law for the first time.
Mr. Chairman, it also seems to our association that medical stud-
ies of long-time pesticide users in the agricultural community could
provide strong evidence of health consequences associated with pes-
ticide exposure. Such a study might even reduce the conjecture as-
sociated with laboratory animal test data which we are invariably
trying to extrapolate into human terms. We certainly would end up
knowing more than we know today by such a study.
NAAA would like to suggest that EPA conduct a nationwide
health study of pesticide users. We suggest this because we as a
group are voluntarily and repetitively exposed to pesticides at
levels greater than the general public. If you can agree with that
and agree with the dose-response relationship, it seems to us that
we would be able to provide some valuable medical knowledge to
the world.
In 1978 we funded, as an organization, em epidemiological study
of pilots, their spouses, and children. We funded the study because
the Government at that time was totally disinterested in such in-
formation. The control group in this study was the siblings of agri-
cultural pilots, their spouses, and their children as long as they
had no involvement in aerial application or pesticides.
The ultimate benefits of that study showed that there was no sig-
nificant difference between the agricultural pilots with exposure
levels and their siblii^ with no exposures. We think that the lack
of a difference was important, and that was, indeed, the conclusion
of that study.
Finally, sir, we appreciate the work this committee has accom-
plished on pesticide l^islation over many, many years. We com-
mend and support your continued singular oversight on these
issues.
We thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Combest.
Mr. Combest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cline, on the original testimony which you submitted to the
subcommittee that we heid looked through, on page 2 you were
talking about buffer zones. It seems to me, if my memory serves me
correctly, that a few years ago there were some States that were
proposing buffer zones which would have, in effect, in a 160-acre
field only have allowed about 40 acres of that to be sprayed or be
treated. Do you know where that issue stands today? Where are
they on that issue as far as proposed buffer zones? Do you know?
Mr. Cline. Dr. Brown, are you in a position to Euiswer that ques-
tion?
d by Google
354
Mr. Jim Brown. There are buffer zones established by certaio
pesticides. The State of Texas just this past year — well, it went into
effect, I believe, in January — buffer zones for certain cat^ories of
pesticides.
Mr. CoMBEST. How extensive are those, Mr. Brown? In some of
those areas is there a criterion or what are the criteria for estab-
lishing that buffer zone? Is there an amount of a field, for example,
that is not allowed to be Bprayed on the exterior or toward
Mr. Jim Brown. It is a distance, and it is basically — excuse me.
Mr. CoMBEST. I am sorry.
Mr. Jim Brown. It is based not only on the pesticide, but the
proximity to such facilities as school grounds, public pla^rounds,
hospitals, and this type of facility.
Mr. CoMBKST. DifTerent States, though, are adopting different
types of buffer zone programs?
Mr. Jim Brown. Yes.
Mr. CoMBEST. The second question, Mr. Cline: In the testimony of
supporting Federal preemption for tolerance setting, do you feel
that most States have the capability, scientific capability, of estab-
lishing tolerances?
Mr. CuNE. I don't believe they do. I would recommend that the
Federal Government set those tolerances, so you would not have a
conflict between the different States on the different tolerances
that would be allowed.
Mr. CoMBEST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Combest.
Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. I have no questions, Mr. Chairmfm.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. I have no questions.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins, I was interested in your medical study that had been
done. I would like to have you amplify a little on that.
I have attempted to skim through the results, conclusions, and so
forth. In essence, I sense that the report said that there is no sig-
nificant difference on the total health systems between aerial ap-
plicators, as exposed as they are on a daily basis to these pesticides
we have been hearing about today, and their families.
Mr. Coluns. That is correct, sir.
Indeed, if I may add to it, this survey was replicated by the U.S.
wheat growers' organization. Their conclusions were identical to
ours. However, the difference in health was statistical significant
between the wheat grower who had the better health and the con-
trol group who were not involved with pesticides.
More recently, and aa yet unreported formally, there is work
going on at the University of Nebraska by Drs. Gold and Olson,
two of the gentlemen I know involved, where they have been study-
ing commercial applicators for the past 3 years. Their data tends to
support this data which was done earlier in that there are no sig-
niflcant differences in the health of persons who are highly ex-
posed versus those who have what might be considered standard
exposure through diet or occasionally driving through the country.
d by Google
355
Mr. Morrison. One other question not related to the study: my
understanding in talking with aerial applicators in our area is that
there is increasing difficulty in getting insurance to cover the prob-
lems with perhaps spraying near someone else's property or a
home, that sort of thing. Is that accurate?
Mr. CoLUNS. Yes. Insurance premiums have been increasing.
One of the problems, however, is the source of underwriting has
been principally Lloyds of London. There are domestic underwrit-
ers, but Lloyds is the principal. They have found underwriting
other forms of insurance is more profitable.
Many of our people this year are paying premiums no different
than they were several years ago. Many, however, have had their
premiums tripled. In some cases this might be due to problems that
they have had — hull problems, the airplane crashed, or drift prob-
lems where material left the target cite and did, indeed, cause
damage.
Mr. Morrison. Is it fftir to assume, then, that the legal remedies
that someone would have under today's ground rules are working?
Mr. CoLUNS. Yes, sir, they are.
Mr. Morrison. In essence, what that is saying, if it is more diffi-
cult to get insurance in this area, it must reflect that there have
been greater losses where in fact materials have left the target, to
use your term.
Mr. Collins. One of the problems, as like all insurance, I sup-
pose, is the difference of opinion between the plaintiff and the de-
fendant in the degree of damage that was done, if any, and some-
times, sadly, in the insurance industry there is a payout, an out-of-
court settlement which occurs in spite of the fact that there was
perhaps no damage, but it is cheaper than litigating. The insurance
industry is not prone to spending more money to win when it can
spend less money and admit guilt. That is sadly the case in some
situations.
Mr. Morrison. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Collins, do you have studies or reports that you could submit
to the subcommittee that indicate those who have had high expo-
sure do not necessarily show any greater health effects than those
that have not?
Mr. CoLUNS. Yes, sir. The one report that our association con-
ducted is attached to the testimony. I would be more than happy to
provide one accomplished by the Wheat Growers Association, and I
will be receiving a copy from the University of Nebraska in the
near future, because they are concluding a 3-year study right now.
Mr. Bedell. Hie reason I ask is that our job is to try to learn as
much as we can and be as objective as we can.
Mr. CoLUNS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Feldman, in his prepared statement, said, and I
probably ought to read the paragraph here:
The public interest concern is not an abstract concern of numbera. A January
1981 report issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, "Chemical Hazards to
Human Reproduction," cites various studies of male and female workers exposed to
pesticides, l^ese studies report impotence, chromosome aberrations, infertility, mis-
carriages, and other adverse effects on reproduction.
d by Google
A University of Iowa study in 1982 found that Iowa farmers bead greater risk of
sis types of cancers than city dwellers. According to researchers, the cancer rate is
an occupational hazard of farmii^g not related to smoking, as confimwd by other
studies around the world.
I don't know if that is right or wrong. Our job ib to try to sort out
the facts and try to be as objective as possible. Any stuoiee that you
have I think we should get, so that our stafT can look at them, and
then we should give him the opportunity to give any studies that
he has that we could look at, to try to determine whether or not
the concern, as is expressed by many people, is justified.
Any further questions?
If not, the subcommittee will be actjourned until 2 o'clock this
afternoon.
I want to thank everybody for their great cooperation this mom-
fivhei
. "hereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee recessed to recon-
vene at 2 p.m. the same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. Bedell. The subcommittee will come to order.
I know there are other committee meetings taking place, bo we
may have our members in and out.
Mr. Brown, do you have a statement before we start?
Mr. Brown. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. If not, we are pleased to have our colleeigue, Cecil
Heftel, here from Hawaii.
I might tell you, Cec, first of all, how pleeised we are with the
recovery that you have seen since your accident.
Mr. Heftel. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. We are awfully glad to have you back. We look for-
ward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OP HON. CECIL (CEC) HEFTEL, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Mr. Heftel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, committee
members.
I would like unanimous consent to summarize and have my
statement placed in the record.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, that will be done.
Mr. Heftel. H.R. 1416 was drafted by me in response to inad-
equate pesticide monitoring system on the part of our EPA. EPA
does not collect sufficient information about pesticide products
leaving this country. FDA cannot adequately monitor residues
when it has so little information about what to look for.
We offer a plan, if you will, which would enable FDA to monitor
what it is that is coming into this country that has already used a
pesticide that may have been banned in the United States. Ideedly,
we should ban the export of any pesticide that is not registered for
use in the United States and ban the import of any food commodity
that has been treated with a pesticide not registered here, but this
would be politically unfeasible.
Congress would be accused enacting trade barriers. U.S. pesticide
manufacturers would threaten to move their operations abroad.
d by Google
357
So the provisions of H.R. 1416 are designed not to hamper Ameri-
can export of pesticides but the bill would increase the amount of
information EPA receives about which pesticides are exported from
the United States, their destination, and the products to which
they will be applied; require nations importing pesticides not regis-
tered for use in the United States to acknowledge that they under-
stfind the dangers of the pesticides and how to safely use and dis-
pose of them.
The enactment of the provisions of H.R. 1416 would idesdly
assure American citizens that their health is not being compro-
mised, assure farmers that they are competing on an equal basis
with their foreign counterparts, and make the United States a
better trading partner by taking the lead in promoting pesticide
safety standard^ and showing that they do not wish to treat the
rest of the world as a dumping ground.
Simply stated, we would know more about what is happening to
pesticides banned in the United States which are exported for use
and make sure that we have a system of protecting ourselves from
receiving commodities that have been treated abroad br^ those pes-
ticides to come back in for consumption in the United States, when
the original purpose in banning the pesticide was to avoid con-
sumption of commodities involving those pesticides.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and would be delighted with any
dialog you wish to enter into.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heftel appears at the conclusion
of the hearii^.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Heftel, could you give me an indication of what
led to your concern about this issue?
Mr. Heftel. I had a meeting with our farmers in Hawaii about 4
years ago and, by accident, found out that pesticides were being
used on products being imported by us that were banned in the
United States. So we were receiving agricultural products which
had been treated with pesticides that are not permissible for use in
the United States, and that just didn't make any sense. That is
what commenced my interest, and then I did further investigation
and found out that it was fairly prevalent that pesticides were find-
ing their way abroad and then used on commodities coming back
into the United States from such places as Mexico, right across the
border, which you perhaps would be more familiar with than I in
terms of that occurrence.
Mr. Brown. 1 am familiar with it. I am familiar with the prob-
lem. I think it does need to be addressed, and I want to commend
you for making the proposal that you have in H.R. 1416.
It is a complex problem, and I am not sure how well we will be
able to address it here, but 1 think you have helped to focus our
attention on it. 1 hope we will be able to take some action.
Mr. Heftel. 1 would appreciate the committee's input and modi-
fication in redesign or totally new desigii of legislation that would
address the problem. I would not be as intimately aware of all the
facts as I think you people are, and particulfu-ly yourself in Califor-
nia, but 1 do know it is a problem that should be addressed. I think
it can be addressed. I would hope that the committee would provide
d by Google
358
that leadership, because all I am really doing is sort of startiog the
dialog.
Mr. Brown. Well, we appreciate that and we will make every
effort to carry on that effort.
I have no ^rther questions.
Mr. Bedell. Cec, does your bill simply call for notification in case
these chemicals are sold to foreign countries.
Mr. Heftel. Yes.
Mr, Bedell. Notification of the dangers involved?
Mr. Heftel. Yes. We haven't gotten into the question of sanc-
tions at all.
Mr. Bedell. But that is all it does
Mr. Heftel. Yes.
Mr. Bedell. It is just notification?
Mr. Heftel. That is correct; yes.
Mr. Bedell. Have you found anybody who is opposed to that?
Mr. Heftel. I have not found einybody opposed because it is hard
to be opposed to a statement which says we don't want products to
come in with [>e6ticides that were banned in the United States be-
cause they are harmful to the health of the people of the United
States, only to be imported on products produced abroad.
Mr. Bedell. We had some testimony in opposition, but I am not
sure I understfmd it, if all it is notification, if it is simply a require-
ment that any foreign purchasers be notified that that product is
banned and there could be some health problems with it.
I guess that is all you are asking, as I understand it.
Mr. Heftel. Well, plus beefing up the way that we know how to
examine products coming back to determine whether or not you
have those pesticides on those products, but that is an internal ad-
ministrative problem for us. It certainly would not involve either
private industry or the foreign governments. It would just basically
protect us from those products coming in, and knowing how to find
out whether or not they have, in fact, been treated with the illegEil
pesticides and should not be permitted for importation.
Mr. Bedell. Or if they contain residues of that pesticide?
Mr. Heftel. Yes; well, residues.
Mr. Bedell. That is what you meant?
Mr. Heftel. Yes; a method for determining what your residue is.
Mr. Bedell. The only problem we have is that it does take
money to properly check all that.
Mr. Heftel. Where have I heard that before?
Mr. Bedell. And we have a heck of a problem getting the money
we need.
Mr. Heftel. I think we ought to at least start by having the noti-
fication program and putting the ideal program in place [>ending
funding.
Mr. Bedell. Sure.
Mr. Heftel. Even the threat perhaps, though I don't think we
would carry it out, but perhaps it should be entertained in the
dialog, of simply saying, ' We're not going to permit the sale of pes-
ticides abroad that are produced here," but I don't think that that
accomplishes anything. You force your pesticide manufacturers
abroad, and you just do a lot of things that are not going to work
as a practical matter.
d by Google
I think we should at least have dialog pointing out that we have
gone through the scenario and do understtmd why that would be
undesirEible and v/ant to use the more moderate approach.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans, do you have any questions?
Mr. Evans of Iowa. No, I have no questions.
Mr. Bedell. We thank you very much for your effort, and we
will certainly be following your work.
Mr. Heftel. Thank you,
Mr. Bedell. Our next panel consists of Mr. Milan Yager, legisla-
tive director. United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable AMOCiation. and Mr.
Lawrence T. Graham, executive vice president of the National Food
Processors Association.
Mr. Graham is accompanied by Clausen Ely, I believe it is, coun-
sel for the National Food Processors.
Mr. Yager served on my staff for some long time. I have never
had an opportunity to really go after him with questions before.
[Laughter.]
We will hear from you first, Milan.
STATEMENT OF MILAN P. YAGER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Yager. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Milan Yager, legislative director of United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association. It is an honor for me to appear before you
today and this subcommittee and to share with you the thoughts of
United 's membership.
I am going to summarize my statement and, with permission of
the chairman, I would like to submit the formal statement for the
record.
Mr. Bedell. It will be entered in the record.
Mr. Yager. Thank you.
United is the national trade association of the fresh produce in-
dustry, with 2,500-member companies throughout the United
States and in 14 countries. We are involved in all facets of the
fresh produce industry including growing, shipping, wholesaling,
and retailing of fresh produce. United's members handle over 80
percent of all fresh produce marketed commercially in the United
States.
We agree with the Assistant Administrator John Moore when he
testiHed before this subcommittee and stated that the FIFRA was a
fundamentally sound environmental statute. However, our mem-
bership also ijelieves that FIFRA is a sound agricultural statute.
American farmers produce the safest and most wholesome food
in the world under this statute, food that is abundant, available,
affordable, and appealing. As users of federally registered pesti-
cides, consumers of food products, and citizens concerned about our
environment, let me share with you some concerns of our member-
ship.
Under the l^islation introduced by Congressman Roberts and
yourself, changes are made regarding applicators under supervi-
sion. Our memberships is currently reviewing your proposal and
wUl provide members of the committee copies of our report when it
is finished.
d by Google
However, United's current policy is that existing law ftnd r^ula-
tions for private applicators provide the needed protection to
insure the safety of farmers, farmworkers, and the environment.
Under 40 CFR 171.6(a), the availability of a certiiied applicator
must be directly related to the hazard of the situation. Where the
certified applicator is physically not present, verifiable instructions
to a competent person must be provided detailing guidance for ap-
plying the pesticide.
Furthermore, under section 2(eX4) of FIFRA, the Administrator
may require by the label the actual physical presence of the certi-
fied applicator.
Our members are also concerned about sections 11 and 13 of your
legislation which eliminates indemnity payments as well as the Ad-
ministrator's authority to provide the safe and proper disposal of
hazardous pesticides.
It is in the public's interest that when all scientific and legal
safeguards fail, the production, sale, and use of hazardous pesti-
cides be immediately halted and that these products be safely dis-
posed. Farmers who purchase federally registered pesticides should
not suffer the economic loss of these cancellations.
Pleiise note that we are talking about a limited Federal financial
exposure since we are only talking about pesticides that were can-
celled to prevent an imminent hazard. We believe this is a small
price to pay for the elimination — and, mind you, the safe disposal —
of hfizardous pesticides.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me comment on tm area of great con-
cern to the food industry which we suggest needs to be addressed
in your amendments.
The Administrator of EPA has the responsibility for roistering
pesticides, establishing conditions for their use and application, and
filso the authority and responsibility to establish tolerances for pes-
ticides on raw agricultural products. A tolerance is the maximum
residue level that the crop may contain at the time it leaves the
farm gate under the most strenuous conditions of pesticide use.
The tolerance thus represents a level of residue that provides the
consumers with the safest possible food products. The establish-
ment of a tolerance for a particular pesticide commodity is a scien-
tific and technical task that requires the funding, staffing, and fa-
cilities of the quality of the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Federal Government.
Consumers throughout the United States rely upon EPA to guar-
antee the safety of raw agricultural products. Products safe to be
sold in one market or region of the country should be safe through-
out the United States.
Statutory language is needed to continue to assure consumers of
uniform safe tolerances throughout the United States. Section 24 of
FIFRA should be amended to prevent multiple pesticide commodity
food tolerances in different areas of the country, a possibility that
destroys consumer confidence in Government regulatory food
safety, hampers interstate commerce, artificially inflates food
prices, and frustrates and disrupts the agricultural marketing prac-
tices.
d by Google
361
To avoid this regulatory chaos, language is needed to be adopted
to section 24 of FIFRA to assure consumers of safe, wholesome food
under a national uniform tolerance.
Mr. Chairman, all of us — Government, industry, farming, tmd
public interest groups — have a common responsibility to respect
and protect our environment and to provide consumers healthy
and ^e food. To this end, we pledge our coo[>eration.
I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yager appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you very much, Milan.
Mr. Graham.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE T. GRAHAM, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI-
DENT, NATIONAL POOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPA-
NIED BY CLAUSEN ELY, COUNSEL
Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Larry Graham, the executive vice president of NFPA. I am
accompanied today, on my right, by Clausen Ely, legal counsel to
NFPA with Covington & Burling.
The National Food Processors Association is a scientifically and
technically based association that represents about 450 member
companies that pack processed prepared fruits, vegetables, meat,
fish, and specialty products including canned, frozen, aseptic, dehy-
drated, pickled, and other preserved food items. In addition, we
have about 150 member compeuiies that manufacture packaging
and processing equipment, emd supplies, or provide services to the
food processing industry.
It is very important to our membership, which includes some of
the largest food processing companies, that they have an abundetnt
selection of quality raw agricultural products for the production of
a wide variety of processed food products.
For this reason, FIFRA is an important agricultural statute not
just to the farmer who needs the meiximum possible yield per acre,
but also to the food processor who needs an economiced, high qual-
ity, raw ingredient for his food products. Our members process
these raw products into a wide variety of food products which are
distributed across State lines.
During such processing, pesticide residues are usually significant-
ly reduced by washing, trimming, peeling, and other operations.
For many pesticides, the residue levels are reduced below the level
of detectability. For others, residues can be detected, but the levels
are significantly less than the amount that was on the raw product
before processing. EPA establishes, as you know, the tolerance for
safe levels of pesticide residues that may enter into State com-
merce.
Today I would like to just briefly comment on four issues that we
have identified as of special interest to the food processing indus-
try: The national standard for pesticide residue tolerances, lack of
essentiality, indemnification, and applicator certification.
The vast majority of NFPA members produce food products sold
in more than one State. In fact, most are active in the national
market. To be efficient, food production, distribution, and process-
d by Google
362
ing must be a national undertaking. Interstate commerce should
not be disrupted. The ease of shipment across State lines must be
assured.
For these reasons, NFPA requests that this subcommittee amend
FIFRA to provide that no State or local jurisdiction may issue a
pesticide toleremce in addition to or different than one established
by EPA.
FIFRA is a comprehensive pesticide regulatory statute. Section
24 governs the Federal-State relationship in regulating pesticide
use and prescribes in detail permissible State pesticide r^ulatory
and enforcement activities.
Section 24 already prohibits State pesticide labeling or packaging
requirements in addition to or different from those required under
FIFRA. It should also prohibit additional or different State or local
residue tolerances.
Only the Federal Government, in our opinion, has the resources
and expertise to gather etnd evaluate the relevant safety, residue,
and economic data to determine an appropriate national residue
limit. There must be only one standard for pesticide residues in
food, and that standard should be established by EPA eind not by
50 different States or thousands of local jurisdictions.
The States would retain full authority to enforce pesticide resi-
due tolerances and to coordinate with EPA in setting appropriate
national tolerances.
Section 3 of FIFRA prohibits the Administrator of EPA from de-
nying registration of any pesticide simply because another pesticide
is registered for the same use. This is referred to as lack of essen-
tiality. We feel strongly that FIFRA section 24(a) should be amend-
ed to provide that States are also prohibited from using lack of es-
sentiality as the sole criteria in denying registration of a pesticide.
Alternative pesticides are essential for maximum flexibility and
pest management programs.
I do wauit to emphasize that NFPA is not asking that section
24(c) be amended. A prohibition against use of lack of essentiality
would not impair State authority to deny approval for pesticides on
other grounds other than lack of essentiality.
The food processing industry must have the assurance of safe ag-
ricultural products. We, therefore, would support stricter certifica-
tion programs for pesticide applicators, including better guidelines
for the individual applicator.
If all the scientific and legal safeguards fail, and a pesticide is
banned on the basis of new data, there should be a mechanism for
the orderly marketing of existing food stocks treated with that pes-
ticide. Otherwise, FIFRA should be amended to provide for indem-
nification of food processors for the fair market value of existing
stocks of food products to which pesticides were legally applied but
which are rendered illegal by subsequent regulatory action.
FIFRA currently provides for indemnification of pesticide manu-
facturers for the existing stocks of suspended pesticides, but there
is no comparable protection for food processors whose products are
produced in compliance with all legal guidelines.
That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Graham.
d by Google
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. I would like to say that the testimony from both of
you gentlemen seems imminently reasonable and suggests some
things that
Mr. Bedell. Would the gentlem£ui jaeld?
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Bedell. That's because I trained Milan in my office. [Laugh-
ter.]
Mr. Brown. I hope we can include your recommendations in the
bill as we go through mju-kup.
Mr. Graham, the problem of indemnification is going to be a
sticky one, however, because obviously we are not consistent at the
present time. We are indemnifying memufacturers or distributors
when a pesticide is banned; we are not indemnifying the people in
your industry who may suffer even greater loss.
Could you refresh my memory as to how the problem was han-
dled in the case of the EDB ban last year or a year or two ago?
Mr. Graham. Congressman, I was not around then, but I think
Mr. Ely would be happy to answer that question.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Ely.
Mr, Ely, As you note, the statute currently provides for indemni-
fication of those who possess the chemical that is suspended, which
would include manufacturers, distributors, and users of the chemi-
cal. It is my understanding that those individuals who owned exists
ing stocks of EDB at the time it was suspended did make claims for
indemnification. I don't know whether they have been paid yet.
But those food companies that were in possession of products that
were rendered ill^al by removal of the tolerance exemption for
EDB, to the extent they had to destroy their food products, of
course, they did not qualify for indemnification and did not ask for
iny.
Mr. I
. Brown. How did they handle their losses?
Mr. Ely. I don't know.
Mr. Brown. Ate them?
Mr. Ely. I think so.
Mr. Brown. What I'm really trying to get at is whether the ordi-
nary process of business insurance may have covered some of that
loss. I am sure you gentlemen recognize that EPA has recommend-
ed not to extend the indemnification program but we curtail the
indemnification program.
Mr. Graham. We do recognize that.
Mr. Brown. Can you tell me if, from your knowledge, the indus-
try was able to spread its losses through insurance?
Mr. Graham. I don't know the Einswer to that. We can certainly
provide you the answer to that question. I don't know if they have
insurance that covers
Mr. Brown. I think it would be useful if we could determine
whether or not that was an insurable loss. It does not make the
loss any less, but it meems that it is covered as a part of your
normal payments to your insurance carriers as a business — what-
ever.
Mr. Graham. We would have to ask a few of our member compa-
nies to see what happened in that situation.
Mr. Brown. All right. If you could do that, I would appreciate it.
d by Google
364
Mr. Graham. Sure.
Mr. Brown. I appreciate your testimODy. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans of Iowa. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Staggers.
Mr. Staggers. I thank the two gentlemen for their testimony,
but I have no questions, Mr. Chairmem.
Mr. Bedell. Do you know how effectively the FDA is conducting
the tests of your fruits and vegetables?
Mr. Yager. Are you speaking of domestic products?
Mr. Bedell. Yes. If I am growing vegetables for the domestic
market euid I am selling them to the local stores, and so on, is it
likely that those will be checked for residues of chemicals? I pre-
sume that requires a test by a chemist somehow.
Mr. Yager. The FDA does monitoring samplings throughout the
United States to guarantee the consumer that products that are
marketed in the United States meet those residue tolerances.
I do not have the statistics on how many products they actually
sample. It is a small number, but it is a number auflicient to guar-
antee the consumer that those products are meeting the residue
standards.
They do the same thing on imported products. They do sampUngs
at all the ports.
Mr. Bedell. We understand that at least in the case of some im-
ported products — such as pork from Canada — the fact of the matter
is that there is very little testing occurring.
I guess the concern I would have — and I don't know if it is even
a legitimate concern — would be that certainly the eunount of resi-
due on cabbages, if you want to use that, woiud I think vary great-
ly according to the individual farmers. Some farmers possibly
would use a great deal more than others. If you only have spot
checking, I would think there would at least be the possibility that
we could be getting vegetables that would have way more than the
allowable minimums of residues on them. I don't even know how
big a problem that is or if that occurs.
Mr. Yager. Pesticides are an expensive item of the production
cost, just one of a number of different items. I think that it is the
responsibility of the farmer to try to produce that product as low as
[>ossible cost. They probably are not going to apply additional pesti-
cides than they need to.
Second, the adage that some is good and a lot is a lot better does
not work with pesticides because too much can often deunage the
product.
Third, if too many pesticides are applied to a product and they
are rendered adulterated, then the entire product is lost and that
could be an expensive hazard to the farmer's entire crop. The
farmer has that responsibility to try to keep those residue levels
down.
Last, Mr. Chairman, is that when a residue is set for a particular
product, it is set at the highest maximum residue level at the farm
gate, not necessarily at the market, such that we determine the
maximum number of applications, the closest period of time that
the pesticide can be applied to the product before it is harvested,
and all these tests are made at the maximum level. Rarely, if ever.
d by Google
365
FDA has testified before this committee laat year — very seldom do
products ever even reach that residue level. The residue levels are
normally set very high in protection of the public.
Mr. Bedell. Any further questions?
If not, we appreciate your testimony very much.
Mr. Yager. Thank you.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, may I £isk unemimous consent to in-
clude in the record at this point a statement by the CRS on this
subject of FDA monitoring which occurs on page 14 of the study.
The study is a part of the record, I presume, but this deals speciH-
cally with the level of monitoring, the number of samples, and so
forth. I think it would be relevant.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, that will be meide part of the
record.
[The material follows:]
d by Google
CongressKMial Research Service
The Library of Congress
Praparad at tha Raquaat of tha
t Agrieulcura Subcosalctaa on Dapartaant Oparacloni
Saaaarch, and Foralto Agrlcultura
Jaat* Aldala
ADaljrat
Bavltommc and Natural Raaoiaeaa Policy Dlvialon
Fabruary 27, L98S
d by Google
At that ttMt, att»t tha SaglaeiatlOD Standard ha* b««i iaauad, tha
tegtaCTaata Kill be raquitad to daveloi) tha Dacaaaary data.
Ill, FOOD yUOLBSOMEMESS— FESTICIM EKSIDUE TQLKMtMCBS
Aa part of a tagtattatloa dactaton for paatlcldaa uaad on food, BFA
■akaa a data cal nation of Hbat laval of a paaticlda raaidue la aafa for
tha eventual eonainera of the ttaatcd crop. EFA graDCa a 'tolerance' for
allanbla peatlcide realduaa uhleh will •daquatcly protact public health.
Thia la an aaount EFA calculate* a* aafa, aaaiatlng » llfetlB* of axpoaura
CO cha treated crop*. EPA alao aaauiea, a* part of thta calculattoo, that
all of tha crop* uhlch the peatlcide Klyht b* uaad oo are treated. In
thl* vay, EPA tilaa Co aaaure » vide aargtn of aafety, aa thea* aaawvcloaa
are taceoclonally couaarvatlve.
A. federal Agency Coordination
EFA dateralnea the tolerance, but ■onltorlm and aaforc^Mot of
thaaa llnlca la done by tha Food and Drug Adolnlatratioa (FDA), For ran
agricultural coaaoditiea, auch aa unproceaaed fruita and vegatablea, cb«
ance ia aacabliahed uodar authority of PIPKA. For pcocaaaad fooda,
aa grain flour* and procaaaed vagatable producta, Che tolaranca la
■Btabliahad imder authority of tha Food, Drug, and Coaaactc Act (FDCA).
la becauae a peatlcida reaidue la coDaldared a 'food additive' after
the raw c^noillty haa been procaaaed. Section 40V of tha FDCA include*
Che Uelaney Aaaod—pt, uhlch prohlbita food addltlvea vfaich have bean
IdeDttfiad •• aniBal carcinogen*. However, Section Wi of tha FUCA atatea
d by Google
that ■ foodaCuff cannot ba cooaUatad adultaratad If the laildua larel
in the proc«>**d food la Cha a^ or laaa that tha leval allonad on tha
raw agricultural covaodlc^. So tb« Oalaoaj Clauaa pcahibttlon only ^pllaa
It cha peaticlda raalduaa coDcancrates in hl|h«r aMOunta in tha pcocaaaad
This ragulatory altuatlon haa baan controvataial for yaara, and
Che E08 incidanc in 1994 raiaad a wiecr of quaatlon* abouC the cur ran c
ayacaa (or tolerance aaieiiaaDC and aonicoring. Subjecca of concern In-
cluded the adaquacf of FU natbada (boch aaapllng and analfala) and
EPA'a aaaeaananc of allowable reaiduea.
Konltoriog actual residue levela la the reaponalblllcj of cha FU>
The PDA collccca aaaplee of food aold in inceritate coaaerca froa varloua
parts of tha couatry, and aualjrica the food to aae If allavabla residue
levela have been exceeded. However, FDA state* that It doe* not have the
cepabilitjr Co routinely eoalyie foods for Che presence of over half Of th«
peaticidaa reglacered for use on food (over 300 ective lD|redlent* ere
used on food products). FurthennTe, FDA reporta that the uaual nuaber of
pesticides aoalyted la far leas than this DisAar. FQA was capacially
criticised for these poltclea durlog hearlcgs before the Uauaa Boergy end
Coowrce Coamlttee during the smMt of 19M. These flodlnga nete praaented
at heeringe held to consider e bill to accelerate cha generation of chronic
heelth date about food use pesticides (H.l. 5495).
Also criticized st the heering wes the usually low nunber of asaplea
taken each year by FDA (approxlaately 10,000), and FDA's ability to track
d by Google
dowD coM^natad ahiplMnC* of food (••pacially lapoltad coaaodltlei) .
Currently PDA allow* ihlpaaota to conCinua thraugh Cha aarkatlng cbala
after a i^pl* la taken (to avoid apollage of the abtpaant Khlle waiting
for the reaulca of th« analyaie). FDA ceapondad that aote extenalve aaa-
pllng waa very axpenalva, and that It had davaloped a ayaCiB baaed spot
chacking of ahlpaanta and ptavtoua experlencea with paTClculat foreign
producera to prevent contaBlnaCed ahipoenta with a olniai^ of prograa
expaoae and delay la the Barkatlag of agricultural product*.
B' EPA Tolerance Raviewa and EKaaptloo*
The 19SI DORFA Subeoasittce ataff capoit crlticltad the Agency
review procadurea and policiea (or eectlog tolerance level*, clalalng that
BPA had Increaaed allowable dak levela froa realdua*, and had peralttad
ch* uaa of anlaal carcloogaaa on proceaaed fooda (which would sake the
reeldua a food additive and aubject to the reatriccion* of Ch* Mlanay
Aaandaant). EPA wa* alao crlclciiad for allowing Che aua of Thaoratlcal
HaxlwjB Kaaldue Concent tat iona (THRC — Che level of a peaticide which would
be eaten if all of cha cooaodiCy conauaad contelned Che peaciclde) to be
greater than the Allowable Dally Intake (the ^ounc decernlned Co be the
oaxiBua which can be eafeljr con*i>*d on * dally baaii). Th**a iaau** aay
be revisited during Che PIFRA reauthorlaacion debate.
Another related Isaua, highlighted by the EDB altuatlon, is the
aKiatance of axeapcioaa froa tolerance ce<)ulreiBeat3 for a variety of peatl-
clda*. Poc a time. If it waa believed that reaiduei of the peaciclde
diaelpated after application oc during pcoceaalng, Che peaticide
db,Google
370
Mr. Bedell. I would also, without objection, ask that a statement
by our colleague, Frank Horton, be entered into the record. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horton appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. We next have a panel consisting of Mr. Geoi^
Miller, Pesticide Producers Association, accompanied by Bob Has-
ness; Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, McKenna, Conner & Cuneo; and Mr.
Halph Engle, president of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers.
I understand he is accompanied by Charles Frommer.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, we just need to change one name. Mr.
Frommer is not with us; Mr. Stickle has joined me.
Mr. Bedell. We're stuck with Stickle, are we? jliai^hter.]
Thank you.
We will have Mr. Miller or Mr. Heisness first. We are asking ev-
erybody to hold to the 5-minute timefrtune.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HASNESS, PRESIDENT, PESTICIDE PRO-
DUCERS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE MILLER.
CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Hasness. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
My name is Bob Hasness of Terra Corp. of Sioux City, lA. I am
the current president of the Pesticide Producers Association. Ac-
companying me is Mr. George Miller of Trans Chemic Industries,
who is the chairman of our legislative committee.
The PPA is a nonprofit trade association made up primarily of
small~to medium-sized businesses engaged in the formulation, man-
ufacture, and distribution of agricultural chemicals in the United
States. For the majority of their business, our members rely upon
the production of generic pesticides. Those are those products on
which the patent has expired.
Our membership provides a much needed service to the agricul-
tural community in securing and distributing those chemical tools
necessary to allow all of us to enjoy an abundemce of agricultured
products at a fair and competitive price.
We regret that we are unable to provide the committee with our
complete written testimony today, but we just received a copy of
the bill last Friday. We do have a request that the record be held
open for a short period of time so we can provide you with our de-
tailed information.
We will briefly address those areas which we believe will present
problems to us. No. 1, we are opposed to the listing of inerts in the
ingredients statements of pesticide labels. The original intent of
the ingredients section of the label was to provide information to
the consumer on the amount and type of active ingredients in a
product in order to protect him from fraudulent manufacturers.
The inclusion of inert ingredient information on the label will not
provide the consumer any additional information of veilue in
making an informed purchase. It will only add useless information
to a label which is already confusing enough.
To include inert ingredient information on the label will, howev-
er, provide the competitors of a manufacturer with trade secret in-
d by Google
371
formation and the opportunity to duplicate months of someone
else's formulation development in only a short period of time.
Also, a variety of manufacturers produce, under various trade
names, inerts which give similar results in formulations. Formula-
tors often continually switch inerts based on pricing and availabil-
ity. In addition, the ratio of inerts used often varies from day to
day.
Under these proposed amendments, each pesticide-producing es-
tablishment would almost need a full-time printing operation just
to handle the various labels which would be needed on a daily
basis.
No. 2, the proposed changes to the restricted use classification
system could require that anyone applying a restricted use pesti-
cide be certified. This is not practical on today's farms which are
large and operated by families in which not only the head of the
farm applies the necessary pesticides, but also uses the assistance
of other members of the family. Under the proposed changes, every
working member of the farm family may be required to obtain cer-
tification for the application of restricted use pesticides in order to
work in the production of their own crops.
In situations where commercial applicators are involved, the re-
quired mandatory certification may be advisable and practical
since these individuals are applying pesticides as their primary
source of income. Proper certification of such individuals should be
required, much as we require the licensing of our health care pro-
No. 3, the proposed amendments to section 6 of FIFRA may have
inequities which can and would affect the formulator who relies
upon data submitted by others for the registration of their prod-
ucts. Under proposed language, a company who cites data submit-
ted by another could lose his registration if he should rely upon a
piece of data which, in the future, proved to be inadequate or
fraudulent, even though he has never had direct access to the data.
While we believe that there may be some merit to this amend-
ment, we would suggest that the language be carefully examined
and modified to protect individuals who did not submit the original
data from the possible cancellation of their labels.
No. 4, we oppose the deletion of the indemnification and disposal
sections of the law for those products which are suspended and can-
celled by the agency. Manufacturers do not in general benefit from
such indemnification payments. Those who have purchased the
products receive the majority of the benefit. By providing the en-
couragement to return and properly dispose of suspended and can-
celled pesticides, we prevent the improper dumping of these prod-
ucts.
Mr. Chairman, we were not aware that H.B. 1416 and 1910 were
to be considered by the subcommittee at this time. We have not
prepared any comments. We will address both of those bills in our
written testimony.
However, there are several areas which have not been addressed
by H.R. 2482 which are affecting the operation of the pesticide in-
dustry and in many cases has reduced competition.
It is important to have a healthy, competitive market in order to
provide a reasonably priced product to the public. When there is
d by Google
372
limited competition or even a monopoly, the public suffers through
inflated prices. FIFRA is one of the few taws in America which pre-
sentfi barriers to entry beyond a 17-year patent period. We believe
that the following items should be addr^sed by the committee in
order to protect the viable competitive marketplace:
No. 1, section 3(cX2XB) should be amended to provide for the for-
mation of mandatory task forces to produce those data necessary to
continue the registration of a pesticide product. Currently, there is
no such provision within FIFRA for such mandatory task forces.
Without the support of the total industry and the production of
new data required to continue the registration of a pesticide prod-
uct, a registrant with a major portion of a market can freeze out a
minor producer.
No. 2, we believe that Congress must, once and for all, address
the problem of defining reasonable compensation under section
3(cXlXD) of FIFRA. For too long we have been groping in the dark
trying to allow the settlement of a few cases to determine the defi-
nition of this term. To date, we have had three decisions handed
down by either the Administrator or the arbitrators with none of
them being the same.
PPA has developed a constructive definition of reasonable com-
pensation for the use of data. We will provide this for you with our
written testimony.
No. 3, PPA supports an amendment to section 2(ee) of FIFRA to
provide for the common industry practice of repack^ing or refor-
mulation of a purchfised registered end-use product into euiother
roistered end-use product.
Finally, PPA also supports eimendments to section 3(cX2XD) of
FIFRA to exempt the formulator from the submission of data for
the registration of pesticide products. The current trend within the
pesticide industry is for me-too registrtmts to enter the market
only after the initial period of exclusive use or patent has expired.
These r^istrants are not introducing new products to the market,
nor are they increasing the exposure to the pesticide, since the
products they are producing and r^lsterii^ are for established use
patterns.
PPA supports amendments to FIFRA which would limit the need
for me-too registrants of end-use products to submit or cite data
necessary for registration or reregistration of a pesticide product
unless the formulation or use pattern is new and different.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank the subcommittee for this op-
portunity to present our views on the proposed amendments to
FIFRA and look forward to working with the committee in the
coming weeks to resolve many of the problems addressed during
the past 2 days. At this time I will be glad to respond to any ques-
tions from the members.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hasness appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you.
Mr. Weinstein.
d by Google
STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. WEINSTEIN, ON BEHALF OF
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, CIBA-GEIGY CORP., E.L DU PONT DE
NEMOURS & CO., ELANCO PRODUCTS CO., FMC CORP.. MONSAN-
TO CO., RHONE POULENC INC., ROHM & HAAS CO., STAUFFER
CHEMICAL CO.. UNIROYAL, INC., VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP.,
AND ZOECON CORP.
Mr. Weinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Kenneth Weinstein, and I am testifying on behalf of
a group of companies who are presently involved in a case before
the U.S. Supreme Court entitled Thomas v. Union Qirbide Agricul-
tural Products Co.
The issue in that case before the Supreme Court is the coDstitu-
tionality of the arbitration provision of FIFRA for determining
compensation for the use of research data. The Supreme Court is
expected to hand down a decision in that case by this July.
The only point that I am addressing today is the provision of
H.R. 2482 that provides for judicial review of arbitration awards.
The reeison that this is in the proposed bill apparently is an at-
tempt to address the constitutional problems that are before the
Supreme Court at the present time.
We would suggest, however, that because of the imminence of
the Supreme Court's ruling and the fact that we really don't know
what the problems are with the arbitration provision until the Su-
preme Court rules, it would meike more sense to wait a few weeks
until the court issues its opinion and then to try to formulate a
provision to deal with the constitutional issues that have been de-
fined by the Supreme Court.
One of the problems that we foresee is that this judicial review
amendment that is in H.R. 24S2 will not cure the problem. We had
the same problem with the bankrupt^ courts that the Supreme
Court struck down. In that situation there was judicial review of
decisions of bankruptcy court judges. Despite that fact, the Su-
preme Court said that that system was unconstitutional, even
though there was judicial review.
If the Supreme Court was to rule the seune way in the Union
Carbide case, then this amendment providing for judicial review in
H.R. 2482 would not resolve the unconstitutionality of the arbitra-
tion provision. We would still be left with an unconstitutional stat-
ute.
A second problem with the provision that is also before the Su-
preme Court is that, as has been mentioned today, tiiere is no
standard for determining what compensation is in FiFRA. The ar-
bitrator who is supposed to determine compensation does not know
what it is; the user who ofTers to pay compensation does not know
how much he has to pay; and the manufacturer who generates the
data does not know how much he is entitled to receive. When you
make an offer to pay compensation, it is like signing a blank check.
The Supreme Court is going to decide, or at least it is before the
Supreme Court to decide, whether the lack of a standard for com-
pensation renders this statute unconstitutional. We think that tjie
subcommittee ought to wait until the Supreme Court rules before
trying to remedy this provision, and then we will know what kind
of problem we have.
d by Google
374
Third, wholly aside from the constitutional problems with this
statute, as a matter of policy, there is widespread dissatisfaction
with the current provision. The manufacturers don't like it; the
me-too registrants and formulators don't like it. Businessmen
cannot operate in a context where they don't know how much their
liability is going to be and how much compensation they will be en-
titled to receive when others use their data. They cannot plan their
investments in research and they cannot decide what markets to
enter into.
This is a problem that really is not addressed but papered over
by the judicial review provision in H.R. 2482, and we would urge
the subcommittee to look into that after the Supreme Court ren-
ders its decision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weinstein appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Weinstein.
Mr. Engel, why don't you go ahead and we will still be able to
make our vote on the floor.
STATEMENT OP RALPH ENGEL, PRESIDENT. CHEMICAL SPECIAL-
TIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY
WARREN STICKLE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Engel. All right, sir.
Good eiftemoon, gentlemen.
My name is Ralph Engel, and I am president of the Chemical
Specialties Manufacturers Association, CSMA. I am accompanied,
as I indicated, by Warren Stickle, our director of l^islative affairs.
CSMA represents 400 firms engaged in the manufacture, formu-
lation, distribution, and sale of nonagricultural pesticides, includ-
ing disinfectants and sanitizers, home and garden pesticides, and a
wide variety of other pesticides for home, industrial, and institu-
tional uses.
We are here today to review some of the areas raised in H.R,
2482 and to address as well some of the concerns we have with the
existing statute.
Time does not permit to go through everything, but I have raised
in our testimony five areas with H.R. 2482 — data sharing; indemni-
fication and disposal; cancellation due to false, misleading, or inac-
curate data; special reviews; and inerts — as the areas of concern.
Let me address just two of them.
Cancellation due to false, misleading, and inaccurate data: EPA
would like to more easily cancel a product registration when the
Agency discovers that the data or a portion of the data supporting
a registration is bfised on false, misleading, or inaccurate data. The
Agency, however, already has sufficient existing authority to start
a cancellation proceeding if the data for any reason are not suffi-
cient to support a determination that a pesticide is safe to use.
CSMA in no way countenances the intentional submission of
false or misleading data and would sanction a quick and deliberate
response by the Agency. On the other hand, when the Agency de-
termines that data submitted is inaccurate and concludes that it
does not make a significant impact on the overall data submitted
d by Google
375
for a r^istration, then the Agency should seek to fill the gaps with
new studies, rather than immediately beginning a cancellation pro-
ceeding. In short, a reasoned judgment should prevail.
Moving now to inerts, under FIFRA as presently written, an
inert ingredient is a component of a p^ticide other than the active
ingredient added to be active on a specific pest or pests. Under cur-
rent law pesticides are generedly required to be labeled with only
their active ingredients. We support the present statutory provi-
sions for active ingredients and do not believe that FIFRA should
be amended to include specific inerts on the label.
Under the provisions of H.R. 2482, FIFRA would be eunended to
require the listing of inerts on the label if the inert is determined
by EPA to be of toxicologiced concern. We have several concerns
with this proposal.
First, we believe that many inerts and intermediates could be
regulated under sections 4 and 5 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act [TSCA], rather than under FIFRA, because they are not pesti-
cides, and in many cases the potential [Misticidal use is only a small
fraction of its total use. EPA has the authority to request toxicolog-
ical data if the Agency feels it needs it.
Second, disclosure of inert ingredients on the label seriously com-
promises the confidentiality of the final product in our industry.
Consumer products are directly eiffected. In many cases the essen-
tial difference between one consumer product and smother is the
inert ingredient. The use of a particular surfactant, for example,
may determine the i>erformance of the product and give the prod-
uct a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Disclosure of the
name of the inert on the label would, in fact, alert the competition
to the key difference in the product formulation.
When Congress originally enacted FIFRA, it correctly stipulated
that inerts needed to be treated confidentiEilly and most certainly
did not require that they be specifically nfuned on the label.
Although the amendment to section 2(n) deals only with labeling
provisions for inerts, it also raises a fundamental concern about
testing of inerts. What information does the Administrator need to
determine if a hazard exists? Who should provide the data request,
test studies, or information? The basic manufacturers or the mar-
keters or distributors of the finished products? Who should pay for
such data, test studies, or information, and how would it be appor-
tioned? What statutory langUEige needs to be created to put in
place on an appropriate system for compensation of data? In es-
sence, many questions about testing emd compensation are raised
by the language in H.R. 2482, but none are answered.
Rather than starting a new program, the Agency might conduct
a study to resolve many of the unanswered questions and deal with
such controversial aretis as confidentiality and compensation for
data as it pertains to the testing of inerts. There is already a drain
on the resources of the Agency, as I have been hearing for 2 days.
Now although we have serious problems with a number of provi-
sions of H.R. 2482, we welcome an opportunity to work witii the
members of the subcommittee regarding this proposed legislation
in the hope that we can resolve some of our difficulties.
We are equally concerned, Mr. Chairman, however, that the
present and potential legislative discussions to date have not ad-
d by Google
376
dressed several other pressing problems with FIFRA. There are a
number of these in our testimony, and I am going to ask that they
be submitted for the record rather than cover them.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, they will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Engel. Finally, we understand that a revised version of H.R,
3818 in the 98th Congress and perhaps other amendments are
likely to be introduced in the near future. We request that addi-
tional hearings be held to exEunine these amendments in some
depth before they are considered by the subcommittee. This policy
would be consistent with a longstanding tradition of the committee.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, CSMA is committed to work with this
subcommittee to help resolve some of these important concerns
where we can.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Engel appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. If it wouldn't impose too much upon you folks, we
would appreciate it if you would wait so that we could have some
questioning after we return from the vote. We are going to have to
run now in order to catch the vote that Lb on Uie floor of the
House.
The subcommittee will be in recess for about 15 minutes while
we go vote.
[Recess taken.]
Mr. Bedell. I have a number of questions, and I think maybe I
could go through those while we wait for some of the other mem-
bers to return.
The first question I have has to do with the inert ingredients
that we have talked about here. Mr. Engel, you state that, "If an
inert is determined by EPA to be of toxicological concern," then it
has to be listed. It would seem to the chairman that if it is of con-
cern that it oi^ht to be listed on the label. Do you feel that it
should not be even if the statute were to say that if it is of concern,
as EPA may determine it must be named on the label? We had tes-
timony eeirlier indicating, and I don't remember all of the items,
but one was vinyl chloride which was listed as one of those inerts.
This person would not consider vinyl chloride as an inert, if it is
indeed.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, first, let's again look at the fact that
we are representing the consumer end of the business, the nonagri-
cultureil end, if you will. That is important to keep in mind.
Therefore, inerts — one single inert can mtike the difference in
the competition between products. Let me give you an example.
A cleanser, a toilet bowl cleanser, for example, may have a sur-
factant in it which makes it better than any on the market, and
listing it on the label will just have everybody have the same prod-
uct, so competition will be lost.
Again, I say this is for nonagricultural or household products.
When the agency really finds a bad actor, a toxicologically bad
actor — as you mentioned, vinyl chloride — the listing on the label
may not be the answer. In fact, they did discontinue its use, took it
off the market. That does not say that we have to list it on the
d by Google
377
label. An action in a bad actor like that does not necessarily mean
listii^ on a label.
Mr. Bedell. You may be unfortunate to have me as chairman be-
cause you are going to have to show me or prove to me that some
laboratory cannot very easily analyze that and fmd out exactly
what is in that formula.
I know I was with a major producer here within the last week,
and they said they have no trouble taking any item and tearing it
down find seeing what is in it. I have a fishing tackle factory that
is not exactly the place you would expect to have the greatest ex-
pertise in chemicals; they can do it. They can take any chemical
you want to give them and they will tell me exactly what is in it.
They may not tell me the exact proportions, but they will tell me
what is in it.
Do you think that I am wrong about that?
Mr. Engel. I think that most — not most, I would say a good per-
centage of— re^llIy good laboratories could break down the general
active ingredients.
Mr. Bedell. Yes.
Mr. Engel. But they cannot get the percentages to the point
where they will make a significant difference.
Mr. Bedell. Would you feel that this would be all right if we heid
the percentage range somehow in there so that we did not have to
have the exact percentage?
Mr. Engel. The position of our association, Mr. Chairman, is
that we would be opposed to putting inerts on the label, because we
are a different animal, if you will.
Mr. Bedell. I understand. See, to me, that is unreasonable. To
me, it is unreasonable for you to argue you cannot put it in be-
cause then it lets people know what is in there. My argument
would be, if there is some way you can convince me that I cannot
take any item you've got emd take it to a laboratory and have them
tell me what is in it, Uien I think that argument holds up, but oth-
erwise it sounds like you are trying to fool people and this subcom-
mittee when you tell us you cannot do it because it would let your
competitors Itnow what is in there, if your competitors can easily
find out what is in there anyway.
Mr. Engel. I hear you.
Mr. Bedell, Also, Mr. Hasness, you made the seune statement.
Unless there is something I don't understand or unless I am wroi^
about something — then I need to be corrected if I am wrong — but
my understanding is that a laboratory can quite easily take that
product and tell you what is in it.
Mr. Miller. Mr. ChairmEm, that is very true, but in one part of
the bill that is being introduced you do put down that the Adminis-
trator could also ask for percentages. Now if you have the inert in-
gredients plus the percentages there, I could go along and duplicate
that formulation very easily without half trying.
Mr. Bedell. You think that the laboratories cannot determine
what percentage of the inert is in the product?
Mr. Miller. Not very accurately unless they go into, we will call
it, very sophisticated research. They can find out what the constitu-
ents are, but the amounts are more difficult.
d by Google
378
Mr. Bedell. So you would have no particular problem if it listed
the items but it was not so specific in regard to tiie inerts in r^ard
to the exact percentages?
Mr. Miller. I still see a problem, Mr. Chairman, in the fact that
I don't understand why inerts have to be listed, if they are an
inert.
The true definition of an inert.
Mr. Bedell. We said only if it is of toxicological significance.
Mr. Miller. Toxicological significance.
Mr. Bedell. Yes.
Mr. Miller. All r^ht, if it is of toxicological significance, it does
not belong in the formulation. Unless you want to make it an
active ingredient.
Mr. Bedell. Do you want us to do that? Do you want us to say — I
wouldn't think you would
Mr. Miller. No; I would rather put it in the active ingredients
statement then.
Mr. Bedell. Well, you understand our problem.
Mr. Engel. Yes, I do
Mr. Bedell. We are trying to work something out that makes
sense. We are not trying to go in one direction or another.
Mr. Engel. I do understand.
Mr. Bedell. We do have to be reasonable on both sides.
If vinyl chloride was at one time considered an inert, then I
think that is of significant concern, frankly. I think you would
agree with me, Mr. Engel, would you not?
Mr. Engel. Yes; let me read something to you. This is important,
I think. Again, we go back to what the Administrator is able to do
today.
If the Administrator feels he has concern over a potentially trou-
blesome inert, he has used his authority to request that informa-
tion be placed on the label. In at least three cases to date the Ad-
ministrator requested that products containing chloroflorocarbons,
CFC's, be so identified on the label; that certain products contain-
ing petroleum distillates carry a warning on the label; and that all
products containing sodium nitrate stabilizers be identified on the
label. In essence, the Administrator really has the ability to act
quickly in an emergency situation.
All we are saying is we don't want it to be a rule that, indeed,
every inert has to end up being on a label when the Administrator
can act if he needs to do so.
Mr. Bedell. Let me ask you another question. I don't know the
answer to this necessarily.
Suppose I knew that I was allergic to kerosene, and kerosene was
in there as an inert. Wouldn't it be fairly important for me to
know that that was in there if that did not present problems to
almost anybody but for me; I happen to be em individual that, if I
have kerosene on my hands, it would cause me to break out emd
cause me difficulty? Don't you think that would be of concern?
Mr. Engel. I understand. I suspect, however, it wouldn't say ker-
osene; it might say petroleum distillate products,
Mr. Bedell. OK, petroleum distillate.
Mr. Engel. What I am trying to say by that is it is not the fact
that there is anything being hidden from the consumer, because
d by Google
379
these things— the names of these products — probably would not
mean anything to the consumer emyway as chemical names.
Mr. Bedell. I think it would. I don t know, but I assume there
are people who are allergic to some of these items that are used as
inerts.
I don't understand your great objection to their being listed. I
don't see what is wrong with listing them. If they are inert and
don't cause any trouble, why is it you are so uptight about listing
them?
Mr. Engel. Our industry is uptight, in essence, to protect the
competitive edge from one product to another.
Mr. Bedell. But you have fdready admitted that they can And
that out without any trouble.
Mr. Engel. Let me give you an example. Our industry essential-
ly is developing new products every day. If I market a product and
have a competitive edge on day I, it may be 5, 6 months' edge
before a competitor can go out or would go out and analyze that
product to see what the ingredient is. That is just one example.
I hear your dilemma, and I guess the object of this exercise now
is to see if we can work something out between us, so that perhaps
both of us are somewhat protected here.
Mr. Bedell. I guess, honestly, my problem goes further than
that. I think we have to have reasonableness, but there is a lot of
dichotomy here. I see polarization on two sides. It seems to me we
have to have reasonableness.
Mr. Engel. I hear you.
Mr. Bedell. I don't particularly like the fact — and I don't mean
to go after you, but I don't like the fact that you come in and say
we have to do it because otherwise our competitors will find out
what is in it, when the reality is that I happen to have enough
knowledge of chemistry to Imow that they can find that out
anyway. That really waves a great big red flag, let me tell you,
over my thinking on this situation.
We are trying to get people together, if we possibly can. If we are
going to do that, we are going to have to be honest with each other;
we are going to have to honestly face what the problems are; and
we are going to have to try to work them out.
I don t doubt for 1 minute but what the other side is going over-
hoard in some directions, but if they try to mislead us in any way, I
am going to be equally upset.
Mr. Engel. I am not trying to mislead you, sir. I am just trying
to give you an industry posture.
Mr. Bedell. Sure.
Mr. Engel. And I hear you.
Mr. Bedell. Another concern I have is that in regard to the arbi-
tration, Mr. Weinstein, you had said that:
The subcommittee should inatead give coriBideration to an alternative mechanism
that will achieve Congress' purposes in a manner that is satisfactory to the regulat-
ed community.
Can you tell us what that would be or can you send that to us?
What can you do?
I do not like the idea of saying, "Don't do it yet because the Su-
preme Ck)urt is looking at it," and so on. We can always find ex-
d by Google
cuses not to do something. At least this chairman's attitude is we
should go forward and we should try to do something. If there is
somethuig wrong with the arbitration procedure as it is now, then
we ought to address that problem and try to do what we can about
it.
I think, if we are going to do that, we need to have some propos-
als from some people about what should be changed about it and
how it should be handled.
Mr. Weinstein. The committee did adopt an amendment in 1982,
and the House of Representatives passed that amendment in H.R.
5203, and that was a repeal of the compensation and arbitration
provision. They substituted in its place a greater exclusive use
period, with certain other changes to the compensation provisions.
There compensation was phased out over a period of years. That
was passed by the House.
Mr. Bedell. Under those circumstances, it gave greater exclusive
use but said that, after that period, then anybody could use that
data; is that what it said?
Mr. Weinstein. That is correct.
Mr. Bedell. Can you get that to us, as to what that proposal is,
so we can give it consideration?
Mr. Weinot^n. I think we can do that.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. I have no questions.
Mr. Bedell. What do we want to do? Do we have some of the
others coming bfick? Do we want to proceed? What would you sug-
gest, Harold?
Mr. Volkmer. Pardon?
Mr. Bedell. Shall we dismiss this panel?
Mr. Volkmer. I would say just go ahead and dismiss them and
call your next panel.
Mr. Bedell. OK; fine. We do appreciate your testimony. We are
trying to work things out. I hope you will understand we want to
work out these things to the best interest of everyone. I guess I
would hope there would be some flexibility on everyone's part as
we try to work these things out and try to get the b^t answers for
everyone.
Mr. Volkmer. I would like to ask — in view of what Mr. Wein-
stein said — in regard to what we passed back in 1982 — and I re-
member that — does anyone else on the pane) have any problems
with that proposal that passed the House in 1982?
Mr. Miller. The Pesticide Producers Association would like to
submit their own proposal. Even though we went along with 1982,
we feel we have a better one now.
Mr. Bedell. Good.
Mr. Volkmer. As far as having the longer period of time for ex-
clusive use.
Mr. Engel, do you have any problem with that?
Mr. Engel. I would like to reserve those comments. Congressman
Volkmer, to review 1982 again. I do believe we did have some prob-
lems, yes.
Mr. Volkmer. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to know what they were.
Mr. Bedell. I am glad we got complete agreement on that.
d by Google
Well, we thank you very much for your testimony.
Our next panel consists of Mr. Richard Kelley, environmental
specialist, Iowa Department of Water, Air, and Waste Manage-
ment, and Dr. Leon Burmeister, Department of Preventive Medi-
cine and Environmental Health, University of Iowa.
This is our Iowa panel.
Mr. Kelley, you will be first. Even though you are from Iowa, we
are going to ask you to limit your testimony to 5 minutes, as we
have done to everybody else.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD D. KELLEY, ENVIRONMENTAL SPE-
CIALIST, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF WATER, AIR AND WASTE MAN-
AGEMENT
Mr. Kelley. My name is Richard Kelley. I am an environmental
specialist with the department of water, air, and waste manage-
ment, State of Iowa.
I appreciate this opportunity to inform you of the work recently
conducted in Iowa related to ground water contamination. I would
like to focus on one aspect of the results of a recent survey of
public water supplies in the State and related research conducted
in northeastern and north-central Iowa. Specifically, I will address
the subject of the appearance of pesticides in the ground water.
I have supplied the panel members with a copy of the survey and
a related paper on "Agricultural Chemiceds and Ground Water
Quality in Iowa." I would supply a copy for the record, with the
permission of the Chair.
Mr. Bedell. Without objection, they will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Kelley. Th£mk you.
Between May 1984 and March 1985, the department of water, etir
and waste management sampled 128 wells from 58 public water
supplies for the presence of frequently detected synthetic organic
compounds. Seventy of these wells were also monitored for the
presence of 34 commonly used pesticides. Twenty-«ight of the 70
wells monitored for pesticides were found to have one or more of
the pesticides present in measurable concentrations. The 28 wells
represented 18 public water supplies. Of the 34 pesticides that we
analyzed for, only Atrazine, Bladex, Lasso, Dual, Sencor, and the
insecticide I^onate were found.
However, Atrazine turned out to be the most frequently detected
contaminant of the survey, being found in 24 wells and 14 public
water supplies. In addition, Atrazine weis the only pesticide detect-
ed in the fmished water of any of the supplies surveyed.
There was a clear relationship between the depth of the wells
and the appearance of pesticides. Nineteen of the wells with Atra-
zine were alluvial wells and the other five were bedrock wells.
However, three of the five bedrock wells were open to the overlying
shallow formations. Furthermore, 14 of the 19 alluvial wells that
were sampled were less than 50 feet deep.
Neither the occurrence of these six particular pesticides nor the
relationship between their appearance and well depth is surprising.
ITie work conducted by the Iowa Geological Survey has shown that
the most commonly used herbicides are being found in the shallow
d by Google
ground waters of the State. Further, it has been shown that be-
tween 80 percent and 100 percent of the pesticide concentrations in
ground water are being delivered through infiltration.
Pesticides detected in the survey of public water supplies are
identical to those found in studies conducted by the C^logical
Survey and the concentrations are all within the range of values
found in the course of their studies. The concentrations of pesti-
cides that we typically found were between 0.1 and 5 micnwranis
per liter. These are all well below values that we commonly en-
counter as a result of spills.
The public water supplies survey suggests that as many as one-
half of Iowa's shallow ground water supplies may have low concen-
trations of pesticides present. However, I would like to point out
that this may be a low estimate of the actual number of drinking
water supplies with measurable concentrations of pesticides
present. Between 70 and 80 percent of all the wells and springs
sampled in northeastern Iowa by the Iowa Geological Survey have
been found to have detectable concentrations of pesticides over the
course of a year.
There is evidence to surest that if nitrate concentrations of
greater than 10 milograms per liter occur in the water well sam-
ples, there is a very good likelihood that the ground water will con-
tain detectable concentrations of pesticides. Nitrate concentrations
of 10 milligrams per liter or more are commonplace in the shallow
ground water systems of the State of Iowa and cannot be attributed
to natural processes.
Both the work conducted by the Iowa Geological Survey and the
survey of public water supplies suggest that Atrazine is likely to be
present throughout the year. To date, however, the analyses have
only been for the parent compounds, and it is not known if metabo-
lites or breakdown products of these or other pesticides are occur-
ring in our ground water.
Pesticide concentrations we have routinely detected in Iowa are
far below toxic levels and generally below levels which are thought
to contribute to long-term health problems. However, we feel there
is legitimate concern for public health over the long term if they
continue or they increase.
There are a great many uncertainties with regard to loi^-term
exposures to low levels of concentrations of combinations of pesti-
cides and possibly other metabolites. At the present time it seems
as though only the relatively shallow aquifers are being affected.
However, work conducted in the Big Spring Basin in northeastern
Iowa suggests that between 1 and 5 percent of the pesticides ap-
plied to that basin are lost to the surface and shallow ground
water. At the same time I would like to point out that shallow
ground water systems are the most heavily utilized source of drink-
ing water in the State.
If pesticides continue to enter and persist in the shallow ground
water, they will over time be transmitted to the deeper formations.
Therefore, it is important that activities be undertaken to identify
a means of eliminating this loss.
While the recommendations resulting from our survey of public
water supplies may not be directly applicable to FIFRA regula-
tions, it is my hope that the subcommittee will find the results of
d by Google
this survey and related work in Iowa helpful in its efforts to ad-
dress a very difficult problem.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelley appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Mr. Kelley.
Can you wait while we run over and vote? We have another vote
on the floor.
Mr. Kelley. Sure.
Mr. Bedell. Can you wait, Mr, Burmeister?
Mr. Burmeister. Sure.
Mr. Bedell. The subcommittee will be in recess for about 15 min-
utes while we go vote.
[Recess taken.]
Mr. Bedell. The subcommittee will come to order.
Dr. Burmeister, we will now hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LEON F. BURMEISTER, PROFESSOR, DEPART-
MENT OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
Mr. Burmeister. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommit-
tee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.
My name is Leon F. Burmeister, and I am a professor in the de-
partment of preventive medicine and environmental health in the
University of Iowa's College of Medicine.
My colleagues and I have published several epidemiological stud-
ies concerning cancer and agricultural practices in Iowa farmers.
Several additional studies are currently being completed. I would
like to describe today the general results of these studies.
I must emphasize that for all types of cancer combined, mortality
in adult, male Iowa farmers is significantly lower than in Iowa
nonfarmers.' This is due primarily to significantly lower mortality
rates for smoking-related cancers: Lung, esophagus, mouth other
than lip, and other respiratory cancers,
However, the following cancers caused significantly higher mor-
tality rates in Iowa farmers: lip, stomach, prostate, leukemia, mul-
tiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It is important to
note that these cancers have also caused significantly increased
mortiility rates in farmers in other States.^
Subsequent studies have evaluated the association of mortality
rates in farmers and agricultural practices by county. Mortality in
Nebraska farmers from leukemia was elevated in 30 counties of 93,
with the greatest com production and highest insecticide usage.'
However, mortality from leukemia was not elevated in the remsun-
ing coimties. Furthermore, it was elevated only in farmers bom
after 1900.
' Bunnesiter, LF. Cancer mortality in Iowa fanners. 1971-TS. Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, 66(31:461-464, 1981
'Blair, Malkar. H, Cantor. K. Burmesiter. L, Wiklund. K. Cancer among fanners: a review.
Submitted to the Scandanavian Journal of World Environmental Health,
' Blari, A, Thomas. TL. Leukemia among Nebraska farmers: a death certificate study. Ameri-
can Journal of Epidemiology, 110:264-213, 1979.
d by Google
384
A comparable study in Iowa produced remarkably similar re-
sults.* Mortality from leukemia was elevated in farmers living in
the 33 of 99 counties having the greatest com production and the
highest use of herbicides. In the other counties, leukemia mortality
was not significEuitly different for farmers find nonfarmers. In
Iowa, only farmers bom after 1890 were subjected to higher leuke-
mia mortality rates.
This consistency with the aforementioned Nebraska study can be
interpreted as an implication of modem — that is, post-World War
II — farming methods. Extensive herbicide and insecticide use are
two such methods.
Similar results have been found in Iowa farmers for mortality
from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma.' Multiple
myeloma mortality was elevated only in farmers bom after 1890
end was similarly associated with insecticide and herbicide use.
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, although showing increitsed mortality
in feirmers only for those bom before 1900, was associated with her-
bicide use. It also had an increase in statistically nonsignificant
mortality only in the high usage counties for those bom after 1900.
No such associations were found for prostate cemcer and stomach
cancer. Lip cancer was not further investigated because it causes
relatively few deaths and is thought to be related to sun exposure.
The above studies are ecoli^c and relate countywide characteris-
tics which assume that all the individuals within a county are simi-
lar. To overcome this limitation, case control studies of leukemia,
multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have been ftinded
by the National Cancer Institute and are currently undergoing sta-
tistical analyses.
Based on preliminary analyses, it appears that certain histologi-
cal types of these three reticuloendothelial or hematological malig-
nancies are associated with exposure to specific types of herbicides
and insecticides. E^ach of these reticuloendothelial cancers is rela-
tively uncommon. Consequently, their simultaneous increase and
association with pesticide usage may signify a common etiological
link.
The possible role of insecticides and herbicides in development of
and subsequent mortality from selected cancers in ffUTners is one
that has generated a high level of interest. Consequently, it seems
prudent to evaluate mechanisms that may cause farmers to be at
higher risk for some cancers.
One such mechanism may be the infusion of agricultural runoff,
including pesticides, into shallow farm wells. It is hoi>ed that
future research will suggest other mechanisms that might play a
role in the development of the suspected cancers in farmers. C^y
then is it likely that the appreciable risks currently facing farmers
for mortality from selected cancers will be reduced.
In summary, I just would like to say it is obvious from just being
here for a couple hours today that there are many very complicat-
ed aspects of the questions that you are facing. T^ose of us at the
^Burmeister, LF, Van Lier. SF, Iiacaon, P. Leukemia and fann practice* in Iowa. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 116:720-728, 19S2.
' Burmeirter, LF, Everett, GD. Van Lier, SF, Uaaon P. Selected cancer mortality and farm
practices in Iowa. American Journal of EpidemioloKy, 118:72-77. 1983.
db,Google
University of Iowa, and I think the National Cancer Institute and
other places, are really very concerned about the health of the
farmers who are doing the work not only in our State but other
States as well.
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Dr. Burmeister.
Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. I have no questions, Mr. Chturman.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Kelley, you have done a study of what these dif-
ferent levels are. Are those levels at this time dangerous levels in
some of the places you have tested?
Mr. Kelley. None of the levels that we have seen so far would be
high enough that we would consider them to be an immediate
threat to human health, in that they are all well below acute toxic-
ity. They are all below chronic toxicity. Our concern is the fact
that we don't know what long-term ex[x>sure to low levels of multi-
ple pesticides means in terms of implication to human health.
Mr. Bedell. I take it, Dr. Burmeister, that your studies would in-
dicate that very possibly there are some problems associated with
long-term exposure; is that correct?
Mr. BuRUEiSTEK. Yes; and the emphasis must be on the possible
part of it, too, because these are associations, not results of studies
conducted in an experiment sense in a laboratory. They are merely
associations. But we are concerned about these possibilities.
Mr. Bedell. How will we know on this? Is there monitoring to
see what occurs in the future or what?
Mr. Burmeister. The most honest answer to that is probably
that we will never know with certainty, but the case control stud-
ies that are currently reaching completion I think will be very in-
formative along these lines.
Mr. Bedell. Yes; Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. On page 2, Doctor, you are talking about those
farmers bom after 1890. Where on Earth did you find that test
group that is 95 and older?
Mr. Burmeister. Pardon me?
Mr. Roberts. On page 2 you talk about farmers bom after 1890.
Was there a test group where they were 95 and older?
Mr. Burmeister. It is very hard to summarize detailed studies of
which there are several referred to in here, but basically these
were people that died in Iowa from 1964 through 1978.
Mr. Roberts. I see.
How does this square with the other testimony given by the rep-
resentative of the agriculture air force in regard to the spray?
Mr. Burmeister. I honestly CEtnnot attest to that because I weis
not privileged to hear that testimony.
Mr. Roberts. Is the Nebraska study the same one that was re-
ferred to — you say "the aforementioned Nebraska study." Is that
one that was referred to
Mr. Burmeister. It was previously mentioned only in my testi-
mony.
Mr. Roberts. I see.
Mr. BuRMEiffTER. I did not me£m to infer that it was mentioned
in anyone else's testimony.
Mr. Roberts. Then we have two Nebraska studies, Mr. Chair-
mem — one good news and one bad news. Take your pick.
d by Google
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Kelley, what do you think we ought to do about
the ground water problem? Apparently your studies Indicate quite
clearly that there is some leaching of some of these chemicals into
the ground water. Is that accurate?
Mr. Kelley. That is an accurate statement, yes.
Mr. Bedell. What do you think we ought to do about it?
Mr. Kelley. I think there are several actions that you can take
or that can be undertaken on a State level.
The one thing I don't think that you can do is regulate the solu-
tion. I know that in earlier testimony there was a great deal of dis-
cussion about establishing water quEility standfirds for ground
water. I don't think that that in itself is a real answer to the prob-
lem.
The problem that you have out there is the misuse or inappropri-
ate use of an agricultural chemical. When it appears in the ground
water, that is purely an indication that that misuse or inappropri-
ate use has taken place.
To set ground water standards does not solve your problem. The
problem is still existing out there. I think that the only way that
you are going to do that is to solve the problem itself, and the only
way you are going to solve that problem is to change human behav-
ior. You change human behavior through public education efforts.
One of the things that we are proposing to do in northeastern
Iowa in the Big Springs study basin is to go in with the cooi>eration
of every farmer within that basin and look at current farming
practices, look at alternative farming practices, look at the atti-
tudes and behaviors of those farmers now. We want to change their
farming practices and then find out how those attitudes and behav-
iors have changed. We think we can adequately address the prob-
lem if we change farming practices.
Mr. Bedell. Have you started to do that yet? Have you started to
have those meetings and so on?
Mr. Kelley. The Carstadt ad hoc committee was set up about 2,
2V^ years ago. Some of our preliminary work has b^un. We have
research proposals out at the present time that are being consid-
ered by EPA. EPA, however, has not been exceptionally speedy in
responding to us, and so we are
Mr. Bedell. We are awfully glad you came to inform us of that
very important fact, we weren't aware that EPA is not real speedy.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kelley. Sometimes I have a tendency to state the obvious.
Mr. Bedell. Excuse me. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
If I understood you correctly, you are trying to meet with farm-
ers and convince them it is in their own interest to keep their
ground water at safe levels and that they should adopt practices
that do that; is that what you are saying?
Mr. Kelley. That is exactly what I am saying.
Mr. Bedell, The question is. How successful have you been at
that?
Mr. Kelley. We are just beginning right now. I can't give you a
definitive answer, but we have every reason to believe that we will
■ ' 1 it.
d by Google
They are causing the problem. They are the primary users of the
water. It is a problem they have to deal with daily. It is in their
best interest to change their practice.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Roberts, do you want to be recognized?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple questions: when you say "we," you are obviously
referring to the Iowa Department of Water, Air, and Waste Man-
agement. Is your budget such on a State level that you feel you can
proceed along these lines?
Mr. Kelley. We operate on a bal£mced budget in the State. Our
budget is extremely strapped. If you want to be honest, we are
bankrupt.
Mr. Roberts. Well, that is our story back here, but we don't have
a balanced budget. [Laughter.]
You have truth in spending there. We just have a printing press
here.
Go ahead.
Mr. Kelley. We have cut every corner. At this point we have
committed $2.4 million in staff and analytical free time, as it were.
We have manned the research station. We have people in the
lields. We are still short about $4.2 million to complete the project,
but we do have every reason to believe we are going to raise that.
Mr. Roberts. In the other body — which is the way we refer to
the Senate — in the Senate Environment Committee they did not go
down the road that you — let me rephrase that. They went down
the road that you suggested. They did not get into standards so
much as they mandate within 18 months that States come up with
plans such as these, and there is approximately $300 million avail-
able in matching funds to do that chore. "Dien they put a timetable
on it of 18 months to get your house in order and have a good,
workable plan.
You are thinking along those lines, then?
Mr. Kelley. Yes.
Mr. Roberts. That is a better approach to this whole problem.
Mr. Kelley. Yes, I believe it is.
Mr. Roberts. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bedell. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. I would like to know, just out of curiosity, what
practices of the farmers would you change?
Mr, Kelley. We are looking at changing application rates,
changing application times, going in different rotations. Much of
the basin that we are looking at right now is in com alt the time.
The fact of the matter is we don't need it.
Mr. Volkmer. What do you mean? Vou don't need what?
Mr. Kelley. We don't need the com.
Mr. Volkmer. Are you talking to the farmers, then, about pro-
ducing soybeans?
Mr. Kelley. In the basin that we are looking at we are not talk-
ing about beans primarily because there are not beans produced in
that region.
Mr. Volkmer. What are we talking about other than com then?
Mr. Kelley. There is a pretty good sized dairy industry, meadow-
type crops, those sorts of things.
Mr. Volkmer. We are talking about hay?
d by Google
Mr. Kelley. Yes, right, hay.
We are also pushing for conversion of some of the land back to
woodland.
Mr. Bedell. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr, VoLKMER. Are you talking also about perhaps not using her-
bicides, pesticides at fdl?
Mr. Kelley. We are talking about being very selective in the
herbicides that you use. Don't run out and buy I^hanate and use
it because you think you have a rootworm problem. Find out if you
have a rootworm problem before you run out and buy the insecti-
cide; the same way with the herbicides.
We are also suggesting that they stay away from — we are trying
to commit the farmers to staying away from those herbicides that
have a problem with persistence. A lot of the herbicides, particular-
ly Atrazine, has a carryover problem, but many more of them, such
as Dyphanate — and I am not particularly picking on Djrphanate; it
is just a name that comes to mind, one that shows up in the ground
water — Dypheinate likes to — they don't hesitate to Eidvertise that
they will last longer than anybody else. We would just as soon that
they didn't.
Mr. VoLKMER. It sounds like you are basicetlly analyzing the life
of an insecticide or herbicide and then determining alBO the ability
to permeate or leach through the soil, that type of thing?
Mr. Kelley. That is true. Leaching information is particularly
interesting for us. If there is a real shortfall in information, it falls
in two basic areas — one being, of course, public health and the
other one being the leaching characteristics of particular herbi-
cides. There is very, very little information as far as we are con-
cerned on leaching characteristics, and we want more.
Mr. VoLKMER. "Thtrnk you.
Mr. Roberts. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. VoLKMER. Yes.
Mr. Roberts. I have one other question. In terms of the efforts —
you see in my country going to more soil conservation practices
and minimum tillage. We are anticipating the increased use of her-
bicides and pesticides, more especially due to the economic adversi-
ty that we are going through, and farmers are really not willing to
take a gamble, as you have indicated; they wait to see if there is a
problem. Unfortunately, you get into the idea that if a little will do
a little good, a lot will do a lot of good. That is exactly what we
want to avoid.
Do you have any thoughts — I know that the State of Iowa is es-
pecially hard hit in terms of farm income. Are you seeing your in-
dividual farmers much aware of this and willing to go forward with
these kinds of practices?
Mr. Kelley. Well, yes, we are. We have had a very interesting
response when we have gone to the farmers. When we have gone to
the farmers, we said, "Look, here's a problem and here's why the
problem exists. This is why we think it is a problem." Then we tell
them how we think they might change their practices to improve
the situation. They have been very adaptable. We have gotten an
excellent response from the farmers that we have talked to about
this.
d by Google
I think for the most part, as a general rule, the fanning commu-
nity is going to be very receptive provided, of course, we can back
up what we are saying with sound science.
Mr. Bedell. Do you work with the Extension Service on this?
Mr. Kelley. Yes; the work that we are doing in northeastern
Iowa and proposing to do is actually a cooperative effort. The Ex-
tension Service is involved with it, SCS, EPA, the Geolc^cal
Survey, the Department of Preventive Medicine, the Department of
Agriculture. In fact, all resource and academic institutions in the
State are trying to cooperate on it.
Mr. Bedell. Is the Extension Service's purpose to a large extent
trying to get information to the farmers? Are they working on this
project with you so they are tr\dng to disseminate information?
Mr. Kelley. Yes; they are. They are doing a great deal of work.
Mr. Bedell. That is working out fine?
Mr. Kelley. Yes.
Mr. Bedell. Fine. Are you going to continue your work. Dr. Bur-
meister, or is it pretty well done? The problem we have as a com-
mittee is that we get the applicators in here and they say, "Look,
our people are not showing any health effects, and they are dealing
with these chemicals every day." Then your study would indicate
that there are some problems with it, with those farmers who are
exposed only part of the year. We have to try to put together what
the truth is in these things. I hope you understand.
Mr. BuRMEiSTER. I Can certainly understand. It is a very difficult
task.
Speculation only — applicators and farmers, what they have in
common is the period of application, of course. There always has
been concern that maybe the farmers are not going to proper care
in the application season.
Maybe there are other aspects to this. One of the things that
would be under the heading of other aspects would be the chronic
exposure throurfi the drinking water that the farmers have.
Mr. Bedell. That would be full time, wouldn't it?
Mr. Busmeisteb. Yes; it would. So it may not be just the applica-
tion.
Mr. Bedell. In fact, I guess — is that correct — that your test
would indicate that this is not from the air they breathe or from
some other cause. You indicated lung cancer was not a major find-
ing.
Mr. BuRMEiSTER. Lung cancer is very, very low in farmers, very
much lower, primarily due to the fact that they Eire known to be
less involved in smoking.
Mr. Bedell. I am not trying to put words in your mouth; I am
trying to learn. Does your testing then indicate that, if there is a
problem, it is probably from something that they are either ingest-
ing through their food supply or water supply or
Mr. BURMEISTER. It would be fair only to say that those are spec-
ulations. We really have not tested that in any sense. We are just
trying to observe what is going on. Our statements are merely spec-
ulative.
Mr. Bedell. What do you speculate?
Mr. BURMEISTER. My own opinion is that it is probably something
more likely to a chronic exposure, perhaps the drinking water, as
d by Google
op[>osed to carelessness during the season of application. That is
only an opinion.
Mr. Bedell. Any further questions?
If not, we thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you
for being here.
Mr. Kelley. Thank you.
Mr. BuRMEisTER. Thank you.
Mr. Bedell. The subcommittee will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to recon-
vene at the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
d by Google
TBSTIHONI OF HONOKAkLE HIKE SYNAK,
d by Google
IPA Adal
d by Google
Fraiuaptloa kg
d by Google
db,Google
iildir Including
d by Google
u*t
Ifb
-c.
, th
of
db,Google
On* ot oue biggest asscta In ■••ting th^a^
cball^ng^B [o£ protacting th« •nvlronm^ntl is
th^ FI7RA itself. In carrying out its
lagialatlve nandatc for « yaar and a hald I
know that it ia a tundaaantally sound
■nvlroMMntal law.
Foraal written stataaant of John A.
WooE". ^s»liitanr Al1■^n^t^^^■•■'^- "f
k^stieidaa and Toxic Suoatancas, SPA. «<
Roua* Agrleultura Subcoagiltta* haacings
on Apcil la, 1985.
Oeal tastiaony of John A. Hoorat
Assistant AdMinlattator Cor Pasticides
and Toxic Substancea, EPA, at Houaa
Agcicultura Subcomaittea hearings on
April 18, 1985.
IMTHODOCTIOM
Hy naaa is Albert H. HayarboCf. I aa a Sanior Attornay
with tha Katueal Rasourcaa DaCanas Council, Inc. (MUK). Nith ■
is Lawcla Hott, «n NRDC peojact seiantist. Na appraciata tha
opportunity to taatity at thaaa lapoetant baacings on nacassary
ancndnants to tha Fadacal Inaactlcida, Pungiclda and Rodanticlda
Act <PlFltA) .
Tha Raagan Adnlnlatratlon proposaa that PIFRA ahould ba
Eoauthorlsed foe thcaa yaars without change. This senCiaant
echoaa the views of tha aultl-billion dollar cheaical and food
industries which era ganarally aatlafiad with the statute aa
written, although they reportedly are seeking aiaendmenca to FIFR
and the Farm Bill to preenpt state regulatory authority over
pesticides in food and all local regulatory authority. In
d by Google
written taatiKony pE«s«iit*d to tha SubcoMiitt** last Bonth, «
E«pr«santBtlT« oC tba BaTicoiuMntal Pcotaetion Agancy
chaccctacizad FIFRA aa "a sound anviconBantal law,' raqulclng at
■oat Bo»a llBitad HvEevaaant. Aa ttia Subconalttaa ia awara,
avsn a aodaat BPA bill to strangtttan FIFRA haa baan blockad by
tha Nhita Houaa.-^
Of couraa. all of this Cllaa dlractly In tha tmem of
raality. FIFRA is anything but sound. Indaad. it la chatltabla
avan to rafar to tha atatuta as an anvlconaantal law. An
unbcokan litany of Houaa and Sanata CoMnittaa rapocta, GAO
iDvaatlgationa, studiaa by tha Rational Acada^r of Selancaa and
othaca rapaatadly caacbad tba aaiaa conclualont tha axiatlng
atatuta has failad.-' so has tha BnvlronHantal Protection
Agency, and tha public health has baan plaead in aarloua
jaopardy. In anawar to a quastion feoa this SubooMilttaat
1/ Saa R.R. 3482 (Badall, p. la).
Agency's Pastlclda Raglat^atlon Activities," 98tb Cong., 2nd
Sasa., (1984), p. 17-13. Synar Report] i Subcoaa. on Ovarslght
and Inveatlgatlona of the House Conim. on Intecstata and Foreign
Connerca, 'Cancer-Caualng Chanlcala In Food,' 95th Cong., 2d
Seaa., at IS (Conn. Print No. 95-67. Dac^ibar 1978) (concluding
that 'aany pesticides which result In chenical cealduas In food
and animal feed have never been tested for their potential to
causa cancel, bicth defecCa, and genetic nutatlans' i Subcona. on
AdMin. Practice and Procedura Senate Judiciary Coih. , 'The
EnvlEOnaantal Protection Agency and the Regulation of Pestlcldea,
94th Cong . 2d Sasa., at 23 Conn Print 1976} ( General
Accounting Office. "Delays and Dnrasolvad lasuea Plague Haw
Pesticide Protection Progeaaa," at 19 (1980J (noting that "tba
public Is exposed dally to aany paatlcidas which are not
supported by anlaal and anTlEonaantal safety studies").
d by Google
•ven EPA Aa«lmt*nt AdBlnlitcator John Hoor* candidly acknovlvdgcd
that 'you can only go so far to aaka a allk puraa out of a sow's
•ar.*^ Enacbaant of tha Fadaral Pasticlda Ratora Act of 1985,
to ba tntcodueod by Conqt»»amaa Gaocga Broim of this
Subcoaaittaa, will rapcaaent a aajor stap toward taaadylng what
has bacoaa an unaccaptabla status quo.
I.
In tha past, tha major aourcaa oiE hunan expoaure to
paattcldo choalcals capabla oC causing both acuta and chronic
baalth af facta wara thought to ba aithar tba workplwa. for
agricultural and chmileal workara, or through tha food chain, for
tha consualng public. Mow, a naw and disturbing factor has ba«n
addod to tba aquatloni tha Inccaaslng body of avidanca that
pesticldas ar« contaalnatlng groundwatar throughout tha Dnitad
Statas, groundwatar that poaas a soucca of drinking watar for
roughly 115 nllllon Anarlcans.
For many yaara, pastlcidas wara not consldarad a thraat to
groundwatar. This was bacausa thay wara bellavad altliar to
dagrada in tho soil or bacoaa trapped by i^arvloua layars of
^ 'Changas in Paatlctda Controls Advocatad by EPA, Official
Ramarka Voar froa Adalnlstratlon Llna,' Washington Post, ^ril
19, 1985 at 7.
d by Google
soil preveneing nlgratlan to gEoundwatet aupplt«fl.— ' Thui,
9Eouiidwat«c contmliMtlon l«glsl«tlon alaost •xcluaivcly
«ddc«Bt«d 'point* louEc*! lucb as Isaklng undargtound tanks oc
injactlon walls oc SMpaga ttvm landfills oc sucfaea ponds.
Psstlcida contsHinatlon of gioundwatec (a 'nonpolnf souccs) was
virtually Ignorad by Congrsss In such legislation Intended to
protect watec quality as the Clean Watet Act. Safe Drinking Matec
Act, Resource Conservation Recovery Ace, and othac statutes.
nie discovery in 1979 of DBCP, a chanical linked to cancert
huaan birth defectSr nale ataclllty and other maladiaa, in walls
throughout California's Central Valley destroyed this false sense
of security. To data, DBCP has forced closure of aore than 100
public water walls. The overall nimber of wells contaminated by
DBCP has increased Ere* forty in 1979 to 2,449 In 1984.
Currently, 1473 wells In California's Central Valley are unsuited
for drinking, cooking or bathing due to DBCP levels in excess of
recomnended 'action levels* of one part par billion (ppbj . Many
4/ far exBAplef a 1972 Stanford Research Institute study
concluded that 'Most data collected iaply that the Incidence of
pesticides In- groundwater is low and not a significant
environmental contamination factor '* Stanford Research
Institute, Environmental Indicators for Peaticldea (Springfield,
VA! National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of
ConMerce, 1972). in 1976, a Dniveraity of Hawaii professor
declared that in terna of pesticide residues, potable water in
Hawaii is 'almost pristine In character.' A. Benvanue, 'Tbe
'Bloconcentration' of DDT in the BnvlromMnt,' Besourees Review.
61i37-112. Bawali'a groundwater la now believed to be so badly
polluted froa pesticides that much of Oahu'a aquifer will aoon be
designated a Superfund alts.
d by Google
mils hav« b««ii abut down pacaancntly or ral*9at«d to wMcqancy
U8« only, but othar coataalnatod walls «ra atill In Cull ua«.
Other ncnaticldaa, «uch as athylana dtbcoBida (BDB) and 1,2-0.
hava also foread elosura at public watat aupplias In tba stata.
Data eonearnlng pesticida contaalnation oC gcoundwatar la
akatchy at baat dua to sporadic or nonaxistant aonltoclng.
Nonetheless, a 19S4 study eonduotad for tha Envlconmantal
PEotactlon Agency found that 63 parcant of cural Amrlcana nay ba
drinking water that has axcasslvs levels of pasticidaa or other
contaalnants. In the West, polluted drinking water la consuaad
by up to 7S psresnt of the rural population.^
A preliainary federal study found 16 different paatlcldas
In tha groundwater of 23 states. BDB alone, foe exaMple, has
been found in groundwatar In Connaotiout. Nassaebusetts.
California, South Carolina, Taxaa, riorida and Hawaii.—'
In aany ways, tha California experlanca baat illusteatea
the national threat to groundwater presented by pesticides. The
drinking water of nearly 13 aillion Califocnlans Is derived
5/ J.D. Prancia, et al.. National Statistical Aasessaent of
Rural Hater Condltiona (Ithaca, Hew Yorki Cornell Oniveraity,
June \mi.
6/ Stuart Cohen, Office of Pesticide Prograas, Snvtronaental
Protection Agency, Speech before National Coalition Against
Misuse of Pesticides Natiopal Porua, March 2, 198S, Washington,
B.C.
d by Google
402
team gtoandwttti sourc»s. Hora than 90 p«cc«nt of ruc*l
CalltocnlcM d«p«nd on geoandwstcr •■ ttwic ptlaacy >oure« of
drinking wator. California also loada tbo nation in postlcido
oa*. A racant, jarring raportf froa ttw California Assoably
Offlca of Raaoarch antltlad Th» Leaching Flalda -- A Konpolnt
Throat to Ctoundwatar, found that paaticlda contanlnation of
drinking watar eonatltutos 'a aocloua throat to public
taaalth."^ Tbia aaainal study found that 57 dlfforant
postlcldaa hava contaMlnatod almost 3i000 wolla in 28 countiaa.
At laaat 32 of thosa paaticldaa hava thus far baan tracad to
agricultural uaa and tha raslduas wor« found both In rural and
■ajoc urban eountias. inclodiag Los Aagalos. Contca Coatar San
Dlago and Sacraaanto.-'
Tha haalth thraat prasantad by paaticldaa in drinking watar
is obvloua. DBCP la known to cauaa cancar> ganatic cbangas and
■ala atarllity and also daSMga huaan kidnays, lungs and livac.
Inetoasad canoar nortallty rates already hava baan found in parts
of California aarvad by walla contanlnatad by DBCP. A CallCornia
DaparUMnt of Baaltb Sarvicas aptdaaiological study found a
positive association between DBCP drinking water contamination In
Praano. California and an inoreased number of daatha from 1970 to
1979 due to stomach cancer and lymphoid leukemia, both linked to
7/ The Leaehlno Pieldei A Monpolnt Threat to Ctoundwatec.
AsaoMbly offlca of Research , Joint Publlcationa Office
(Sacramento, 1985) at 11.
8/ See chart attached to this testimony as Appendix A,
d by Google
DBCP In laboratory «xp*riii*nts.^ And tha pesticide EDB, a
'cloaa couain* of DBCPr was banned last year attar being linked
to cancer and genetic nutations. Othec pesticides found in
gcoundwatec include auch known oc suapacted 'bad actors" as DOT.
aldrlHi dialdrin. Lindane, parathion, heptachloCf chlocdane,
toxaphane and 2,4.5-T. All of tbese Have been linked to aecious
chronic health effects and have bean placed in restricted uae*
aade the subject of an EPA 'special review' or have been
cancelled entirely.
Congress has fundanentally failed to protect the Aaerican
public fcoB pesticide contaainatlon of groundwater, despite the
enaetaent of several related statutes. The SaCa Drlakiag Mater
Act provides a particularly good exaaple. Enacted in 1974 to
create an enforoeaent aystea to reduce groundwater contaai nation,
the Act requires EPA (1) to Identify contaminants that say have
an adverse effect on human health and (2) to dateraine the
aaxlnua amount of each concaminant that could safely be conauaed
in drtnkin? water. All public water supply systems are than to
be aonitorad for each specific contaminant. If the contaminant
is above Che established aaxlaua contaminant level (HCL) the
water supply oust be treated or closed down, nie EPA has set
9/ Richard J. JacKaon. "Literature Review on the Toxicological
bpects o£ DBCP and an Epldwilo log leal Conparison of Patterns of
OBCP Drinking Hater Contaaination with Hoctallty Rates froa
Selected Cancers in Fresno County,' California - 1970-79t A
Report to the California Departaent of Food and Agriculture
(Berkeleyi Departnent of Health Secvicea, 1982).
d by Google
HCLs for only alx pastlcldos (leas thkn on* p«rc«nt of all
p«stield« aetlv* Ingradloats) . Th«y acot andcln (ainlBal ua«),
toxaphan* (auapendvd In 1983), 2,4, S-T (cancelled in 1979 axcapt
for a faw uaas), Llndana, 2,4-D, and aathoxychlor. A boat of
wldaly-uaad paatlcldaa, including virtually all that havo boon
found In gEOundwatar, havo boon ignorod by EPA.—'
SlBlIar nagloet la found in othor applicable fadarol
atatutos. The Cloan Hatar Act, rogulating iiaato dlacDatgoo in
surfaeo mtor, has boon intocprotod not to apply to agriculturat
irrigation return Clowa, a primary sourco of poatioido
eontutlnatlon. Iho Raaoarco Censorvatlon and Saeerory Aet (HCRA)
haa alaeat no offoot on paaticldas (as a nohpoint aouroo) bocaus*
it tagulatoa tho diaposal of solid and baiardoua wast*. And
Suparfund. whilo It thoorotically a^lioa to paatieido
contamination of groundwater, hoa never been Invoked tor that
purpose. To be fair, SPA la sarlously considering five different
Superfund sites In Sawali where groundwater has been seriously
contaninated with the pesticides DBCP end EDB. In response, the
Reagan Ada i n is t rat ion is seeking to amend the law and write
pesticides out of that statute as well. Unfortunately . closing
out eyes to pesticide contamination of groundwater will not deny
its reality. Regressive amendments to atatutos cannot change
^0/ Haw pr^iOBed amendments to Safe Drinking Mater Act would
require Issuance of HCLa for twenty additional pesticide
chemicals. See, B.R. 1650 (Madigan, R. I. at p. 1) and S. 134
(Ducenberger, Minn.).
d by Google
hm cb«aloal coapoBitlon of pollut*^ w«t«E.
AnothsE way to atato ttw forogelog is that th* prlnolpal
itatutaa anactad to pEotact 9Eoundwat«E hava as thaiE Mijor
Mphaala tba control oC point aouEoa pollatioat tbay IgnoE*
wnpolnt BouEcaa of pollution. It la algnifloant that a point
loaco* of oontaBinatloHf auoh aa a leaking tank or suEfaca
.opoundaant, can ba EapalEad to contain ttia psoblaa and
'•aponaiblllty la naEFOwly appllad. But Faaponalbillty CoE
lonpolnt peatlclda contamination Is *OEa difficult to aaccrtaln
ind irapoasible to control trltbout limiting or prohibiting tba uaa
if ttM subatanea tndangarlng gEoundwatoE. It baa baeoaa a tEulav
Jiat onca a gEoundwatsE aqulfar la contaalnatad, it la vary
llfficult to raatora it to a uaaabla condition. Natural
iceeasaaa such aa pEaclpltatlon racharga uaually taka daoadaa to
'luali out'tha contanination. Paatiold* uaa on a aajor acala baa
aally baan a phanomanon of only tbcaa dacadas In tha Dnltad
itataai tC took thouaanda of yaaca for rainwatar to raach many of
iha nation'a daapec aguifara.— ^
Of couraa, tha atatuta anaetad pEiaaElly to pcotaet tha
invlEonnant and public fEOa haalth Elaka poaad by paatl«ldaa la
:ha PiFItA. It contains no aantloa of gcoundwater oe drinking
latar wbatsoavac. Evan today, vary littla anvlEonaantal fata
lata hava baan ganacatad ainca tha ovarwhaUiing Hijorlty of
d by Google
p«aticld«a In us* In th* Dnitvd States war* Initially raglatacad
In tha 1950a and <0a. XtiU lack of data, togatbac with tba
anoFBoua 'data gap' tagardln? tha potential bunan health and
aiivlrMiaantal affaeta of tbaa* ohaaleala dlaouasad balowt truly
raprasant • tlaa boabt particularly In rural Aaarlea. Ita ballava
that It it aapaclally i^ortant to ai^basiaa to thla Coaalttaa'
that It la probably tha nation's Canoes that ara aoat at clak
baeauaa Can CaMlliaa ar* alaoat totally dapandant on gceuadwataE
for thair drinking watar supply. As tha California Aaaaably
Offlca of Raaaarch foundi
In addition to tha oost of oontalalng and
ollalnating axiaclng contaainatlon and tha
long-tara coat co public haalth, tha
agricultural coaaunlty Incurs haavy coats Croa
having pestlcideB In groundwater.- If
contoainatlon canders tha watar supply usalaaa
for agricultural purposes anothar supply Bust
ba found usually by drilling a daepar well
which craatas higher pubplng costs. Groundwatar
contanlnation also can contribute to reduced
productivity of the land> loas of output due to
damaged perennial crops lost revenue froa tha
disposal of contaminated food pEoductSi and
decreased livestock productivity. As a result,
propecty values will llltely decline
dramatically. Most Impoctantly, the far* faally
often depends on well water tor all ita doaastie
needs, including drinking watar. Peaticida
contamination thereCoEe directly threatens tha
haalth of Eacmars and their faMillea
Tha agricultural conmunity alao Buffers an
intangible but Important loss by being
associated with tha pollution of a public
resource that is valued for its purity.... [TIhe
agricultural comnunity stands to lose a great
deal, even if it Is not deserved, by being
identified *o an accomplice In tha oontaainatlon
d by Google
of tha autc's drinking watae. 12/
Tha [aaponaibllity to adaquataty taat tbalr produats — and
take all nacasaary atapa to ansura that whan uaad pcoparly, thay
wll net contanlnata gcoundwatac -- falla squaraly upon ttia
pet Eoc hen leal Induatry. Thla can ba acconpllahad only by
Eaqutring that all paatieida chaaicala now balng Barkatad ba
fully tastad to datarslna thalc haaltb affacta and potantial foe
groundwatar contaslnatlon by a data caetaln.
Furtharf FIFRA should ba anandad apaeHJcally to addraas
tha gcoundwatar thtaati raquirlng a aaelaa of apacific atapa onca
paatieida contaai nation la diacovacad. First, tha BnTironsantal
Pzotaetlon Agancy sbould laaadlataly notify tta* stata and tlia
paatieida eaglstrant oc cagistcanta of tba contamination
Involvad. Nitbin aix Bontha of such notica, ragisttaClon of tha
pasticida found in greundwatar ahould ba eanoallad for tha
rasuitlng contaalnatlon unlaaa (1) tba affaetad atata has
devalopad and iaplaaantad a plan to pravant fueehar contaainatlon
of tha aqulfar, or <2} tha ragistrant haa appropriataly aaandad
the paatieida labal to accoaplisb that rasult. Tha Pasticida
RaforM Act of 198S would aehiave thaa* goals and raprasanta tha
first aarious affoet to addrasa tha growing thraat posad by
paatlcidaa in groundwatar.
In a vary raal aanaai tha actual longtarm throat to
undarground drinking watar aupplias poaad by paaticidas raaalna
> Groundwatar.
d by Google
408
unknown. Honitoclng ,of gcanndwBtar In tha Onltad 8tat«> foe
p«atloid« oont— iaatloa caaalna pelsltlv* «t b««t< x«t mot* uxl
aoe* oC th*>« etMBle«ls *t« applied to tk* land ••cb ycac -- fcM
4VprexiaBt«lj H«rOOO pounds In ItSl to 1.4 billion poonds In
1977 to an MtlMtod 2.S billion pounds la 19S0.^
Tbo nblllty oC « oboaical to BlgEot* to an oqBlfox is
eoi^lox. Involving botk tbo pcopottlos oC tho chonlcsl ItsolC
to.q., w*t«E Bolubllltrr volatility, dagradabllity) , ■• mil u
goologlc eendltlena and tha aakaup of tha sell. Nbat la cactain
is that It oftan will taka nany yaacs Cor pastleidas to Esach an
aqulSoE. Tat, wa eentinuo to add to tha simply of tbaso
QlMKlcals in tha soil in a haltoc-sJtaltar fashion, with Itttla
knowlsdga of tbaic potontlal to roach gcoundwatsc and in vlrtoal
13/ Kaddy, ■Pastleido Uaaga in California and. tbo ttaitod Statoa,*
California Dapartaanfc of Food and Agrleultura Roport, H.8. 1071,
January 20, 1983 at p. 3. In racant yaara. thara has baan a
shift froa organochlorlnaa to organophosphatas and carbamatas.
Tba nawar paatlcldas ganarally ara lass poraistsnt In tha
anvlronaont but ara Mora watar soluble, aora aoblla In soil and
■ora acutaly toxic. Bomm cbaaloala, auch aa naaaticldaa, ara
injaetad dlractly Into tha aoll. Othars ara alxad with
Irrigation water bafora tha watar ia appliad to tba land in a
procsss known «s chaalgatlon. Convantional Irrigation praeticas,
in whioh such watar waa appliad aithar by sprlnklsr. furrow or
flooding, Incraasa tha liholibood of chaalcal laachlng through
tha soil and antaring groundwatar. Also §••, Laachlf^ Flalds,
d by Google
ignocanca of tho** chaialcals that hava already dona »o.H/
In addition to tha inecaaslng avldanca of paaticlda
contamination of gEOundwacetr thara la. of coucsa, tha laaua of
pcotactin? tha Aaaciean food agpplyi hoM* workplaca and
anvironment from thasa hasacdous chaalcala. Bacai too, PIKtA
pEaaants a casa study in failura.
h. protaction of tha Food Chain
Racantiy. a Barrla opinion polX waa conductad foe tha Food
14/ In response bo tha DBCP dlacovacy in California, that
atate'8 Legislature enacted legislation requiring appcopriata
government agencies to nonitoc drinking water for a number Of
ocganlc cheBlcals. Forty pesticides vara identified as
prasantlng tha greatest threat to groundwater and are the aubjact
of a oonitoring progean. None of the forty pesticides ia taatad
for nationally under the Safe Dcinning water Act. The results of
the ■onitoring should be available this sunmar, but a nunbat of
pesticides have already been found in public drinking water
including atradne. aimazine endoaulfan, 1,3-0, diBathoata and
dicofol. Leaching Fields, sgpca, at 50.
As the Office of Technology AsaaasMant noted in a cacant study i
One of the potentially most Important, and as
yet relatively unexplored, health laaues of
groundwater contamination ia that contajninated
aquifers usually contain more than one
substance. Knowledge is almost totally lacking
about poasible interactiona among combinations
ot substances, auch Interactiong in which
subsequent iinpacts ace qualitatively and
quantitatively different than expected {and
usually greater — i.e., synergistic) are
comon in aany chaKical and biological
Protecting tha Wation'a Groundwater fro« Contawination.
(Washington DCi D.S. Congress, Office of Technology Asae s sae n t,
OTA-D-233, October 1984] at 34 (emphasis in original].
d by Google
Macketing Inatitut* (an industry gcoup) about a vaei«ty of food
quality iasuaa. such as th« us« of food additivss. cholsstscol
and th« Ilka. Pasticld* contamination of ttaa food chain toppad
ths poll by a wlda Bargln. Tha poll, conduetad b*foca tM
maaslva publicity ovai EDB, found a full 77 patcant of tha
lUHcican public baliavas pesticidas In food prasant 'a asrlous
baaatd."^^ Subatantlal avidanca atipports that ballaf.
The lack of effactiva EPA ragulatlon of tha pasticlda
athylana dlbtonida (BDB) is now well known. Tan yaars aftar tha
National Cancer Inatituea flcst dataiainad that 'thaca Is atrong
avidanca that SDS la llhaly to causa cancac in huaans,' BPA
finally banned Ita use. Raslduaa of BDB will eaaaln In tha food
supply for yaars to coaa. Tha tailura of BPA to adaquataly
protect the A»atican public fron this dangerous paatlcida waa not
an abarcatioa, on tha contrary. It was tha ferasoaabla
consequence of fundaaantal deflcianclas In tha pasticlda
regulatory procaes. And. without basic changas in tha fadaral
pasticlda laws,' tha BOB debacle, with ita aetandant public faars.
disruption of coHMrcs and serious haalth risks, will »ost
certainly be repeated.
Just by way of exaapla, considar tha athylana
blsdithlocarbaBataa, or the EBDCs. This faally of six different
chemlcala are among the most widely used funglcidas in tba United
States, tha 30.6 nilllon pounds applied in 197B, conatitutsd
15/ Sae Appendix B, attached to this tastiaony.
d by Google
on*-thicd to one-half of all fungicides used in AiMclcan
•grlcultuc*. Ethylana thloutva (ETO) a dagtadation ptoduee,
■•tabollta and contaminant Of ■act) of tha EBDCa la forbad raadily
In peoc«aalii9 and cooking. The BBOCs ae« uaad on Bora tban 30
paccant of Juaaclean toaatoaa. tobacco, spinach and applaa. as
wall aa fifty parcant of tha potato crop, two-thirds of tha
auahrooBa and ona bundrad parcant of iapottad bananas. According
to EPA docuaants. 'dlatary axposura (to tha EBDCs and BTU]
potantially af facts talc) tha antlra US population.* A duPont
aeudy of BTD in pcocaasad foods and cannad vagatables and fruits
found 23 paccant of Its saMpla eontainad ETO. ETO also has baan
found In foods whaca no tolacancaa axlat aueh aa aaat, allk and
aggs.
Both tha BBDCa and ETO causa cancac* bletta dafacta, ganatle
■utatlona, thytold affacts, and aca acutaly toxic. SPA docuaant^
quantify thasa risks at vary high lavala, acknowledging genacal
diatary cancar risks as graat as Sxio'* (or 100,000 additional
cancars ovar a lifatima in tha Aawrlcan population} , thyroid
tiska at 4xl0~ , applicator cancar rlaka in tha lo' ranga,
with margins of safaty for scats applicators of loss than tan. In
six saparaea cancar studies, ETD and tha EBDCs wars found to
causa liver, lung and thyroid tuaocs. EPA docunenta also ahow
ETD to ba teratogenic.
Tha EBDCa ware placed into special review or ItPAR by EPA In
1977 -- eight years ago. Following a aarias of private maatlnga
with ceglstranta of tha chaHicala, the EBDCs were returned to
BI-5W o— 8»—
d by Google
412
gcnacal EagiBtEation wltb ainltul pEOtBCtlona foe applicatoea and
no atapa KddEaaalng tba contaainatlon ot food. XPA liaa new
agEoad to 'taaaaaaa' Uiia dacislon by Dacaabai 31, 1986( aftaE
obtainlDf Moca aclantitlc data. In tha' IntaEiH, a]9asiiEa to
thaaa dangoEoua ctiaBlcals In tbm food auf^ly eentlniMa nnabatad.
'Safa' tolaranca Xavala for tha caEcinoganle BBOCs Eaaala
undiaturbad. Ro tolaranca haa avar baan aatabliabad foe no.
Tha KBOCa/ETD sEa not unlqua. Thay sEa tha noEM. Oosans
of axaMpiea axiat of paaticidaa found in tha AoMElcan food aupply
that ara known oe cuapact carcinogana oe Mutagcna, that hava
'cafe' toloEsncaa aat with falaa oc fcaudolant aciaatlfle
■tudlaa, oE that hava net baan taatad at all.^^
Racantly, a list ot aoaa 400 Inart ingtadianta ballarad oe
■uapactad 1^ KPA of balng 'toxica logically aignlfieanf waa
anhNittad to tha EPA Sclanca AdTlsecy Panal. Whila that list was
tha subjact of taatlaony fEoa EPA Assistant AdainiatEStot John
Hooca at tha April 18 haacinga bafora this Subcosaittsa, it has
nonathalaas still not baan wida public. Tat, auch of tha
AiMrican public is ragulsEly aiqrassd to thasa 'toxicologic ally
significant' chaaicals in thaiE food.
Tha issua of toxic inarts is net llaltad to diatsry
axposuca. Racantly, It was laainad that tha widaly-uaad
16/ See, Moce, LawEia, Paaticldas tn Poodi What tha Public
Meeda to Know, (San Francisco. 19B4) i also sas Section III,
balow; 'The Data Gapi Blind Regulators Caat Adrift In a Sea of
Ignorance.'
d by Google
pesticid* dicoCol, a hoa« usa And a^rieultuEal pesticide that h»
also bean Eeund in gteandwatar , contains th* bannad paatlcld*
DDTr as an Inart and oontaninant. In Hatch 19S4t BPA laauad a
apacial e«v1«« of dleefol baeausa. dua to its DM eontaalnatlon,
its U8« posad a thcaat to wildlif*. paeticulatly biid
popalations. wban dot was cancalod in 1973i IPA wont tbrougta
thslr filas to look for uaaa of DDT — but tliait fllaa iMr« not
indaxad to caClact inart cop^wunda. ThoEaforet it was not until
1979 whan tha Agency cOBBsenoad a EegistEation standard Eeview
that DOT was 'diacovarad' in dlcofol — avan though tha
registcants had been aubnittlng confidential atateaants of
foranla aince 19S7 indicating the presence of DDT.^-' Despite
the knowledge in 1979 that an RPAR ttlggec of bazaid to wildlife
had bean exceeded, tPA did not initiate epeclal review until
19S4. All dieofol products contain appcoxlmataly ten percent DOT
iHpurities.==^ It is unlikaly that workers Manufacturing ot
applying dieofol — or consusers using it ins their hones — knew
that they were working with DDT.
The dieofol incident underscores the ayateaie failure of
EPA to evaluate the safety or otherwise regulate the so-called
inert ingcedianes contained in all pesticide products. Mbile
these substances nay be inert aa to pests, Bsny are not as to
17/ Synar rapoEt, supra, pp. 17-18.
18/ 49 Fed. Reg. 39822 (October 10, 1984).
d by Google
humans. Tti«y include such known health thtvata ■■ th« glycol
•thsrsr b«ns*n«( fonuldcliyd*, vinyl ebletida, •thylan*
dlchlorld«, hydr«sln*t and •plcblorohydcln.^-' in daclding
wbcthae to c«9i>t«Cr raatcict oc c«no«l • paaeieid*. tirvA
cequirca EPA to dataniln* whath«r ttaa product will hav« "an
unraaaonabla advaca* aCCact on otan ot tba anvironBant. ' For
raaaona that aca fac fioa claat, tba Agancy alaply cboosaa net to
taquira ragiatrants to aubnit cbronlc baaltb and aaCaty studlaa
of inact inQtedlents. Purthat. tba Agancy baa giantad blankat
axanptlona tcoa tba tolacanca caquica»anta of S 408 of tba food*
Drug and Coaaatic Act to approxlmataly 500 diffacant inart
Ingradlanta. All of tba ebaaieala llstad abOTa, foe axaaplai
bava baan axaaptad fcoM food tolaranca caquieaaantai with llttla
01 no data concarnlng tbalc toxleologleal affacts or raalduaa In
tba food cbaln.^^
FirSA ahould. thacafoea. ba a«Mndad to dlcact tba
Adainlitratoc to carry out dutlaa alraady laiposad by axiatlng
law. prohibiting tha taglatcatloa or raraglatratlon of a
paaticlda cbaalcal containing an Inart that cauaas unraaaonabla
advacaa affacta on huKana or tha envlronmant. Tba Adnlnlat rater
abould ba fgrtbar raqulrad. no latar than July 1, 19S6( to
19/ Bpichlocohydrin was llstad aa a potential RPAR candldata in
If78 for oncoganicltyr autaganicityi and othar chronic affacts.
43 Pad. 8aq. 16S08 (lUrcb 14, 1980).
22/ 40 C.P.R. lOB.lOOl, attachad barato aa Bxblblt C.
d by Google
d«v«lop a plan to •valuat* inact ingcadiants aontalnad in
paatlcldaa aliaady oa th« aarkat that say eaaaa unraaaonabla
advataa etfacta on nan or tha anvironnant and Issua apptopclata
cagulatlena. Sxceptlons should ba providad toe Inarta that aca
ganatally racognl>ad by aoiantlCic axpacta to ba aafa Cot uaa.
Haaltb and aafaty atudiaa on auoh InaEta ahoaid ba aada availabia
to tha public pursuant to ) 10 of FIFBA pcovidad that tha
Adainistrator not dlacloaa the pateantaga of aach Inact
IngEcdiant unlass to do so ia naceasacy to pcotaot tha public
inearaat.
B. Ho— Qaai tha BMJan Blafca
Tba avaraga JUatiean eenauaac antaca a supacBatkatr gacdan
ahop or paint stora with a wholly Calsa aanaa oC aaeutlty — wbat
•o«a hava ehacactaclzad aa an llluaion of aataty. Ha oc aba
aaauaaa tha product purchaaad ovac tha countar ia mmt», taatad by
tha sallac, ai^rovad by tha goTarnmant. Nothing on tha labal
indicataa otharwisa. Nothing ia Cucthac ttom tha truth.
Taka captan aa ona axaMpla. Captan ia a widaly ua«d
agricultural paatlcida appliad to a varlaty of vagatablas and
frulta auch aa applaa. paachaa and atrawbarriaa. It is also aold
coMBonly tor homa gardan uaa and is an ingradiant usad in
shaapoosi coanatica and nattraasas.
Captan was plaoad into apacial raviaw or RPAR by BPA in
1960 dua to avidanoa oC carcinoganlcity, taratoganicity. advarsa
caproductiva aCfecta and nutaganicity. Huch of tha original
haalth and safety tasting parfaraed for captan caae fron
d by Google
IndustElal Blot««t (IBT) Laboratoriea and h«a b«*n d*t«rBin«d to
b» invalid. A tormtr Stauffcr Ch«ilc«l Coapui; «oi«ntlst In «
Icttat to Scnatoc BalM«. ChalEiun, Sanata Co^ittaa on
AgricuXtiua. Nutrition and roraatry, lapottad that vbixa at
Stauffar, axparlaanta ha conductod producad raaulta daaon ■ tra t Ing
tnat 'Um autaganlc eoapound, captan. eaachas tba gonitda of
■aMBala aftar oral adalnlatratlon. ' Th« aclantlat. Dr. CliEfoid
A. Salsky. told Sanator B«Uu tbat scaufCai did not allow bis to
raport fully on his Cindlngs and that he was aakad to raslgn --
and did.^
■PA will soon iaaua a propoaad prallBinacy daolalon Cor
captan aanoaUlag its uaa on food ecopa, cbntlnalof Its nonfood
and boB* uaaa and taqulilng pcotactlva clothing for aoaa
Mockara. Bowavae, tha proposal will ha dalayad until at laast
April 1987 to raqulra aubaisaion of crop rasidua data. In tba
intarin, B?A will pcovlda FDA with captan toxicity data foe
conaldacatlon in ragulatlng its uaa in shaapoos and cosnatica.
BPA astimatas tha diatary risk froa captan axposura to ba
9xl0~', tha risk troa its usa in conaatica is 2xl0~^, and for
shai^oos tha astinata is 2xlo' .— ' Following ovantual
22/ Paatielda and Toxic C3>a«leal wawa. Marcb 30, 19BS, at p. 3.
d by Google
lasuano* of ■ Ilnal d«claloa by EPA, tb« ragiBtEants of capUa
■ay atlU avail thWMalvaa of laagthy eaneallation pcoeaducaaf
aat forth In S C(b) of FIPRA, and judleial ravlaw.
Than tbaca'a th* eas* of pantachiocophanolt plaoad Into
(PAR aavan yaata ago. In 1978. Panta ia uaad Ih allllona of
boMaa, on tolapbona polla, eblldcana' playgcouadat aa a ganacal
wood praaarvant and for praaaura traatiog luBbac> It la aold
ovar tha countat for ho*a uaa tbcougbout tha Onltad Stataa.
Initially plaead into RPJUt du« to Its taratoganlc and fatotoxic
af facta, panta alao oontalna a dloxin eontaainant
(baxaehlocedibauo-P-diosio or tSaCOD) , a anapaotad oaroiaogan*
Stndiaa linking panta with bictb d«f««ta In anlaala appaacad aa
aarly aa 1974. Slghty-fiva pacoant of Aaacleana haw panta In
thaic uelna. Its raaldna* paciedieally tnta up la aaaplaa of
•■aat, poultry and othac food atufta.
In Fabraaty of 1981, IPA iaauad a propoaad daclaioa on
panta, eanealllng outright cagiatcatlona for ovac-tha-couatai
catall aala and l^oaing a vatiaty of caatriotlona on tb«
chaaical. in Juna of 1981i tha SPA Sclanea Advisory Faaal
unaniaously apptovad tha propoaad daeialon,
daplortiag] tha lack of sciantlfie objactivity
of tha pcasentattons by Lndustcy concarning tba
biological haiards of wood pcesarvativaa and
findting] the induatcy'a danial of aciantific
data concarning tha mutagenicity and
card nog ancity of the wood praaarvativaa to ba
diatucbing.
Thacaaftar, roughly thirty aaparata privata aaatinga
occurrad batwaan raprasantatlvaa of industry and EPA. A
d by Google
418
subs«qu«nt d*cislon r*l*Bi«d In F«bEu*iy 19e3r on Industc^
latt«clM»d, tarn miab»fatl*lls <Makac tban iaitially propeaad. In
r«spons« to a iattat froa Sanatoc J«aa« O^Imm, AaalaUnt EPA
JidBlnlitcatee JOhB Vadhoatac indleatad tbat 'im iiow'bav« a
coop*r«tlv« r«latlon«hlp wiUi Industry."
Ut«e public ccitielsB sad litigation cballaagin? *ucfa
cloaad »aatiiiga. ttiia agcaaaant was withdcaim. A final dacision
was issuad on July 11, 19S4r among otbae tbings. lialting tlw uaa
of panta to cactifiad applicators, raquiring a consoaac awacanass
pEograa and raducing ttaa dioxin contamination in
pantaeblOEOptMaol to 19 ppa iuMdiataly wad to ona ppa within 1>
■ontba. This daeision has now b««n eontastad by tha weed
prasarvant industtyr whieh has raquastad • caaoallation haacing.
Ttaa indastty also has filad suit in fodaral eeuct In Louisiana
challanging tha fairnass of tha procaduEss followad in rasotainfr
tha panta RPAR daciaion. Thua. aaven years aftai tha RPAB on
panta was initiatad, tha chaalcal Eaaains on tha asEkat without
caatEiction, sold to sn unknowing public.
Ifa wish to saphaaiaa that eaptan and panta asa only
axaaplas. Tha bbdCs sfs sold fot hoaa gscdan usa in a vaciaty of
pcoducta. Lindansi a chloEinatad hydrocarbon, hsa baan linkad to
cancaE and chEonic EapEOductiva and fatotoxie affacts. It ia
usad in avarything fEoa pat dip to flooE wax. Banoayl, linkad to
birth dafacts. Esducad sparm count, ganatlc autstions and eancaCt
is EagistaEad foE uaa on hoaa lawns. Tha labals of any of thasa
d by Google
pcoductB oC£*r no hint that th«B* product* nay b« hasaedoua —
•xeopt *to aquatle ocsanlsaa ' or fish.
C. Propoaed Rafocma of Peatlclde Regulatory Procaaa.
As tba IDB eaaa and abova axaiv^** daaonatrata, avan aftac
sarioua haalth baaarda baooaa known. It takaa aany yaaca at baat
to effactivaly ragulata a paatlcida through BPA'a BPAR or apaclal
ravlaw proeaaa. And than coao langthy adalnlatratlva trlal-typa
haarlnga. And judicial ravlawf yat aa a kind of 'wocat flrat'
ayata». KPAR or apaclal ravlaw waa craatad In 1973 to giva
amaadltad attantion to tboaa cbaalcala aoat auapactad ot poaing
tba bighaat dagraa of baalth or •nTicODHantal ciak> Itaa antica
pcooadnca «faa daalgnad to taka do BOca than 300 dafa. In fact,
no apaclal raviav haa avar baan eoivlatad vlthln that tiaa
pariod. Inataad, onea publicly ialtiatad, apaclal cavlawa taka
an avaraga of two to four yaaca to coivl-*^* u^ ^o ■<>■■ caaaa
bava draggad on for aavan yaara. Purtbaraoca, it can taka
aavaral yaara to eoMMnoa tba public cavlav avan though tha
Agancy haa data indicating tha naad for cavlaw. Poi axaapla. 8PA
racalvad a poaltiva cancac study for BDB froa tba National Cancar
znstituta In 1974) yat tba RPAR waa not initlatad until 1977.
Intacnal EPA docuaants Indicata that BPA conalderad Initiating an
RPAR review for daairocide aa aacly aa 1981i BPA publicly
announced tha ravlaw in July 19B4. As of March 1984, after
alaoat tan yaara aince adoption of tba procedure, BPA bad
d by Google
coaplatwl apcclal tvvlttws for only 19 pamtlcld**.— ^
TbuSf arvn In tb« tmem of subBtantial avldwie* of
•nviEOnaaiital oc huaan hcBltfa ri«ks. tb« pc«a«iit statutory octioBa
crMtoa Inbaront dalaya of ■any yaaca baforaeliaBieala' Known to
ba hasardoua can ba caatclctad oc taaovad fcoa tba aarkatplaea.
Tba Poatlclda RaforB Act of 19S5 will atEaaallna tha antic*
apaeial rarlaw and eaneallation pcodadutaa by radafinlng apacial
cavlawa. aatabllabing apaclflc tiaatablaa for thalc ooaplationr
alnplifylng eaneallation pcocaducaar providing Coi axpsdltod
haacinga and allminating ocal eaatinony axcapt in axeaptional
eaaaa. Judicial cavlav than raaaina availabXa. Dua pcooaaa
caqnlcaa no aosa than ttaia* and public haalth coquicaa no loaa.
ZIZ.
I Bm
aTJS
Tba Inability of govacnaant bucaauccaoy to axpadltiously
33/ 'Statua Raport on Rabuttabla Ptaauaption Againat
Sogiatcation (KPAR) oc spaclal Raviaw Chaaicala, Kaglatcation
Standacda Pcogcaa and Data Call-in Fcogcaar' (Haablngton DCi
Offlea of Paatleida Prograaaf EPA, Saptaabac 19B4) pp. 17-2fi.
Until cacantly, the HPAS pcocaaa was fraquantly tha vahicla foe
nunacoua 'awaathaact agteaaanta' batwaan KPA and paatleida
caglatcanta, caachad In ao-callad 'daeiaion confarancas" hald
bahlnd cloaad dooca. Aa a raault of aattlaaMnt of a fadaral
lawauit bcought by NRDC and tha KTh-ClO, BPA will now caaaaaaa
auch daeialona for aoca than a doian paatleida chaaicala.
including tha BBDCa, paraquat, PCMS, benonyl and lindana. In
additloRr puiauant to tha aattlajaant. laat month BPA iaauad
peopoaad ragulationa to anaura public pacticlpation in thia
apacial caviaw oc KPAR pcocaaa.
d by Google
CAnc*l OE r«Btcict tit* ua« of p«atlcid«a knoon to pc«s*nt accloua
b«alth hasards is, betMvaCf not tba aost ■•clous dofleioney In
th« C«d«t>X paaticid* cegul«tocy achoa*. Thla la bockuaar in
■oat caaca, «• ac* alaply acting -- or aora corcaetlyi not acting
— out of Ignocanoa. Tba vaat najoiitr ol paatlcldaa in uaa
today hava not baan taatad in a ■annar that ITA can aaaura tha
hMclcan public that tlia contlnuad uaa bfi tbaaa untastad
cbanlcala la not oiaatlng a toxic tlaa bo«b. It la difficult to
Inaglna a altuatlon aoia ftaught with dangac.
Cantcal to tba failura to affactlvaly eagulata paatlcldaa
In tba Onltad Stataa la tba abaanca of aooucata aclantlflc
atudlaa addcaaalng tba ability of tbaaa cbaalcala to eauaa
cancacr bieth datecta* nacva danagai E«pcoductlva diaocdara and
othac acuta and ebionlo baalth affaeta In tba huaan population,
tha raaaon foe tbla vaat pool of Ignecanca la that aoat
paatlcldaa waca raglatacad In tba 1950a and 19C0a. Tat,
dancAf-caaalng capacity waa racognliad aa a dangat only in tba
nld-lseoai tha capacity of paatlcldaa to cauaa ganatic nutationa
and bictb dafacta waa parcalvad only In tha lata I9C0a and aarly
1970s. In aacb caaa, taata foi tbaaa dangaca wac* caquicad only
ptoapactivaXy. That ia, paatlcldaa ragisearad ptior to tha
adoption of tha nav taatlng raquiraaanta wara Inaxplicably
"gtandfathered in.' Slnca aoat paatlcldaa in uaa today waca
raglatarad bafora tba cuccant tasting caquica»anta mz* adoptad,
wa aca lltecally adrift In a vaat saa of paatlclda ignorance.
d by Google
Sadly, till* la no naw ravelation. It was flEst caeognlsad
in 1973 wb«a Conqtmmm BandAtcd tb*t all ttM tb«n-pE«a«ntly
ceglat«E«d paaticldaa ba rataatcd in light at conta^otaey
■tandarda witiiln fiva yaaca. Ntaat baa SPA dona uodar thla
mandata? In tha thirtaan yaata alnca Congraaa actadf BPA can now
giva a full asauranca of aafaty to only six
paaticida aotiva ingradianta. BPA baa projactad
that ehay can now (givan tba vary llaltad paraonnal raaoarcaa
presently davotad to tha effort) raregiatar 25 paatlcldaa par
year. That aaana it will take until 2003 to coaplata tha job!
Hoat oftanf Congtaaa ia prasaatad with vaatly diffacant aatiaatas
of tha Bagnituda of a problaa. BowavaCf la tbia eaaa, no faetiea
diaagraaai
• Tha KPA concludad In 1981 that ■vary faw of tba
thouaanda of paatlo(daB ragiatatad batwaan 1947 and 1974
have undergone nodarn tasting for ebroaie affaota.'
('Raregiatratlon Standarda Bvaluaeloa.' EPA, October 15,
1961, p. B.)
■ A 1983 ataff report by thia Subcoaalttea found that 85
patcant of tha federally cegistarad peaticidas lacked
adequate data to aaaaaa their ability to cause cancer In
hunansj roughly twe-thlrda lack such data to assess
tecatoganicity, and 93 percent lacked adequate data to
saaasB witaganieity.
* Moat recently, a report Ctom the National Acadeay of
Sciancas in 1984 found that the cbeaical Industry had
d by Google
provided suZeiclant health and safaty dat« foe co«pl«t«
Iwaltl) hasard •■■•■•■■nta oC only ten parconfc of
paatioldas now in us*.
* For tb* vaat ujoelty of pvatleidoa widely uood in tbo
O.S.. 'data basoa ac* woofglly inadaquata and laoraovar)
tfaa axiatlng data hava not baan avaluatad by currant
■tandacda.' (StataMant of John A. Hoora. Aaaiatant
Adninlstcator for Paaticidaa and Toxic Substancaa. £PA,
bafoca tha dorpa SubcoonittaAf Bouca Agricultura
CoHlttaa, April IS, 19S5, p. 2.)
* Bran whan oav data haa baan ganaratad, aarlous qgaatlona
•xlat about BPA'a ability to indapandantly avaluata aueb
data. A 1983 Congraailenal audit unoovarad aavaral
dosan ea««« whaca BPA data analyals iff 'varbatia
tranacelpta of tba applieant'a eaport...and Cailad to
•aaaaa tha accuracy and coaplatanaaa of tha
aubnlasion.' (Ragulatlon of Paaticidaa. Appandix to
Baaringa of tha DORPA Subcoaaittaa, Bouaa Ageicultura
CtMailttaa, Vol. ZV, 1983. pp. 13. 123-24.)
Evan tha littla data that axiata ia of quaationabla
raliabillty. Bagistratlon of naarly ona-thlrd of all paaticidaa
atlll raata on data auppliad by tha Industrial Biotaat
Laboratoclaa (IBT) . now known to hava ayataaatically aubaittad a
huga nuabar of falaifiad raaaacch atudiaa ovar an axtandad parlod
of tlMO. Mora than 90 parcant of tha atudiaa conductad by IBT
ara now known to ba Invalid. Much of tha data hava yat to ba
d by Google
rapl«c«d. Andi Mhlla tht«fl IBT oC£lcl«la rttc«ntly began prison
t«rBB, ch«ilcala c«9lat«r«d with IBT atudltts fmhIii on bb« aarkot
— a wido variety of products, including structural peat control
agantSt hoaa elaanaarat wood preservanta, hospital disinCectants.
as well aa poiaona used to control «any agricultural pests.
Hopefully, the IBT criainal prosecution will- serve to deter
future conduct by other laboratories that place the profit and
loss atatenent above life and health. But what justifiable basil
Is there for Congress to perait the results of this pervasive
criminal conduct to continue to endanger the very health and
livea of present and future geneEatlona? Surely, the econoaie
well being of the pesticide industry cannot be paraaouat to the
livea and health of the entice MMcican population.
Hew can we have eoaa to auoh an extraordlnaElly dangerous
state of affairs? Row can it have co«e to paas that a
bureaucrat ically neutral taea such aa 'data gap" can have evolved
to deacrlbe this oeas? This is not juat a problaa of inadequate
filing ayateas.
In its 1972 aMndMnts to riPRA, Congress charged BPA with
the duty to rereglater peatlcidea In coaplianca with the new
co^cehensive health and safety data caquireaents. Originally
the Agency was to complete the taak by October 21, 1976. This
teadline waa later extended to October 21, 1977 and ultiaataly
eliaiaated entirely. Aftar numerous falaa starts, SPA now claims
to have the ceregiatration process operating smoothly through the
registration standarda program, yet, by EPA'a own admlaalon, it
d by Google
■•y tak« until 2003 to coapl«ts all the MCMixty cvgiatratloit
ctandatda. at tha eucraat rata at 25 laauad pae yaae. (nia
astiaata aay ba daccaaaad by a faw yaata if taglstranta
▼oluntarily eaaeal ttialr eldar producta wltb llaltad aackata in
raaponaa to EPA raquaata to aubait data,}
Hhan aakad about pcogcaaa towatda cat agi at rat ion oC tlia
appcexlMataly 600 eldac paatlcidaat BPA will cita atatiatics
concarning Ita registration standacda ptogEan. Ha taava axaainad
tha cagiatcation atandacd progran accoapliahmanta thcougb tli« and
of FT 1964 (Sapteabac 30, 19B4) and bava found that SPA'a
eenfiidaaca in tba appcoacb baliaa ttaa caality. By tlia and of Tt
1984, 89 'tagiatiation atandacda' had baan iaauad. Ha cloaoly
axaninad S7 of thaaa atandacda and found aavacal sifnifleant
pcoblaaa. <Twe atandacda — bypodOotltaa and petaaaiaa lodata
— waea not availabia foe caviaw) . Only nina of thoaa «T
paaticidaa bad eoaplata haaltb and aafaty data at tba tiaa tba
atandacda iMf iaauad. Thictaan paaticidaa bad no cbconlc baaltb
and aafaty data whan tha atandacda waca complatad. For nlna
chanlcala. all chronic haaltb affacta data caquicaaaats iMca
waivad. That laavaa S6 pesticldas atill wltb data gapa avan
aftac tba ao-callad 'standacda' war« iaauad.
Obvioualyf tha cagiatcation atandacda pcogcaa ia not
filling data gapa aa aany bava baliavad. Mocaovac, a
legistcatlon atandacd no longac aaana that tba abaaical baa baan
cacagiatacad. In fact, only alx chaaicala bava baan actually
Cttcagiatecad to data, and only two of thaaa bad a eoaplata
d by Google
coaplananb of h«alth snd safety d«ta on fll* when SPA gcuitcd
r«t ag 1 St ration. -^^ In otti«r mtds, BPA Is csEsgistsctng
clisalesls without full scientific inforastlon on ttwlr baslth
•ffacts. Zn su^iAEy, tM's curcont rarsgistrstion pcogfsa
through ths Issusncs of csgistrstlon standards Is slaply
ratagistcation thcougb saHsntics.
BPA's Eagiatratlon prooass for naw aetiva Ingradlants la
also saclously flawed. Consldac that ten to fifteen new
pesticides ace ceglsteced foE use each yeac. BPA grants
"conditional" caglatcatlons tot about half of these. In ether
words, EPA Is allowing even sore cbsBlcais on the asEkat that
have nevec before been used without aIX the reqaired data.
In FT 19S4, registration of new active Ingredients took a
aore astonishing turn when tbe Agency reglstesed two sepazata
pesticides that bad noveE befoES been used even though both
exceeded RPAR triggers. Bthalfluralin, an herblcider was found
to be oncogenic, and BPA estlKsted the Elsk of dietary ai^osuce
to be 3.77x10' excess canceE caaes.^-' Cyperaethrln, a
synthetic pyretbrold insecticide tor use on cotton that would
result in neat and allk residueSf was found to be oncogenic in
■ice. Despite acknowledging their potential baalth risks, BPA
did not place either of these cheaicals Into RPAR or special
24/ One of these cheMleals, Glean, ia a new peatlcide ingredient
tRat was not originally Included in approxinately 600 "older"
pesticides registered prior to 1972.
25/ 49 Fed. Re<). 391 (January 4, 1984}.
d by Google
r«vi«w. Th«n. in a D«c«mb«r 20* 19S4 fadTal mql»t« r notlca.
til* Agancy counted both ch«alcnlB as coapL«t«d apcclal
Th* solukton to thla central waaknaaa in tb« peatielda
E*9ulatOEy acliflBa auat include th« aatablishaant of a apacific
tlaatable Coc aufaalaaien eC full liaaltlt and aafaty atodiaa by tbs
pasticide Induatry to BPA coupled with impoaitlon of a
ce^istcaCioR fee ayatea qeneEating aufficlent funda that the
cer«glstcation and apifbial review ayateaa can becoae
self-suppocttn?. It ia cettainly witbin the eeonoalc
aelf-inteieat of the peaticide loduatcy to obtain an aeeuratet
boneat govetnaenb 'eeal of approwal." itaia velueble public
endocaement of their productB has a price, end they abould pay
It. Aaendaenta in the Pesticide Refoca Act of 19IS would
accoHpliah tbia ceault. Itaeae smendnencs are Modeled on the
Callfocnia Birtb Defect Prevention Act of 1984, Senate Bill 9S0
(Petria), recently ovecwhelmingly enacted by the Callfocnia
Legislature and aigned into law by Gorarnor Oeorge Deukaejian.
Theae aaandaenta would require that for the 300 pesticide active
Ingcedienta, aost widely in uee, all neceasacy data be aubaitted
to SPA by 1990. Data for all reaaining peatloides east be
Bubaltted by 1991. If data is not aubnitted in a tiaely faabion,
BPA shall obtain the naceaaary data by contracting with private
firas, or otherwise, and then aaaessing the applicable
2«/ 49 Fed. Rea. 49547 (DeceidMr 20, 1984).
d by Google
cv^iatcants with tb* tvating costs. Fin«lly, a provision Is
propossd that will •llaloab* tbs possibility of dats gap* in tbs
future by rsquitlng that tests foe n«wly-p«cc«i««d dangors of
psstloido ua« b* csqulESd not Just Cor nowlytogl stared
psstieldos. but also for all tbosa registacad in tba past.
Congraaa should navac parait tbis sorry ehaptac in public policy
to ba rapaatad.
IV.
EMHAHCED POBLIC RIGHT TO IMOW *MD PARTICIPATg
Evan with tha cbangas to incraasa public participation
balng aada at CPA pursuant to a atipuiatad court ordar (in tba
ntDC-ATL-ClO easa) , nonathalass tba ganaral public raaalns
afCectiTeiy frosan out of aany kay stagaa of tba pastieida
raqulatory proeass; ror axaspla. as eurraatly intarpcatad, ririA
I 3(c) {2> (A) danlas tba public tba right to rawiaw and co^nt
upon tba ralavant aciantifie avidanca underlying applications to
register pesticides and astabliab food tolerances until 30 days
f)ttar tha final decision is aade by the Agency. As the
expeciencas with tDt, haptachlert cblordane, DBCF and a best of
other cheaicals eake clear, once on the narket, raanval of a
pestldda'a registration or tolerance requires a herculean
effort. Horeevar, as the reault of tba D.3. Court of Appeals
declaion in Bnviron»ental Defense Fund y. Costle. 15 B.R.C. 1218
(O.C. Cic. 1980) , only pesticide registrants -- and not
envlronaentalr conauaar or labor groups or other Interested
■embers of tbe public -- aay deaand a hearing if they are
d by Google
dlMBtlBfivd with tH* Agency's tlnal d«t«rain«tion In the UPAS
pcoocM or oth«rwla«. A»ong the r««ulta of tbia ■lantod ayste»
Is that ttao A9*ncy will quit* connonly tailor Its £lnal RPAR
daclaion In a pco-lndnatcy aannar, in ocdar to avoid poaalbla
ehallanga in a caneallatlon haarlng.
By aMndMnta to flf 3 and <(b) of th« Aot, tlia Postlcldo
Rafora Act ot 198Sf will ptovlda £ull aecaaa to hoaltta and aafaty
data prior to granting ragiatratlons or establishing food
tolacancasf a co-day pariod would b« providod for aoMbars of tb«
public wishing to coaaant. Koraovar, by aaanding s 6(b) of tha
Act, tb« fanaral public would ba givan standing to initiata and
pattieipata in eaneallatlon baarings, irraapactiva of whatbac
thay hava an aconoalc Intaraat in tha paatlcida Involvad.
riaallyr thaaa aaandaants would copaal tba 1974 Graaa lay- Allan
aaandaant to riFRA which has baan Intarpratad by BPA to' raquira
tha Agancy to privataly and without public ravlaw glva
raglstrants an opportunity to rabut avidanca of anvironaantal
risk avan bafora Initiating tba RPAR procaaa.
rurtbar, this bill would astabllah a fadaral "right to
know' for paeticidas nanufacturad In tha tinitad Statas. All
pastictda producare raglatarad undar FIFRA would ba raquirad to
submit partinant Infotnation to tha Administrator concerntngi
aaong othar thlngs> tha idantity of pastioidas produead and
intaraadiary chaalcals usad, a su^ury of thair taaaltb and
anvltonaantal risks, tha location of ■anufacturing plants eltad
aither In tha Unitad States or abroad, tha proxialty of such
d by Google
planta to raaldential iMigbborlioods and plans tot avacuatlon ot
obhac naaautas In caa« of an awar^ancy. Tha Information wouU b*
fully avallabla to apptopriata local uid atata authocitiaa. flea
ana policfl officials and sai^aEa of tha intacast«d public. BFA
would also iaaua a raport annually pcovldlng infiocaatlon
concacning tha natuc«r quantity and usaa of paaticldaa In
coaaacce. Outing recant snvironnantal incldsnta involving suck
paaticidas aa BOB and DBCP. ttis Agoncy waa unabla «v«n to
accurately inforn tha public of tha axtant to iritich thaso deadly
toxlna trara being used or were baing found in tha Aaerlcan food
aupply.
VI.
Biaro DBFBCT pagygMTIOM
Tatatoganleity, the ability to produce birth defects, can
result froH Inhalingt eatingi or absorbing through tha sklnr a
chanical early in pregnancy. Onlike other health hasarda, wbere
repeated exposure may be necessary to produce a rasult. one
single expoauee to a tatatogan can produce birth defocta.
For aany yearSf it haa been known that certain
pesticides causa birth dafecta in hunan beings. The decision of
EPA to ban tha herbicide 2.4fS-T was baaed largely upon its
teratogenic effects. However, ignoring years of laboratory test
datai EPA waited until there was actual evidence that human
baings ware suffering birth defects before taking affective
action against that peaticlda.
d by Google
According to tta« CaliCornia OapACtaont of Food and
Jli9Eicultuc*f only 28 paatieldos ac« saap«et*d toratogoiu.^^
Oivon tho availability of auaotous oECttctlv* p«atlcld«^ Cbat «ca
net torategons, little Juatlfleatlon axlaia for th* contlnuod
bo— and ageicaltutal uaa of a r«latlvaly aaall but dangarous
BUBbar of ciMBleala that can eauaa atarlllty or InfaEtllity in
peoapactlva patanta and defocaltta*. apontanaoua aboEtlona,
Btlllblctha and otboc aavaco advaraa affacts on unborn chlldtan.
Bxparlanca haa ahowi that axlstlng conteola eopoctodly
Intondad to raduca oxpoaura to paaticldaa at« unroliabla and
Inaufflclant to pcavant tha axtraordinaty biMUt eests and
•afeaclag occaaionad by bicth dafaeta and otbac capeoduetlva
Injurlas. Until adaquata anforcaaant ■aehanlaaa axist, tha law
Buat atop tlM pcoblM of paaclcida-lnduoad bictli dafaeta at tba
Boncea -- tha raglatratlon {ftoeasa.
riniA atiould ba aaandad to ptolilbit caglatration of a
paatlclda ahovn to eauaa a atatiatieally algnlfloant advaeaa
affaet on patontal pactorunca and tha growth and davalopsanc of
haalthy effapring aa datarainad by valid aclantlfle ovidanoa.
Pasticidas known to cauaa aueh caproductiva afiCaota ahould ba
eancallad.
27/ HOTkor Haalth and Safaty Dnit, California Dapactaant of Pood
and Agcicultuta, 'Solaetad Pastlcldoa for Which Ihoco Bava B««n
Sona Concacna About a Tacatoganic Potantial,' Haroh 29( 1985.
d by Google
db,Google
tibl* )
I COHCECI UOOT StUCTtD FOOO ATTXIBITRS
■•>•: n* ihd»ln( public
q.; lew eonemwl *■
I ran tbout u« fallawlat Ubm t
Ti it iiir" " ~
1 fa«l' Weald jmi
MthiMt iMtrd
>■( uM prMarrsCin*
ttaa ibopplBi public
0-: At thli tlw, tra ran panandlT xrr uaearaad. iaa*i
*arr eoncarsM, sr sat at ill conaanad about tb* paiilbllUT tli*t
BSBpmertpttas dnti ai; b* caap*ra4 irttb on racatl lear* laalml
Varj eoaeanad
Saaavbat cane an
Mat larj/aoc at
•Public Attitude* Toward Food Safaty,'
Xin Hanmonda, Pood Harkatinq inatltuta.
d by Google
STATEHEHT OP NAHCY DRABBLE
DIRECTOR
PUBLIC CITIZEN'S CCWGRESS HATCH
ELLEN RAAS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC VOICE FOR POOD AND HEALTH POLICY
AND
GENE KIHHELHAH
LBGLISLATIVE DIRECTOR
CmSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA
BEFORE TOE
SUBCOMMITTEE OS DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, RESEARCH AMD
POREION AGRICULTURE
HOUSE AGRICULTURE COW1ITTEE
AMENDMENTS TO THE
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT
MAY 21, 1985
d by Google
ChalrMan Badal.1 and ■■Mbara of fcha aubcoamltcaa, thank you
for tha Invltaclon to taaclfy hara today. I an apaaktng thia
Bornlng on bahalf of Uiraa Major oonauMar organ Isatioaa. I aa
tha dtractor of Congraaa Watch, tha lobbying arx of Public
Cttlaan, a natlonwlda conauaar organisation with 00,000 aaabara.
Conauaar Fadaratlon oC lUiartca la a coalition of ovar 300 atata,
local, and national conauvar organ laatlona. Public Vole* la a
raaaarch, adueation, and advocacy group that advancaa tha
conauaar Intaraat In food, agrlcultura, and haalth policy- Our
organiaatlona hava workad for nany yaara on food aafaty laauoa.
Ha bacaaa particularly concarnad about paatlcida raalduaa on food
in 1983 whan wa obsarvad tha KI» dabacla and azaainad tha
Inadaquata taatlng of paatlcldaa uaad on food and Tha Food and
Drug AdMlniatration'a las anforcaaant of paatlcida raaidua
llalta. Thua, wa aupporcad Rap. Ranry HaKsan'a and Ban. David
Duranburgar'a billa to rafora tha ragulation of paatlcidaa
raalduaa <B.R. 5495 and 8. 3076).
But the oora atatuta ragulating paaCteidaa, tha Padoral
inaacticlda, Pungldda, and Rodanticlda Act (PlFm>, aiao naada
critical aaandaanta. Onfortunataly, PIFXA falla to protact
conauaara, workara and tha anvirooaant froa dangaroua paatlcida*.
Riddiad with loopholaa and Induatry-orlantad provialona, it
raaalna an anachronlatlc atatnta whl^ falla far abort of ochar
aodarn haalth and anvlronaantal lawa. Aftar aany yaara of
docuaantatlon of PIPRA'a falluraa and BPA'a abyaval record,
critical analyaaa froa the National Acadaay of Sclancas and the
Oenarai Accounting Offica, and nuaarouB raports and haarlnga by
aaverai Houae Conaittaas In tha last Eaw yaara, our national
d by Google
Ha «pplaiid yonr ■iibcoHBitC««* • plkn to UMMd FlfBA tiU* rawr.
•nd ur^a you to report out a bill irhleh aAdraaaa* tha oora dafaets
In tha law. Our coalition of oonauaar, aovlranBanfcal, labOTi
rallglotM, haalth, and fiara or^anlsatlona haa foraad tha Cai^aign
for Paatielda Ratorn to axpraaa unltad aupport for tha riFBfk
EafoTM bill balng Introduead by Rap. Oaorga IroMi (D-Oh) and
Santtor WllIiaM ProzMira (D-MI). Thia lagialaCioa. Whlcb
contalna half tha nu*bar of aMandBanta of laat yaar'a rafecm
bill, rapraaanta a laan and aarloua affort to oorract Ota
fundaaantal flawa in tha law. Nahopa yon will anpport It.
Kay parta of thia lagialatlon would ourb paatlelda
eontasioation of groundwatar. pravant paatlcida-indnead birth
dafaeta, atop tha axpoaura of Aaaricana to laportad food
oontaainatad with bannad paaticldaa. raquira paatieida
■anufacturara to ftnlah long-aandatad haalth and aafaty taata,
and 9lv« local coaaunitiaa a ri^hc-to-know about tha dangara of
paaticldaa producad in thair naighborhooda.
Unfortunataly. tha BM bill faila to addraaa avao ona Of
thaaa problaaa. Aftar yaara of proalaing tha Agrlcaltura
coanittaa FIFM laglalation, tha KM producad a ■llktoaat bill
that could not gain OMB approval. Along with >laor iK^ovaManta
in PIPRA, the BFA draft doaa contain four laportant SMandKanta.
It ainplifiaa the notorloualy coaplax eancallation haarinfai
allaiinataa tha loophole which allowa untrained enployaea to apply
acutely toxic reatricted used paaticldaa. rapaala tha
IndeBnifieation ayatea, and aaXaa wiolationa of nFRA ragnlatioaa
d by Google
illegal, nia Brown rwfoTM bill alao kMMtda tlM l*w is tlMS«
araaa. I would now Ilka to outlina Id gcaatar datall bob* Of tH*
a>«ndm«nta In tiia Caapalgn tor Paatlelda 9mtoim laglalaciaiit
1. TBM Biu. imoamta bpa to obtam himiwb hemjh wm
aAFCTY DATA OW PISTICIIHS.
Hoat Aaartcana probably aaauaa that all paatioidaa hava ba«a
earafolly axaainad by EPA and hava paaaad rl^oroua haalth and
aaeaty taata. Thia la al*ply not trua. Aeeording to tha
OaoaMbar 19g3 ataff rq^rt of thla auboovNlttaa, at laaat SM of
paatleldaa now In nmm hava navar baan adaqnataly taatad to
dataralna whathar thay cauaa oancar> 93% hava not baan taatad
tor thalr capacity to cauaa ganattc autattona. 701 lack birth
dafacta caata. On tha avvragat 85t of paatlcidaa currantly In
uaa hava Inooapiata haalth and aafaty data. Why? Moat
paaticidaa caaa on tha aackat bafora tha raqulraaanta for haalth
and aafaty taata want Into affaet. Tha Katlonal Aeadaay of
Sclanoaa raporcad In March, 1984 that only 101 of paaticidaa hava
aufficlant haalth and aafaty data for a ooaplata aaaaaaaaat of
haalth hasarda.
Undar tha 1973 aaandaanta Co FIPRA, Congraaa raqvirad
BPA to 'raraglatar' all paaticidaa laOking taata for canoart
birth dafacta, and othar baaarda. Undar tha rataglatration
procaaa, Oldar paaticidaa Muat undargo Modam haalth and
aafaty taatlng. But now, 13 yaara after Coograaa paaaad tha
raragiatrattoo raqulranant, BPA haa a oo«plata data paekaga
on only 6 out of tha (00 aetiva logradianta naad In 40.000
paaticldaal Thla ia « acandal. At their currant rata. nA
BdBita that it will finish raraglataring paaticidaa at aoM
d by Google
Lndafinlt* data wall aft«r th* y«ar 2000. Maanwhil*, w« eontlnu*
to aat fooda that contain raaiduaa of uncaatad paatlaidaa.
Tolarancaa or eiaaptiana froa tolarancaa raaaln In affaot for
thaaa Ciaa bosb paatictdaa, providing falaa aaauranca that tha
govarnaant haa any idaa of thair dangara.
KM attaaipta to obfuaaat* it* failure at raraglatratlon by
pointing to tha fact that it haa wrlctan almoat 100 "ragiatration
atandarda.* For axaapla, Kaalatant Adalniatrator Hoora aaid in
hia April IS, 1985 taatlmony bafora thia aubcoaalttaa, 'Of tha
600 paatlclda ehaaicala potentially aubjact to raragiatratlon,
tha A9«ncy haa ravlawad and laauad ragtatration atandarda for 98i
47 of thaaa atandarda hava bean conplaCad in tha laat two yaara*"
But laauanca of a raglatration atandard doaa not »aan that tha
agency haa received, evaluated, and approved the necaaaary haalfh
atudiaa. It only aeana that tha agency haa coapXetely reviewed
the chenlcal'a file and identified which new atudiea regiatranta
nuat conduccf «oat of the work atill raaalna to be done. ntua.
it la axtravaly niateadlng for KPA to call laauance of a rogiatratloa
atandard 'rereglatration.'
The Brown bill would correct the raregiatratlon problem by
requiring tSVh to gathar the necaaaary InforBaticn over tha nest
aeveral year*. The anendaent la modeled on the California Birth
Defecta Preventtwi Act, (California rood and Agriculture Code
Section 13121 et eeg.). Which paaaed the California lagialature
with blpartiean eupport laat year and waa aigned by Republican
Governor George Deuknejian.
Under thla anendtient, tha EPA auat flret Identify data gapa
d by Google
for th* 600 actlv* IngradianCa. nw AdalnlaCrator auat lasu* th«
flrac Hat of 300 by July 1. 19B6, giving priority to (a) larg*
volua* poatlcldaa uaad on food, f«*d, or fiah, (b) poatlcldaa
with tha blggaat data gapa, and (c) paatlcldaa Which nay cauaa
nutaCiona. Tha aacond liat of 300 nuat ba laauad by July 1, 19S7.
Th« BPA would notify raglatranta on aaCh Hat that thay auat
conpiata tha nacaaaary taata within • raaonabla tlMa, not to
•sc*«d four yaara. six nootha latar, BPA would chack to aaa if
tha raglatrant had atartad tha taata and Mada aufficlant prograaa
to anaur* coaplatlon within 4 yaara. If it hadn'ti BPA would
contract with a lab to obtain tha nacaasary taat and bill tha
raglatrant if tha coapany wantad to contlnua uaa of tha
paatlclde. Thla ganaroua aehadula glvaa chanlcal conpanlaa 5-6
yaara froa thla aummar to aubalt haalth and aafaty atudias which
ahould hsva baan dona yaara ago, and allowa aapla tlaa for
langthy favdtng atudlaa. Which can taka 2-3 yaara. It alao
alBpliflaa EPA'a currant ayataid, which conbinaa "data call
noticaa' — which only notify conpanlaa of alaalng atudiaa—wlth
tha latar lasuanca of "ragiatration atandarda" — which Idantify
■laaing and Inadaquata atudiaa. Evan though paatlclda
raglatrants ara undar a legal ^ligation to fill tha data gapat
thay alt around and wait for tha sluggiah EPA to iaaua data call-
in noticaa and ragiatration atandarda, knowing thay can aafaly
Barkat potantially dangaroua paatloidaa in tha Baantlaa. Thua,
chaalcal coBpaniaa can play tha ragulatory ga«« to rasp profita
from Buapact chanicala for yaara bafora having to subalt taata.
Than thay can wait for BPA to hov* at Ita glacial pac« to
•valuata tha data and nova to cancal tha paaticlda.
d by Google
Th* bill alao r«qi]lr*a IPA to r*vek« •ny' tolvrue* or
•s*«ptian b**«d on *f«l«*> MialMadlng or Inaeearat*' teU.
During 1*76 th* rood uta Drag Mninlstration aiaaovar*d that aany
haalth and •afaty atndia* oonductad by Induatrtai Bto-Taat
Laboratortaa (XBT) war* baaad on fraudulant, fabrieatad or bob-
aslatant data. On April 9, 1»S4 a fadaral judga aaBtanettd thraa
high laval IBT official* to priaan tarHa for aub«lttlng
fraudulant data.
Ona would aspaot that any paatlelda approvad on tha baaia of
an IBT taat would ba puilad off tha Markat iNMadlataly panding
naw atndiaa, alnca EPA would hava no idaa whathar food raaldnaa
wara aafa. But BPA haa aliowad IBT-taatad paaticldaa to raaain
on food, daaplta tha fact that only 3t of tha IBT atndlaa ara
dafinltaiy valid, according to a Ratural Xaaourcaa Dafanaa
Council analyala of BPA figuraa. At laaat 90 paatieidaa
raglatarad with IBT data ara uaad on food, but BPA haa not
ravokad any of tha tolaraneaa baaad on IBT taata. Ondar tha
Brown rafora bill, BPA would hava to ravoka any ragtatration
baaad on unraliabla data whanavar such data waa ■atarial to tha
daciaion.
2. rat BILL WOULD PBBVBMT FUTURB COTAWIIIATIOII OP
Baaad on 6,000-7,000 aa«plaa oollactad on a ^otty baala,
BPA haa idantifiad 16 paaticldaa in tha groundwatar of 33 atataa.
but haa not ravaalad which coMMunltiaa hava eontaaiaatad
groundwatar. Haarly haif tha natioo'a population gata ita
drinking watar froM groundwatar and aany paopla ara Inoraaalngly
d by Google
Slaraad by chaalcals In th« v«t*r thay drink. Dnfortuiut«ly,
Mora avldanea of talncad groundwatar a|^>a«r* ragularly.
For «zaBpl*> In tha J^ril, 196S atudy by tlia Iowa DaparCaant
of Hatar, Air and Waata ManagaBanc, *8ynth«tlc Organic OoKpound
SaBpling Survay of Public Hatar Suppllaa,* aclantlatB found
paaclcldaa In 2B of TO aonltorad walla, rapraaantlng IS public
watar aoppllaa. nta atudy aanplad for 34 paacicldaa ooMBonly
uaad in Iowa and paatlcldaa detactad In aarllar atudlaa, and
found alz. Tha harUclda Atradna was dataotad In 3S.n of tha
watar auppliaa, outranking all othar aynthatlc organic coapouDds
and paatlcldaa. nta aaapllng alao ravaalad tha paatlcldaa
Bladai, LaaaOf Dyfonata, Dual, and Saneor. Tha atudy datactad
■ora paatlcldaa In ahallowar walla, raportlogt *Maithar tha
oceurrancaa of thaaa alz particular paatlcldaa, nor tha
ralationahlp batwaan thalr appaaranca and wall dapth la
■urprialng. Work conductad by tha Iowa Oaological Survay haa
ahown that tha aoat coaBonly uaad harblcldaa ara occurring in
groundwatar.* Concantratlona of thaaa paaticidaa rangad fro* .09
parta par billloo to 3. parta par billion, axcludtng ana city's
walla, now cloaad, which producad concantratlona of up to 13 ppb.
Iowa Oaological Survey atudlaa in northaaatam Iowa hava
found paatlctdaa in 70 to SOt of tha walla sajaplad. By
coBpariaon, tha April, 19B5 study raporta aoMaWhat lowar
pareantagaa of paaticlda centaalnatlon bacaua* tha Dapartaant took
only ona or two saapiaa par wall, which aay not hava baan
eollactad at tha approprlata tiaa to datacc all paaticidaa.
Study author Richard Kallay eoncludaai
d by Google
"Hhii* ccmcantrattons of contBBtncnt* d*t«ec«d
tn groundwAter are baiow icnown acut* and chronic
toitc lavala, th«ra Is ■ legitlaata ooncam fOr
public haalch. Thare ir a genarni lack of
Inforn.-i: f .J. - -gari?. _ ^.rc haalth affc.ta ralat*d to
hUBan ezpoauca for ciany of tha con-taalnan-ta found In
thia aurvay.
At the present time relatively unproCacCad
aqulfara are being affected by che contanlnanta found
In thla aurvay. However, if auch chanicals paraiat
In groundwater th«y will likely t>a tranaalttad to
daapar, generally nore protected, aquifers and thus
expose larger populations over longer periods of
time. Therefore, it is important that activitlaa be
undertaken to identify and eliminate tha sourcaa of
the contawlni'-'.CT :-.; :■■ ■ '; ;'.* ^aeouate detactton
of contaminants in the future.*
Tha disturbing Iowa study reflaeta reaulta found in other
atates. A racantly ralaaaed California legislacure study found
57 pesticides in 26 countlee. Th« potent carcinogen KDB haa bean
detected In Taiaa, California, Connecticuti HaaaaChusettaj
Georgia, South Carolina, Florida and Hawaii.
The Brown bill tacklea this problem by preventing fatuza
contaBinatlon of groundwater. Hhanevar BPA daterntnea that a
peaticlde haa contaninated groundwater because of agrioulturaX
uee. It Must move to cancel the peaticlde iinlaaa tha affaotad
atata develops and Inplenents a plan to prevent future
contaMinstion or tha raglatrant amende tha label to atop
additional contamination.
Ha adopted this approach for three reasons! First, onea
an aqulftar becomea contaminated it la prohibitively aspmiaiva and
difficult to clean up. Thus, while wa can't eliminate tha current
paatlcldaa which have already leashed down through the aolli wm
ahould at leaat try to prevent any further danaga. Second, tha
public eipects ita drinking water to be clean and will not aocapt
asaurancea from chanical companiaa that a 'safa' laval of
d by Google
p«Btieid«a can b« set for p«aticld«a in their wacar. nia
public*) demand for pure drinking water raats on Its
undcratandlng that we do not Xnow enougih about chronic health
hasard* of Boat peattcidea in drinking water to aet levels to
protect public health, particularly whan a water aupply has
tracea of several peaticldee. Hlatakes aada in aettlng any
contaMinant levels cannot be corrected later. Third, we believe
that label anendoents to ceetriet application to certain soil
types or geographic areaa can be effective in preventing further
leaching. The EPA has imposed such restrictions on an ad hoc
basis, but nust do so aore systematically. If the agency or
state adopts apptopriata aeasurss, we do not believe that a tough
approach to groundwater contamination would mean widespread
pesticide cancel Lationa.
The Congress must address this issue because EPA seams only
prepared to study the issue and occasionally ask for data.
3. THE BILL PREVEMTS REGISTRATIOM OF PESTICIDES WHICT CWJ8B
BIRTH PBTBCTS.
Pesticides which cause birth defects deserve strict
treatment tn FIPRA. in our society we place a higih value on
ansuring that pregnant women and their unborn children are not
exposed to substances which may cause birth defects,
miscarriages, stillbirths, infertility or sterility. But
under the current language of PIFRA, EPA can approve peatcidea which
cause reproductive damage. But why should we accept the use of a
relatively anall group of teratogenic pesticides when acceptable
aitarnativea avlst? How many daforaed or dead newborns baXance
d by Google
out th* bciMtlta of ona p«aticid*7
Th* California Dapartaant of Agrtcultura haa rao«ntly
raiaaaad a liat of 13 pot«nClaily taracoganic paatieldaa. 4 of
which hava baan cancallad or withdrawn {'Balactad P*aticidaa For
Which Thara Bava Baan Soma Concarna About a Taratoganic
Potantial.- Much 36, 1985). EPA dacidad cx> bu 2. 4, 5-T Mainly
bacauaa of lea taratoganic affacta, but waitwd until it had
avidanca of birch dafacta in huaana bafora acting, avan tbough
laboratory wtiaal data had indicatad caratoganlc potantial y*ara
befora. Wa do not baliava that BPA ahouid wait for childran to
•tart auffaring birth d*facta bafora taking action.
Th« propoaad ehanga in the law would pravant th*
Mninlstratar froa ragistarlng or raragiatarlng a paatlcida that
had baan ahown to cauaa a ataeiatically aignificant advaraa
•(face on parantal raproducttva perforaanca and tta* growth and
davalopaant of offapring aa datarminad by tha Chronic haalth
affact data aubntttad undar saction 3(c)(3) or othar ralavant
sclantiflc avidanca. Tha ehanga would also raqutra tha
Admlniatrator to cancal paatieldaa that causa raproducttva
KPA naed not find that workers or conaunars hava baan
azpoaad to any particular dose of the pasGlclda In their food or
workplae*. A decade of aspariance with attanpts to reduce
aspoaure haa danonatrated that consumers and workara oannot
dapand on those control* to reduce SKposur* to taratoganic
pestleidas — particularly sine* it takes only ona ssposur* to a
paatlcida at an aariy ataga of pregnancy to produce tragic
d by Google
4. THE BILL STREMULIHES THE CUMBBRSOHE CAHCBUATIOB PKOCgga
Th« procedural labyrinth laading to cancallation of a
p«aticida which causes unreasonable adverse effects on nan or the
•nvironu*nt can take ten years. Vhile EPA moves through Its
absurdly convolutad process, consumers continue to suffer
eiposur* from dangerous pesticides. In addition, EPk's
credibility goss downhill when the press reports th« nany delays.
For exaapte. The National Cancer Institute identified BDB aa a
potent carcinogen in 1974, but BP& did not nake a decision to ban
the chemical until 19B4 after states forced the agency's hand by
starting to remove Era-contaninated producte fron the shelves.
Consider sons of the steps Industry can use under current
law and practice to delay cancellatloni
1. Petarnlnation of Significant Evidence of Onreaaonable
RisKsi The araseley-mien Aaeodiiient. When EPA recetvaa
information that a pesticide nay be unsafe, it cannot even give
that pesticide a Special Review (the Rebuttable Presuwptlon
Against Registration (RPAR) or 'special review* process) until It
has a validated test or other significant evidence raising
prudent concerns of unreasonable risks. This restriction was
placed on EPA In 1978 by the ao-called Gcaastey-Kllen anendnent.
2. Pre-Speclal Review Rebuttal By Industry. While the
requirement of a validated test may aeem reasonable, PIFRA
legislative history aleo requires BPA to notify a registrant
privately before placing a chemical in RPAR. BPA has read the
this provision to require It to give the registrant an
opportunity to rebut the evidence that EPA is relying on before
d by Google
it InttlBtaa tha Sp«:lal Raviaw. Thus, at tha pra-RPAR atag*.
which can Gaka yaara, BPA oftan hoLda a protractad aarlaa of
naatlnga or aschangaa corraapondanca with Induatry
rapraaantativaa-
3. Spacial Rawlaw proeaaa. Spaclai raviaw ia an astra
procadural atap craatad by EPH to atudy the riaka and banafita of
a paatlcida bafora >oving to cancel it. EPH conaldara banafita
again in tha caneallacion hvaiing Icaaif. Unfortunataly,
•^cial raviaw takaa an averaga of 2-4 yaara and up to 7 yaara>
During thia tina, KfK praparas four Poaition Oocuaaata (PD 1-4)
which analyze the riaka and benefits of tha peacicida. There ia
no way to predict If and whan BPK wi tl iaaue any Poaition
Document -
4. Analyala of Impact on Agriculture. Before iaautng a
notice of intent to cancel, the statute direct* the AdMlnietrator
to coneider the inpact *on production and pricae of agricultural
cOBModitiae, retail food pricea, and otherwise on tha
agricultural econony.'
5. Referral to the Deparwnt of Agrlcultuta. <0 daya
before making a notice of intent to cancel public, tha
Administrator nuat provide a copy of tha notice and tha EPA
analyaia of the impact on Che agricultural econony, and aak for
6. Bafarral to SeiantHio Advlaory Panel. Under the aaina
tina frana, BPA nust also eubmlt ita proposed action to the
Scientific Advisory Panel for comnant on the impact on health and
the environment and the quality of EPA scientific analyaea.
d by Google
7. Announciaaiit al Motloa ot_ Intwit to C«nc*l. Th« EPA
than tssu** it* notie* of intent to «ane«l th* pastleide, which
■ay b«con« [iii<ii 30 daya latar if no adversely affected peraoo
raqueatB a hearing.
9. Bequeet tor Hearing, lui adversely affected person haa
30 days to request a hearing. The United States Court of Appeals
for the 0>C> Circuit in the Chlorobencllate case, Bnvironnenta 1
Osfenae Pund, Inc. v^ Costle, held that envtronnental groups and
other interested nambers of the public have no right under PtFRA
to request a hsarlng when a notice of Intent to cancel does not go
far enough. This allows EPK to make aweetheart deals at tha end
of the special review process, shuting the public out of the real
daci a ionipaking .
9. Hearing is Held. A cancellation hearing can take a-4
years. It is essentially a trial-type proceeding, where parties
raise evidence, offer expert wltnaaaea, take depositions, conduct
cross-examination, and can ask the Hsarlng Examiner to issue
subpoenas to coapel taetlmony to produce documents. The question
of the pesticlds's risks and benefits Is rsconsidered ones
10. Referral to the national Acadeaiy of Selencea. Upon the
request of a party to the hearing and when the Hearing ENawiner
thinks it Isnecessary or desirable, he can refer "relevant
questions of anientlflc fact* to the National Academy of
Sciences. The HAS must then convene a panel to consider the
aclentlflc questions and report back to the Hearing Examiner
within 60 days.
d by Google
11. Pinal D*ct«lon of th* Miiilnl«trator. Within M daya of
the coMplatlon of th* hanrlng. ch« Mnltiatratoc nakaa hla final
dactalon whathar or not to cancel the paatlcld*.
It Is bad enough thdt theae tortuoua proceduraa govmm tlM
cancallatlon of paatlcUlAa, but thay also apply whan EPA wanta to
ohan^a tha nH^ni.f Icrttlon of th.i [Wttlolila to reatrictad uaa or
.ir-.lar a modlf icttlon of a pesttclile'a label or packaging. Thua,
thaaa procedural roadblr>ckfl -tct am n inhstAnttal dlatneanclva
agalnat avan maXing minor label changes.
The Brown reforni bill would Improve the cancallatlon proeasa
In six ways. First, it would rapaal the Grasslay Allan
paatlcida when a Bubatantl-41 <]ii.)«tLon oC safety ailata. Thla
should b« tha thrashhold teat that InttlaCea a public haarlng.
The dece r 01 i nation of whether riaks outweigh banatits should ba
mada In that hearing. Second, a clCiEan would have an equal
right to industry i:<-> re'iuest 4 hearing. Third, tha cancallatlon
haarlnga would be simplified while retrtinlng fair due proeasa for
all. Rather than a trial-type proceeding, EPA would conduct a
hearing without cross-aiaininitlon or depositions, and would have
discration to permit oral testimony. However, all partlaa would
have an opportunity ti> prt-sent written tsstinony and argumanta
and written rebuttal tavtimony. Fourth, each phase of tha
hearing would ba completed under rsasonnbLa daadlinas. Plfth,
the Hearing Examiner would not make referrals to tha HAS. Tha
EPA has rarely availed ItsslC of this time-consuming and
expensive procedure, and HAS aubmiaalona hava had little
infiuancs on the outcome. Last, changes In labaLa or
d by Google
cl«*a If i cation would ba aada by notic* and co»m«nt rulanaklng
rath«r than through thaae csnoallation procaduras.
If* alBO not* that H.k. 3482 contains ■□«• poaltiv* raviaiona
to th* cancallation procaaa that daaarva car«ful attention. Th«
EPA haa takan an approach analogous to tha paatlcid* raforn bill
tfhlch wa plan to atudy In datatl.
5. THE BILL RBQUIRES BBTTBB BOTIPICAriOM OF POMIOM KXPORtS
AWP.STOPB IWPOBT OF POOD WITH RgSIDUBe OP BAHMBD PgSTICIDBS.
K Harris poll conductad In January. 19B4 on attlcudaa toward
food aafaty r«v«al«d that the public ranks pastlclda reslduas aa
the (1 hasard in food. In tha poll, conducted before the Baasive
publtelty about BOB, 17t of th* public said psatlcldes and
herbicides were a serious food hacard. tieatloldee outranked all
other concerns about food additives, pr*a*rvativ«a, aalt,
choleste roll sugar, and ertlfieal coloring by 30 percantag*
In a Roper poll conducted in P*bruary, 1964, S9t of the
public said that govemnent should regulate peaticides aore
strictly and only 7t said there was coo auch regulation, niese
poll raaults dramatically illustrate the public's Inalatenc* that
its food not be contasilnated with excessive paaticide residuee.
The Canpaign for Pesticide Reform legislation would taCkle
this Issue in two major ways. First, it would prohibit imports
of food crops with pesticide reeidues excaedirtg tolerance l«vela
foe cancelled, suspended and voluntally withdrawn peaticldea, end
would only allow a tolerance to remain In place for auch a
pesticide when residues unovoldably paralat in th* environment.
d by Google
Thla provlaion would alinlnata EPA's ilaplorabl« practie* of
leaving tol«rane«s on tha booka for yaara afcar a paatlcida la
off tha aarkat. How c«n BPA parmit caaldua* on food whan It haa
cancallad tha uaa of n paaclclda? For aunpla, EPA fallad to
ravoita tolarancaa for tha cancallad paatlcldaa DOT, TOB, Aldrln,
Olaldrln, and DBCP, among othera; laat nonth BPA finally propoaad
to eancal thaaa tolarancaa aftar rapaaced proalaaa to do ao.
DDT was eaneallad tn 1972. Tha only axcuaa for ratainlng a
tolaranca aftar tha paatlctda haa baan caneallad la If caalduaa
unavoidably paraiat in tha anvlronaant. In which eaaa tha
tolaranca should ba raducad to tha lavai that raaalna in tha
anvironMant. In that caaa, faraara in Masico would not ba abla
to Intantionally usa DOT on food going to tha Unitad Stataa with
inpunity bacauaa raaiduaa would axcaad tha tolaranca laval. Thia
procacta ABerlcan conaumara and iwarlcan farnara who ara haraad
by foraign producara who ub« caneallad paatlctdaa.
Tha aacond major amandnanc which protacta conauaara froa
dangaroua imported food raaiduaa raquiraa battar notification to
foraign govarnaenta of U.S. axports of caneallad, auapandad, or
raatrlctad uaa paatictdaa. Thia provtalon raguiras U.S.
paatlcida manufacturaca to notl^ EPA of thair axporta of auch
paaticidas annually. EPA would then provide tha foraign country
with a detailed aumnary of tha health hasarde of tha peaticldea
and tha availability of any regulatory or aclantiflc
information. Tha foreign country would than decide Vhathar to
raquaat the aiport of the peaticida and provide EPA with a
deacription of ita raglatration and labeling raquiraaenta.
d by Google
procoduraa to •ducate pasticida uaars In aafe handling,
trnnaportationi nppllcttlon arul dlspoaal, and how the country
concrola rasiduca to neat U>8. tolaraneaa, including raaulea of
any rasldua tasts conducted over the paat two yeara.
Thla ■ystcm of informad consant will provide foreign
countriaa with tha tnfornatton thay need to decide whether to
import a cancelled, auspended, or rascrictad peatictde and
provide EPA with information on whether foreign countries use any
procaduraa to ensure chat their crops do not excaad U.S.
tolerances.
*■ THE BILL GIVES LOCAL COMMUNITIge A RIGHT TO KMOW ABOUT
PESTICIDEB PRODUCED IM THEIR MglGHBORHOODB
People in towns and citiae across tha country h«va started a
novement to gain the right-to-hnow about hasardous chenicals
produced In their areas. EfCorta by atata and local right-to-
know groups to enact such laws have nat with opposition froM the
charatcal industry and, where anactad, have baan challenged in
court. Thua, Congraaa ahould aatabliah a federal right-to-know
for paaticidas
The pesticide reform bill would require pesticide
inanufacturars to provide tha EPA and local connunitiaa with tha
following inforioaelon, aoma of which la currently on file with
EPA but has not been made publtci
(A) the identity of active ingradianta and intamediary
chemicals produced at tha plant;
(B) a summary of the paaticide's haalth hacarda and
envlronraantal riska;
d by Google
(C) ch« locAtion of th« conpany'i pasttctda plant* In Ui«
Unleed Scatea and abroad. Including information on plant
proilnlty to r«ali1«ntlal natghborhooda and populatad sraaa and
any avacuation plana the company haa davalopad.
In addition to thes* hlghlightad amendmenta, tha bill Baka*
■any othar intportant chan^aa that hava baan anphaalza* by other
witnaaaas. For axanple, the laglalacion raqulraa tha BPA to
evaluate tha aafety of long- nag lac ted Inert ingredianta and list
Inert ingredlenta on paaticlde label*. It lift* chilling
raatrictions on pear review and publication of health and aafaty
data, require* co«nercial peaticlde applicator* to keep apray
recorda, clariflaa the peaticlde company'* duty to dlacloee
idv*r*e aftecta data to tha BPA, and tighten* conditional
regiatration and special local need* exenption*. It also
requirM EPA to establlah a vorker protection prograw, allows
citieens to sue "lo enforce the law, require* better technology to
prevent peetlcide drift and requires EPK to eat standards for
indoor eKpoaure to paatlcldea. Finally, to increaae CPK'e
resources, it repeale the indemnification aysten and requtraa
regietration f«es>
Hr. Chairman, we believe that now ie the tine to act on
pesticide reform. In the last year, the news the public haa
received about peeticlde* has been all bad, from em to Bhopal to
stories about the dangers of chemical lawns. He will continue to
have shook* of other pesticides pulled off the market at short
notice and more public health dlsaatsrs unless the law is
changed. This subcommittee haa an opportunity to play a historic
role in leading the way to modernise PIPRA. Me stand ready to
help in any way we can. Thank you.
db,Google
TESTXMOm OK FZPSA
by
BRIAH TDSMEB
Diraotor, Laglslation fi Sconcvle Policy
InduBtrlal Union Dapartiunt (AFL-CIO)
b«f era tbo Bou>« Agricultura CoBBltta*
Subceamittsa on Daportnant OparaCiona, Buaarch and
Foraign Agricniltura, May 21, 1985
Th* Industrial Dnlon Dapartsant (AFL-CIO) strongly
Bupporta tha packaga of aaandaanta to FIPSA (Tba Fadaral
Inaactlcida, Fungicida and Rodanticido Act) about to bo
introducad by Cengraasnan Gaorgs Brown (D-CA) . ifbila va
support all of Rap. Brown'a prepeaala, our taatiaony today
vlll focus on ttao naod for a fadaral coaaunlty
rlgbt-to-know for postlcidss.
Horkars aro particularly vulnarabla to tba failuras of
FIFRA to adaquataly protact public baaltb in tba uaa and
production of dangarous pasticida chsaicals. Horkars do
not just occasionally usa a paaticido product, ttaay oo>a
into contact vith tbaaa cbanloals on a daily basis.
mfertunataly, as a rssult of fatal aocidanta in this
country and tba tragic disastar in Bhopal, India, workars
ara baeonlng aora awara and laas confidant tbat tba fadaral
govamaant and tba cbaaical induatry ara adaquatoly
protacting tbair baaltb during routina eporatlens and In
caso of accidants.
Tbara is a dangarous lack of Infonatlon on tba taaalth
bazarda of tba naaaiva quantitlas of pasticida chsaicals
baing aanufacturad and usad in tba Unltad Statas. All too
fraquantly tba public and tba praaa only bagin to
d by Google
454
focuB on tb« dangari poMd by cxposur* to Industrial
chralcals and p«Btlcld«s after tarribl* tragadlaa ~
tragadlaa that could and aheuld ba pravantad. Tha now
Infaaoua caaa of tha powarful carclnogan EDB (athylana
dlbroalda) sadly provaa tha paint. Although unions had
struggled in vain for yaars to taava EDB adaquataly
ragulatad in tha worJ^laca, it vas not until EDB started
shoving up in caka ai^cas and braakfast csraals that public
opinion finally forcad action by EPA and OSHA. For Bora
than two yaars bafcra tha EDB OSHA atandard vas tightanad,
EPA and OSHA knav that for avary 1,000 vorkars axposad at
tha laval of tha antiquatad OSHA standard for EDB
contaminatad anvlronaanta, 999 of thaa would davalop cancar
and dia as a rasult of that axpoaura at tha "approvad"
laval.
Soaa stataa and localitias bava succassfully passad
rigbt-te-knov lawsi otbar atataa and local coaxunltias hava
fallad in siailar sfforts bacauss of strong opposition from
tha chavlcal industry and, tAara thay hava baan auceassful
it has oftan baan tha rasult of actions in tha courta.
This bill astablisbas a critically naadad fadaral
rlgbt-to-knov wbiota vill coaplaaant axiating provisions in
tha Claan Air Act, Claan Hatar Act and Sasourca
Conaarvation and Racovary Act.
saetion 7 of Finu would ba axandad to raquira all
pastlcida produeara in tha U.S. to subait to BPA;
1. Tha typa and amounta of paaticidaa and
intsrmadiary chaalcals which ara produced annuallyr
d by Google
455
2. A ■ummary o£ tha health and anvironmantal risks
posad by thasa chsHlcala and an aasassBant at thalr
potantial for public axposurs;
3. Tha location of all paaticida nanufacturing plants
in ttaa O.S. and abroad;
4. Information on tha proxiaity of tha plants to
populatad araaai
5. Flans for avacuation in tha avant of a haalth
asargancy, and
6. Infomation on tha typa, quantity, uaaa and
dastlnation of paaticidss baing axpertad frea tha U.S. to
othar countriaa.
Ha connand this subcoaaittaa for holding thass hsarings
to focus on tha waaknassas of tha nation's aajor paaticida
law. Ha urga tha Conalttsa and tha Congrass to adopt a
fadaral right-to-knov and tha othar amandaanta which Bap.
Brown vlll soon introduca in ordar to raisa tha laval of
protaetion of public haalth. Both public and workar
concarn ara at a vary high laval as a rasult of tha EDS
crisis and tha Shopal disaatar; this is tha yaar for
ccBprahansiva FIFRA rafoms.
d by Google
STATEHBMT OP JAT FELDMAN
NATIONAL COORDINATOR, NATIONAL COALITION
KAINST THE MISUSE OF PESTICIDES
BEFORE TBE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OFEKATIONS,
RESEARCH AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
MAY 21, 1985
Ml. ChalEnan and nembers of the BubcomKlttee. I tut Jfty
Feldman, National Coordinator of tbe National Coalition A^ainet
tbe HiBuee of Pesticides [HCAMF] . ncamp was f oined In 1981
after a secies of three public hearings on pesticide use and
Disuse were held across the country. Since that tiae. our
inenbership has grown to approxinately 300 local cooHunlty
organizations across the country. Ouc nemberfihip spans 49
states, tbe District of Colunbia, Canada, Mexico, as well as
other countries around the world.
I would like to introduce you to a typical person in our
coalition, but that Is not an easy task because the range of
people involved vary so widely, including all age groups,
backgrounds and political persuasions. There are those who
consider themselves victims of pesticide misuse, having been
exposed through pesticide use , or drift, or contamination of
their home by a structural pesticide application. These people
are joined by others such as farmers, genetic toxicologists,
cancer researchers, former chemical company scientists, former
regulators with state and federal agencies (some currently
employed as well) , physicians and attorneys.
d by Google
467
Because of these people's experiences and knowledge, tfaey
have joined togetber to impcove the control of pesticides
through Inptoved laws and they have sought to pconote
alternative peat managenent strategies, such as Integrated Pest
Hanagement (IPH) and nonchemclal pest management, which reduce
or ellDinate pesticide use while Improving protection against
pests. The major statute at Issue for these people is the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentlcide Act (FIFBA) .
Our story is not a new one to the Agriculture Committee. In
1981, we were fortunate to have the opportunity to assist this
subcommittee in Identifying witnesses to tell Congress theii
story. People then and for this hearing have traveled long
distances to describe to you tfaeli firsthand experiences with
the hazards o£ the materials over which you have statutory
control. People brought to your attention issues of health
hazards, damaged crops, drift, ground water contamination, lack
of worker protection, poor training of applicators and
diminishing returns from pesticide use due to resistance.
What you have heard and will hear during the course of
these hearings in 1985 does not describe a situation that is
new, just one that is worse than last time we appeared before
this subcommittee. The victims of pesticides who call us on a
daily basis cry out and are now, in larger and larger numbers,
demanding adequate protections from pesticide exposure on the
farm and in their homes. People want controls and assurances
d by Google
that tbie subcoiunittee cannot new offer then. Including
protection from peBtlclde-contaminBted aicr water and food. As
a leault, these people have taken the pesticide issue to their
town councils, city balls, state legislatures and, where
possible, the courts. Clearly, the protection emanating frov
this subcoanlttee and the Congress is npt sufficient. The
deficienclea exist in many areas which I would like to
dlBCUSB.
Keak standards Lead to Buun Bncdsbip
The public interest concern is not an abstract concern witb
nuBbeis. A January, 1981 report Issued by the Council on
Environnental Quality, fhminai Hagards fo mmmn Reproductlop
cites various studies of male and female workers exposed to
pesticides. These studies report impotence, chromosome
aberrations, Infertility, miscarriages and other adverse
effects on reproduction. , A University of Iowa study (1) in
1982 found that Iowa farmers faced greater risks of six types
of cancer than city dwellers. According to the researchers,
the cancer rate is an occupational hazard of farming not
related to smoking and Is confirmed by other studies around the
world.
In addition, this subcommittee is well aware that
pesticides in use are not adequately tested. Your own staff in
1982 documented the lack of long term health and safety studies
d by Google
Buppocting the nuijorlty of peatlciae products cegisteced. (2)
Of inportant note is the fact that despite these pcoblenB
and unknowns, exposure to pesticides is widespread and
growing. The public is routinely exposed to pesticides thiougb
the food supply. A 1983 study by the Natural Resources Defense
Council found that 44 percent of the fresh fruit and vegetables
they sampled contained residues of 19 different pesticides,
Pocty-two percent of the samples with detectable pesticide
residues contained residues of more than one pesicide; several
sanples bad four different pesticides present. (3) A study on
Long island. New York found that of the 1,1CX) hones surveyed 33
percent bed bones contaminated with chlocdane (used for termite
control] . (4) EPA has now detected 16 pesticides as having
contaminated ground water in 23 states. (5) Conmunity spray
programs for mosquito control and other pests are widespread as
is forestry and right-of way spraying. Chemical lawn services
have been growing. One such company, Chenlawn, according to
newspaper reports has increased annual sales from $87 million
in 1979 to $227.7 million in 1964 with 1.3 nillion custoners in
42 states and Canada. (6) Tbls, on top of normal household use
of inadequately tested pesticide products, suggests alarmingly
high rates of pesticide exposure,
Tbe Reed for s Statutory Seaponse
Falling an adequate response from EPA on a host of issue
d by Google
over the last 12 years since the federal pesticide control law
took its cucient focn, it is our position that statutocy steps
must be taken now to bbbucc adequate public protection froH
pesticides. In response to a pesticide problen out of controlf
we endorse legislation that has been drafted and we undecstand
will be introduced soon in the House and Senate which addresses
el<|ht areas of concern and wouldi (i) establish full public
disclosure and conuDunity right- to- know; (li) require conplete
scientific health and safety testing of all pesticides on the
market by a date certain; (iii) prevent pesticide-induced biith
defects; (Iv] increase protection for workers and the public
generally; (v) streamline EPA review procedures to assure
timely regulatory response to identified problems; (vi)
establish provisions to prevent pesticide conteni nation of
ground water; (vii) strengthen international provisions
governing the exportation of pesticides and residues on
imported food; and, (vill) increase EPA revenues through
registration fees.
Itac Specifics of the Beform Proposal
Nhlle It Is not terribly difficult to see the generalized
pesticide problem that puts the public at signification risk, I
would like to explore some of the specifics of reform
legislation with additional background Information on the
need.
d by Google
I. Pnblic Disclosncc and coMKUiity Right-ro-Xnow
He have today a serious breach of the American people's
trust in the 0. S. Environnental Pcotectlon Agency, D. S.
chenicsl corporations and. In fact, the operation of the
federal pesticide control law. The public does feel misled by
the Darketing of chemical products that It assumed were fully
tested and determined to be safe by the government. Those who
have been harmed have asked questions on health effects to
which there are no answers. And yet the ability of these
people to make public use of available health and safety data
supporting product registrations are stifled. Those wanting to
know how EPA arrived at decisions based on manufacturer
generated safety data are precluded from doing this in a public
forun. And while people are told to trust the BPA and chemical
manufacturers, some inside the Agency continue to this day to
point out serious deficiencies in Agency reviews of safety
studies, maintaining that the "trust conferred on this Agency
may have been misplaced. '
He implore the subcommittee to not only investigate recent
allegations of faulty EPA reviews which I will discuss below,
but consider the importance of allowing the public to review
and discuss, without FlPRA-lmposed constraints, all matters
pertaining to the health and safety studies on which EPA makes
its critical toxic pesticide use decisions.
d by Google
A. Bogus EPA Keriaws Contiana va UMtoElla Safaty
DaclaloDB
I would like to provide you with an astounding exa>EQ.c of
the extrenely inportant need for openness in Uie area of BM
decision saklng. On Narch 20, 1985, an efa staff person
circulated an Internal neno In the Agencyi which foe the first
tine, to ly knowledge, disclosed that EPA continues, to this
day, to make decisions based on bogus 'cut and paste' reviews
of industry health and safety studies, quoting verbatia and
without attribution registrants' own evaluations. This
Bubconnlttee is aware that the 'cut and paste' scandalf
according to the Battelle Columbus Laboratories' partial audit,
between 1979 and 1962. After the audit was released. Assistant
Adnlnistcatoc for Pesticides and Toxic Substances, John Hoore,
D. V. H. , wrote in a letter to Congress, 'I trust with the
subaiBSion of this . . . that we can put the issue of 'cut and
paste' behind us."
While we are aware that this scandal took place, "we
continue to be plagued by this apparently total failure to
rectify what had gone wrong,' according to the March 20, 1985
The inpliCBtlons of all this is somewhat unbelievable. It
now appears that at least one of only six pesticides in tba
United States that enjoys the status of being fully regiatcred
d by Google
by tbe EPA — netalaxyl — has been subjected to a bogus
•valuation by the Agency, in dlacussing tbis aatter, i leave
out any reference to the individuals Involved since this
exaaple is being caised to illustrate to tbe subcouaittee that
the aysten in place is not adequately protecting the public, I
will, however, be happy to provide the subcommittee with a copy
of the nemo for further and detailed review. The BPAer's aeoo
States,
In a aenorandun that I wrote . . . April 30th, 1984
I had . . .demonstrated . . . that when tbe Hazard Eval-
uation Division had been expressly and expllcity direct-
ed to carry out a full review of the toxicity for
that [the fungicide metalaxyi] product (following an
Initial 'cut-and-psEte* and otherwise unacceptable
review) even then the reviewers there elected to have
reference only to the Kiiniinjiry prepared by the
registrants ratbei than address the detailed data
contained In the entire report. Because of this, a
number of important aspects of the safety of netala^^l
were again glossed over. With reference to yet another
"cut-and-paste" review for that same product, metalaxyl
-the one-year dog etti^y cactied out at International Re-
search and Development Corporation- I have no knowledge
that this had been rereviewed by anyone even though I
had demonstrated that this too had caused important
safety aspects to be similarly "miEsed* by EPA.
Also In that memorandum ... I indicated how a
number of persons both within the ePA, including the
Administrator himself, as well as others outside the
Agency had been misled on the impact of the unacceptable
manner in which health effects of pesticide products are
being evaluated in the Hazard Evaluation Division, (p. 2)
Contained in the March 20, 1965 memo Is also reference to
another review of a different pesticide, the insecticide
ozanyl, also the subject of a bogus review. In this casa, tbe
BPAer charges that EPA's
d by Google
coBBents that tbere was 'an independent evaluation' by
*tbe initial TOX Branch review" (presusably 'lnd«pead«nt'
of the registrants] and that the 'evidence' fox this
was the fact that the review In question 'included an
analysis of the lung tuBor data and noted no pesticld*-
celated ef facts.'
. . .If anyone can denonstcatc to Be exactly wfaer* In that
review there ie any lefeiancc whatsoever to lung tuBotSf
I would be willing not to characterise that asaectioa
as a fabrication out of whole cloth, as a bcuan and total
falsehood . . . The risks to the consoaecs of. this coootiy
apparently can be dieiegncded in this entirely w«itoa and
rccklass Banner, so long that no one in the Basaid
Evaluation Division can be thought of as having acted
in an iapropec way, and it saeaingly does not aattec even
if It takes outright lies to achelve that end. (pp. 9-10)
These are only two examples of a systea that subjects the
public to potential long tars hazards sncb as cancer. Tbe
pcoblcBB are not liBited in scope because froa evaluations such
as these EPA has established 'acceptable' consuBption rates In
the fora of food residues, proposed final tolerances and isstwd
eaergcncy esen[AionB from food tolerances. All these decisions
directly affect public and user exposure to a chcaical thatf
apparently, was reviewed inadequately.
Hot only are we asked to accept this as officials adait
that. 'Little has been done at EPA over the last year to
rectify the 'cut and paste" problea. ' He are also asked to
consuBe these pesticides in our food without the freedoB to
discuss the data that allowed thea to get onto the asrket and
rsaaln on the marketl
This society's health should not depend on the diligence
and honesty of one EPA staff person to push the systea and Bake
d by Google
it work through scathing msnoB, although the public owes a debt
of gratitude to the work of this Individual and others who see
It as theli public duty to get this type of Information before
a bearing such as this. Fron a policy point of view, we
desperately need to open up all the Information regarding
testing to public scrutii^.
Because of the overwhelning public good associated with the
release of health and safety test inforraatlon on pesticide .
products, we urge you to repeal Section 10(g) of the Act.
B. Public Disclosnre of Health and Safety Test Data
Rather than encouraging openness and public discussion of
matters such as those outlined above, current procedures in
place at BPA Inpede open discussion of pesticide health and
safety data. NCAHP has an historical connitnent to ensuring
public disclosure and discussion of the underlying health and
environmental information used by EPA to register products.
Although the Suprene Court in gyckg^phpys x. yppaaptP ctmpfpy
(7) resolved the constitutionality of releasing pesticide
health and safety data to the public, tbe procedures do not
facilitate pulblc use of this material once released because
FIFRA forbids tbe disclosure of such data to multi-national
pesticide producers.
The data release instructions in place currently will have
a chilling effect and seriously curtail important scientific
d by Google
466
and public debate on pesticide product safety. He believe,
tbat neither the public not EPA and State regulatois ace aecved
by the kind of secrecy which will result fr<n tta« the cucrant
statutory language in FIFRA, Section lOtg) and EPA
interpretation which instructs data recipients to consult legal
counsel prior to using th« public InCocmation. He have already
baen told by industry ceprasentativas, given their
interpretation of Section 10(g], that disclosure of nore than
one or two itens of raw data would constitute grounds for legal
action by EPA or a pesticide manufacturer. Clearly, this ia
not what Congress had in mind when adopting Section 10 of
FIFRA.
C. Access to Pesticide Hanufacting and Dse information
Adequate access to Inforaafclon on pesticide nanufactuclng
and underlying health and safety data is central to the
decision making process guiding both individual and coasianity
choices on the range of pest management strategies. In light
of the Bhopal, India disaster, the public has become especially
sensitized to dangerous Industries that may be operating in
their comDunitlefi and expect an accounting of what is used so
that individual assessinents and personal choices can be made,
information is also needed on the distribution of pesticides in
commerce according to agricultural, household and other use so
tbat hazards can be monitored.
d by Google
D. ' tract ingcvdiantB
Despite th« fact that the eo-called Inect oc eeciet
ingredients In pesticide pcoducts may be biologically and
cbeaically activei tbey enjoy a regulatory status that pernits
widespread public exposure without long tccD health and safety
and ecological effect reviews and public disclosure on product
Ingredient statements. In October, 1964, BPA identified 85
'toxicologically significant' inerts of sone 1000-1200 chemical
inert ingcedients contained in approximately 49,000 pesticide
foimulations, (8)
The second class status of inerts in terms of being
subjected to the full regulatory review and disclosure
provisions of PIFRA Is not warranted in light of the hazardous
nature of many. Those toxicologically significant pesticides
should be subjected to testing and disclosure requirements
similar to the active ingredients.
ZI. Require Coaplete Scientific Bealtb and safety Testing
of Ul Pesticides on the Macket Hittain a Date Cettaln
K. Tbe Slow Fmcc of Rereglstcation
At the heart of any discussion of pesticide safety is the
status of what we know and do not know about the pesticide
products in question. Central to the discussion, of course Is
tbe registration status of the product and all that It means.
d by Google
It 1b quite pOBBlble that BFA In 1985 hBB actually
lecegiBtered lui peaticideE depending on your definition of
'[ereglBtratlon. " Regardless of ttae way th« tera
"cereglstiatlon* 1b being used by the Agency, we know fioai
reports of the studies supporting the registration of one
— raetalazyl (dlBCUssed above) — of the sis that EPA says are
completely reregistered, that not everyone in the Agency vould
agree with the official number. Nevertheless, given the fact
that there are 600 basic active ingredients requiring
reregistratien, the reragistratlon program has not and la not
moving with adequate speed.
It is very well known to BPA officials and the O.S.
Congress that there exist thousands of hours of Congressional
and Agency hearinge, numerous D,S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) ceportSf many coaprehensive Congressional reports, a
National Academy of Sciences study and dozens of oonCiraed
contaaination and poisoning cases that tell the tale loud and
clear.
The D.S, General Accounting Office in 197S randomly
selected 36 peBtlcldes with established tolerances and In thetc
report. Federal ppstlclde Regletrat).op Pfpgrpmi Is It
Protecting the Public and the Environment Adequately frna
Pesticide Hagards? (9) found that: seven lacked cancer and
reproduction studies, fourteen lacked blith defect studies,
andt twenty-three lacked mutation studies. EPA responded by
d by Google
saying, "GAO's crltlclns are well-founded, and we ate very bocIi
concciiwd atiout tolerance- setting ptobleas. '
The question of health and safety data validity was first
brought to light in 1976 by the staff of the EubcomBlttea on
Adninistcative Fcactice and Froceduce of the D. G. Senate
Judiciary Coonnittee. Senator Kennedy introduced the report,
entitled, Thf Knglromm-nfl Protection Agency and the
Regulation of PeatlcideB (lo) saying, 'Apparently EPA Bade a
conscious policy decision sooetine In 1973 not to evaluate the
safety testing data submitted by pesticide nanufacturers. Tba
record behind this decision Is not entirely clear. Hhat is
clear, however, la that EPA had no sound basis upon which to
assume that data 15 > 20 or 25 years old was generally good and
reliable.'
A 1980 D. S. General Accounting Office report, entitled
nt-TayB ami nnriiBOlved Isbubb Plague Mew P«»«t<cid* Prnt:ect<on
prograitif (11) Indicates that the deficiencies outllnad in the
earlier 1975 report had not Inproved. The report states, "Our
1975 report to Congreae stated that the public Is exposed daily
to many pesticides which are not supported b^ aninal and
environnental safety studiea. The situation has not
improved,' The report continues, 'According to EPA officials,
key teste required under current EPA regulations have not been
performed for many of the 514 registration standards. Included
are long-term {up to 3 years) animal feeding atudles which show
d by Google
whether a pesticlds causes cbtonic effect, such ss cancer oe
birth defects, in anlnals. An official told us that BFA needs
the results of these tests to nake even pEellninaty decisions
concerning a pesticide's safety and whether it should be
rereglsteted. '
Finally, two recent EeEM>EtB indicate bow little is known
about pesticides' health effects. The D.S. Bouse of
Representatives' subconwittee on Department Operations,
Research and Foceiqn Agriculture Staff Report in 19B2 cited
above leveala dlsconforting figures Indlcatlngi <i) between 79
and S4 percent of the pesticide products on the narket have not
been adequately tested for the capacity to cause cancert (ii)
between 90 and 93 percent of the sane products have not been
adequately tested for their ability to cause genetic dasia)*;
(iil] between 60 and 70 percent have not been fully tested for
their abiliyt to cause birth defects. (12)
In 19B4, the National Research Council of the National
Acadeny of Sciences released a 382-page report, entitled
Totlclty Taatingi fltrateiaeB to Dcteraln* Heeda rnirf PrlorJtl.a
(13) which says coaplete health hazard assessnents for
pesticides and inert ingredients of pesticide fornulations at*
possible for only 10 percent of pesticides.
This, then, serves aa the basis for pronoting changes to
the underlying statute that will allow this state of affairs to
d by Google
continue foi years to cone. In Apcll 18, 1965 testimony, the
Assistant Admlnlstratot foe Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
John Moore, D.v.H., tola DORFA that, of the 600 basic active
ingredients that require reregi strati on, EFA has assessed its
file infomation on 96 pesticides and Issued registration
standards (141. Hbile EPA has generally referred to these
chemicals as having been reregistered, this step of identifying
deficiencies in a pesticide's registration package sinply
enables the Agency to request froa the product's manufacturer
the necessary studies which will be needed by the Agency to
determine product safety and labelling. In rare cases, EPA, in
generating the standard, finds enough Information to require
Interim safety measures, such as restricting specific uses or
requiring protective clothing for applicators. However, in
every case a final determination on safety is years off. EPA
is now predicting its ability to generate 25 registration
standards a year. Taken together with predictions that 175
peatlcidefi will be dropped by manufacturers who do not want to
c<nnmit to generating the costly health and safety studies, at
this rate, we will be well into the next century before EPA has
completed evaluations of the data received from the Issuance of
standards.
B. Falsified Healtb and safety Teat Data
A D. S. Pood and Drug Administration audit in 1976 revealed
that a major independent lab testing firm, the Industrial
d by Google
Bio-Test <IBT) Laboiatores, Inc., waa falslfyinq Uf«ty tot
dsta being submitted to EFA as pact ttf pesticid* product
ceglatiation. IBT had perfoimed thousands of scientific aaCvty
teste used to register hundreds of pesticides, tbt findings
confiraed a situation that was even MOrse than the Kennedy
report revealed.
Despite tblSr EPA has repeatedly aaid that it does not have
the authority under FIFRA to renove frcs the narket product,*
that have been registered under false pretenses. Reforn
leglslatl-on such provide EPA with this authority.
C. ConditioDsl Seglstrstion Loopbole
Hhen the reregistratlon program began in 1977, it was
thought that the public would finally be protected from the
hazards of pesticides for those new products c(»lng on line.
Because of the ability of nanufacturers under FIFRA to
'conditionally' register their products under FIFRA prior to
the completion of all health and safety studies, this has not
turned out to be the case.
Xt appears that between 197B and March 31. 1985 most, or at
least two-tbirdsr of the approximately 100 pesticide active
ingredients registered by the EPA have been conditionally
registered. It also appears that since the conditional
registration program began, there has been an Increasing trend
in this type of registration.
d by Google
Hocae y«t, thiM new active ingiedlents — ctonasinSf
cyperaettarln and cyionazliw-- where going through en
abbreviated Special Review at BPA because of health risk
factOEB at the sane tine or peibaps even before they were given
conditional cegiatration fron the Agency,
Given this eituatioiir this ptogiaa nust be overhauled, A
reglBtcation pcogcaM nuat assure cmpllance with nodern safety
standacds pcloi the narketing, not after.
Itl. ihpEove PEotectlona for Worker* and the Public
A. Certification and Training
Since the inception of a cooperative federal-state training
and certification progran in 1978, nove than 1.5 nllllon
individuals have been trained and certified to handle chalcala
identified by EPA aa 'restricted use* peetlcides or, according
to the Agency, the most toxic class of conpounds. According
the General Accounting Office's 1983 review of the progran for
certifying and training these individuals to apply pesticides,
'certification exaninations do not fully conforn to the federal
requirenents and as a result do not provide assurance of an
individual's coopetency.' (15) Given underlying prcblens with
the safety of products, the training progran becmnes more
important when considering the problens associated with over
application, lack of safety precautions and inproper nixing and
d by Google
loading and stocage and dlspoBal of chcaicalSt
We feel tbat allowing untrained and uncertified parsons to
apply the nost restricted class of pesticides, or any class of
pesticides for that natteri is unprotectlve of the public
health and the environnent. Dntiained handlers of dangerous
aatecials have led to situations such as the Pratts of Hashua,
leva whose dairy heard was virtually wiped out after an
untrained applicator unloaded a tank of the pestlcida atrasine
in a roadside ditch adjacent to their fara in 19B4, since this
Incident, 6 cows have died, another 30 had to be destroyed, 22
claves were still born or died soon after birth and allk
production froB the cows raoainlng dropped 75 percent.
The law nust be strengthened in this area of certification
and training and the existing loophole, allowing untrained
applicators to operate under the supervision of those trained,
■ust be striken fion FIPRA.
B. PciTite Sight of Action
From an enfoccenent perspective, an October, 1961 GAO
report, entitled Btronger Bntorgcment Meed»i< ftgll^nll^ t-hm iHmh^
ftg Poablcldts. suggests that the public and the environment ac«
not protected fron pesticide misuse because EPA and state
enfoicenent prograns exhibit the following characteristicat (i)
■any enforcement actions are questionable or inconsistent; (ii)
sone cases are poorly Investlgatedj (ill) sone (state) lead
d by Google
475
ag«nclc8 often do not >btr« EPA enforccnant phlloBoptvi andr
(It] Kost states lack the ability to iBpose civil penalties.
(16) in fact, the existing enfotcexent systea does not provide
adequate public protection and recourse for pesticide aisuse.
He agree with those who would like to provide the public
with an alternative aeans to stop label violations as well as
daaage or hars associated with pesticide use. The alternative
available under alaost all other pieces of envitonnentai
legislation, such as the Hater Pollution Control Act, the Clean
Ail Act, the Hoisa Control Act, the Toxic substances Control
Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, is a citizen suit
provision or a private right of action. This, then, would
enable, as one alternative, the enforcement of PIPRA through
the D.S. District Court system.
C. Prevent Pesticide Drift or Chemical Treapasa
The question of drift or chonical trespass is a basic
question of exposure. Pesticide drift has long been a public
and environmental health concern to those living near sprayed
fields and forests as well ss farms and right s-of-wsy.
Community and suburban lawn care spray programs have resulted
in substantial drift as well. Pesticides are not adequately
labelled to control for chemical trespass, but simply instructs
users in generally unenforceable terms to 'avoid* drift. But
studies show that as much as 50 percent and more of the sprayed
d by Google
peatlcldeB mu^ not land in the target area.
In a letter to a California state officical, Latry tAodis,
a coaaerclal ccopduating pilot with over 16 years experience
writes,
. . .In the past 16 years, I have piloted aircraft
for agricultural busineeseB. . .My experiences have .
led to the realization that the aerial spraying of
agricultural chemicals is dangerously close to being
conpletely uncontrolled with regard to health hazards.
Applicators in California consistently spray hoaes,
schools, hospitals, highways and waterways, and are
virtually unsupervised by the Agricultural CchbIs-
sioner's staff. . .Because of the lack of enforceable
regulations, involuntary exposure to a wide variety
of barnful chemicals has becone pact of the 'Aaerican
way of lifel' (17)
legislation is needed to address this problen, as difficult
as it is. Application technologies and standards governing use
patterns, including buffer zones, must be adopted to address
the problem, rather than ignoring the problesi totally.
D. Special Lo€»l Med Pecmita
Section 24(c) of PIFRA permits a proliferation of chflBicals
that have not been subjected to Cull and adequate health and
safety testing. I would like to remind the subcommittee oC a
July, 1983 study that was presented to you by the Rural
Advancement Fund of the National Sharecroppers Fund (RAP/NSP).
Dsing a sample of 2,089 special local need (SLN)
registrations for 25 states (79 percent of all SLHs granted In
d by Google
477
1981-1982, RAP/NSF found thati (i] aor* tban 40 psmnt of kll
SLH pesticide registered in the past two yesrs contain
cbesticalB registered on the basis of Invalid or fraudulent
tests conducted t^ Industcial BioTeat Laboiatoclea (QT). For
ezaMple, IBT conducted the safety tests for the three nost
widely used SLH pesticides (Furadan, Sencor, Facaqiiat)i (ii) a
sajority of the SLN registrations wera issued for major crop
use over a wide geographic area. More than 60 percent of all
SLSs were issued for use on ten major cropst andf [ill) 90
percent of the registrations are obtained by cbeaical
manufacturers . Five companies received 46 percent fo all SLNs
in 1981-1982. (18)
Clearly, the abuses here, which continue, can be corrected
with legislation which restricts the expanded uses of products
that have not been fully tested across wide geographic regions
without any concern for the regional or national scope of the
problea.
B. Indoor exposure
The use of chemicals such as chlordana, which belongs to
the organochlorine or DDT family, for termite control continues
to attract a lot of public attention because of the widespread
contamination of possibly millions of hones in the D.E. Aa
mentioned earliers, a recent survey on Long Island, New Xotk
found that of 1100 homes tested 33 percent were contaminated
d by Google
witb chlotdan«.
Those vlth [esldiwB of chemicals In ttaelt hone,
experiencing chronic low level exposure, often exhibit j
of pesticide poisoning. Including headaches, nuscle actaee,
naUBea, sleeplessness and excitabllli-tiy. More severe illnesses
associated with higher levels of exposure include convulsions
loss of consclouBness, disorientation, personality changes,
psychic dietucbances, loss of aeiiocy and a variety <tf blood
diseases. It Is not uncnuoon, noceovec, foe tfaose in a
contaminated home to live with a constant fear of long tera
chemical effects.
Despite the real hazards associated with indooE exposure*
BPA has not set standards of safety to protect public health.
Instead, for the tetniticides, the National Acadeny of Sciences
has established guidelines of no more than five Blcrograas pec
cubic netec of air. Bowevei, foe the range of chenlcalB used
indoors, Bost often guidelines do not exist.
In a January 17, 1983 letter explaining federal policy,
foraer Deputy BPA Aduinistrator, John Hernandez, said the
setting of Baxinum residual levels or tolerances for pesticides
with Indoor uses is outside the Agency's legal authority, ne
states, 'Neither the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Art, the
FIFRA, nor any other pertinent statutes, provide for setting
tolerances for residues of pesticides In air oc on surfaces in
d by Google
buiULage,'
This state of affairs leaves the public unprotected.
Legislation can easily rectify this najot deficiency by simply
lequiring safe residues standards.
XV. BBtabliafa provision* to Pc«T«nt Pesticide
ContaMinatioa of Ground Water
In August, 1964, BPA staff identified scne 45 pesticides
that 'nay have the potential to contaminate ground water.'
(19) At the point the Agency has found 16 pesticide to have
contaminated ground water In 23 states. In a recently released
report froi the California Assenbly Office of Research
entitled. The Leaching Fields; A fion-pptPt^ ThfBfft t°
groundwater. 57 pesticides were found to have contaalnated
3,000 wells in 28 states.
Hltb appro slinately 50 percent of the 0. S. population
relying on underground water frosi aquifers for drinking, the
protection of ground water from pesticides must be a national
priority. While there are only six pesticides regulated under
the national interin prlnaiy drinking water standards. It has
become obvious that we must approach this growing problem with
a preventive orientation. Cleaning up ground water is
virtually impossible. At the leasti measures must be
instituted under FIFRA to restrict ori if possible, relabel
pesticides that have alrea^ shewn up in the ground water.
d by Google
Pronarket testing of new chenlcals must ensure tbat cb^ical
use patterns mUI not result in contamination.
V. Btcengthen lnt«Enatloral Pcovlaions
Govscning the Bzpoctatloo of Pesticides
Cuctent D, S. pesticide export policy allows for a double
standard of control and protection — one of donestlc and a
veaker one for export. Thus, chemicals which are highly
restricted or banned in the □, S. are freely available in
developing countries. This situation allows the exportation of
hazards to which we do not subject our own country. It
furthers subjects the O.S. to a 'circle of poison' through the
importation of dangerous residues on inported crops. Given the
current system, residue tests do not exist to detect many, if
not nost, of the pesticides being imported Into this country on
food.
As a result, it becomes especially important to adopt
legislative neaeures which create one standard of protection
through a single registration requirement for D.S.
manufacturers who market thier product domestically and Cor
export. Sane assurance must be provided prior to their
exportation that severely restricted pesticides, such ss those
that do not have registered domestic food uses, will be
properly used. A Januaryi 19S4 poll for the Pood Marketing
Institute showed that 77 percent of those interviewed
d by Google
consldeced pesticide reslducB on food ■ bceIoub bazaid. (20)
Other provisions InpEOvlng coamuni cation between the U.S. and
impocting countries vlll assist In improving the understanding
of proper aat, but will not ensure conpliance with a use
pattern that precludes contamination of food Imported Into the
D.S.
Conclnslon
He seek a system of pesticide control that Is respectful of
human life and the protections that the public wants. Nhile
there may continue to be reeletance from some quarters, our
sense is that the overall public sentiment calls foe dramatic
improvements In the law. This call for Improvement is not
coming from those who stand to gain econ^ically from pesticide
control law, but ticm a cross section of society. Including
farmers, workers, consumers, environmentalists and health care
professionals, all seeking protection frca both known and
unknown health and envlronnental effects of pesticides.
Hr, Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate
the opportunity to present our views and we thank you for your
coneidcratlon of our national pesticide problem.
d by Google
(1) Leon Burii«ist«i, 'Cancec Moitallty In lows Faraccs,
1971-76,* Journal of the Hational Tancr Tnat-lmM.. Hacch,
19B1. vol. 66, NO. 3.
(2) Staff Report, EPA Pesticide Re9iil«torY Prograa Study.
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research and Foreign
Agriculture, C. 5. House of Representatives, 9Stli Congress, 2nd
Session, December 17, 1982,
(3) Lawrle Mott with assistance of Martha Broaa, pgetlcldes
i-jf ppodi Hhmr th* PiihUr H^ariti t.n Knmif Natural Resrouces
Defense Council, Inc., March 15, 1904.
(4) Nancy Kim, Director of Bureau of Toxic Substance
ABsessnent, Hew York State Department of Bealth, Testlatony
before the New York state Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York, April 4, 19B4.
15] S.e. Cohen, "Ground-Hater Monitoring of Pesticides in
the O.S.A.,' presentation before the 189th National Meeting of
the American Chcnlcal Society, Mlani Beach, Florida, Abatratrt I
^EST-34, April 30, 19851 and, S.E. Cohen, et. al., Traon— nt
and nlspoaai of Peatlcldg Haatee. American Che«lcal Society
SynpoBium series 1259, chapter 18, 1984.
(6) Geraldine Brooks, "Dispute Erupts Over Lawn-Spray
Dangers," wan strict .Tmirnav October 11, 1984i and, A. David
Gram, -"Growing Lawn-care Field scares EnvironnentalistB," £lAio
OailMLt February, 19, 1964.
(7) Supreme Court of the Dnlted States, HHckt-iahaTiar
AdmlniBbratnrr ^n^^^^^ Spates ppp< rtipi^pf-^) ffotectlon Agnney S-
Monaantn Cppppny, Ho. 63-196, June 26, 19B4.
<B] O.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Discussion Paper
on Inerts Prepared for the Administrator's Pesticide Advisory
Committee, October 25, 19B4.
(9) O.S, General Accounting Office, Federal Pestleldit
Bealatration Program: Is It Protecting th* Public and »h«
Environment Adequately from Peetlcldp watardB?, RED-76-42,
1976.
(10) O.S, Senate, judiciary Committee, The Env^rj
Protection Aoencv and the H*giilatlnn nf PeatlcldeB, 1976
(11) D, s. General Accounting Office, (Delava and nnreao]
issues Plague Mew Peatlntd. Protection PrPgrM«, CED-8a-32,
ISBB.
d by Google
(12) Staff Repoit, p. 1B7.
(13) National Research Councilf National Academy of
Sciences, Tturlclty Tpetlnyi Stra»»qt*ii t-n m^t^raini) Heeda ang
Prlorltiea, 198*.
(14) John A. Hoore, Assistant Adffiinlstiator for Pesticides
and Tosic substances, D. S. Environnental Protection Agency,
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Research and Foreign Agriculture, Ccmmlttee on Agriculture,
99tb Congress, 1st Session, April 18, 1985.
(15) D. S. General Accounting Office, H*trn>r rnm-ai nat<on ts
Heeded Between hIhiiw Rnftirnwnonfr Prtigraaa jinri PrngraiH for
Certifying and Training Tnrilvlriual ■ Tn »pp1y P*Bt1c1d»Br
BCEt>-83-lfi9, July 1, 1983.
(16) U.S. General Accounting Office, pttppger Enforcement
needed Against thp Wlauae of Pgetieldna. CED-82-5, October 15,
1981.
<17] Larry Landls, letter to Lori Johnston, Assistant
Director, Pesticide Enforcement Onlt, California Department of
Pood and Agriculture, September 9, 1983.
(181 Allen Spalt, A Report on ■RpeclaT T.ocal Meed-
(19) S.Z. Cohen, Ground-Hater Team Leader, Exposure
Assessment Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, O.S,
Environmental Protection Agency, memo, 'List of Potential
Ground-Hater Contaminants,' August 24, 1984.
(ActachBCDta f ollovi )
d by Google
HEXtWUOM - t
<»W !
MW20B85
frail :- M. Wrlan QroM, BUD, CPPs
siibl. 1- Qcanvl (EI duPwit dn Menoursl Mg. 1«>. 352-373
PP «>. 1P244B
Acnsalcn .-to. 07Ca36-143
Background.
Cn April tha 24th laat yaar I vcotm v^ cti tha difficulty xdth th*
'cut-«id-paste • riwitw* In ch« Hazard Evaluation Qtvisioni tha apadflc
problon discussed at that tlna una nalathian Htilch had baan algnollail by
Battalia as having baan a caM whara 'fpa copies verba tin registrant's
sumary (pp 10-11 flcha). There is no avidanca of » iiApendent analysia
of the docunent wnicA contains highly aunestl^f• evidenoa of a dosa
related cardncganic effect...'.
This natter was rafiarred to a 'Raviaw inaip' ccntalning snongst its
"imters tuo fomer Chiefs of the TCMicolcgy Branch) this strikes pm aa
bair^ rather odd:- after all, BattaUe was actually retained by OPP at a
considerable cost ^J3 conduct an Inueatigaticn into this tiacter with tha
"cut-and-paste reviews originating i.T the ToBdcolcqy *anch to tava tha
final report of ihat ^r-ganizacifn 'evaluatad*, aa t were, for its 'vrlts
by the very people vho osnsticuted the target of mieh Invastigaticn cfaas
not sea» to ""a co be indicative of any serious concern here that potential-
ly tCKiC pesticide products nay not nave teen regulated in ths cptinal
manner as a result of those "cut-and-paste" reviews.
* of Pesticide Progrns,
a) The results of the Battelle investigation (l.e.i ttwlr final ««l
detailed report) should hava hao^ referred for an dnsesanent of ts marits
to a group which xould not have a built-tn conflict of interests in ttds
areai the actual "Review Group* whlA was appointed for this purpose cculd
have been expeccefl to weljh in with onments irfiich »»re self-servirq and
whoM iTwin p^tjo^ -Jas to (jwer-un the initial failure In that Brwich to do
the Job that one mduW expect to have been {arrted cut there!- roviaw and
•valuflte the toxicity reports ananating frrm the rei^ulateJ industry in on
independent, arte.Tuate, objective, and critical fashion, raUwr than qLiote
verbatln without attrihuticn nc "cut-and-paste" those registrants' own
evaluations!
very aanple Itself ^ovidad npla evidence that this practice of tfnddy
reviewing w» sKtre^ly pervaslva there, I crrpletely fail to understand
d by Google
just why that InitlAl effort was not followed i^ tv a nor* In-dapth or a
full account of all pMticid* [roducts tcx which "cut-and-pasta " ravl«wa
vivrs carriad cuti this would hava anablad ana to datomdna what praelatly
had baan Usaad' as a consaquanca of aich ravtaws and how would this altar
whatever regulatory action waa undertaken as a ccnae<]uenaa of this kind of
The other day I asked cr. Farbar, the new ctiief oC the ^sdcology
Branch iR tha Haard evaluation nvislcn, what had been done in tha way of
a collcwup on this proolear ha rapliad that, ■■ far as ha Imaw, nothing
had been done In this respect and, morecHMr, he had no plans at all to
undertake afiy kind of follow-up in tha futxore atnoa ha baliavas that this
would create too much work fcr hin and for his paopia thara.
m that loaaarandin to you of Uat >«ar dtat I dted at tha Oaginning
here I had doncristraced that the eo-callad "Bagulatory Cpinlcn* reached by
tha Tlevlew Grcup* that had been jfjpcdntad to pasa en the Battalia
findings tma not >:»ily selE-servi-rq but also totally in^jroper:- mplMjicn
in fact manifeated highly signiEicant ^ardnogenii: activity in each of
Chraa separate bioassaya conducted by the Saticnal Cancer Institute; In
other words, tha initial raview had laisaad' thla feature, i.e., we have
here a situaticn in all respects identk^a to that which I had initially
brought Co light in October, 1982, for harvade, another product altogether.
m a memorandun that t wrote to Bl Gray leas than a week later, j^ril
the 30th, 1934 I had also deimnstrated (as Illustrated by an entirely dif-
E^rent pesticide product, '^talaxyl, which uos.jipc part of tha Initial
Battelle "sonple'l that when the Hazard &raluaticn Division had been
enpreaaly and explicitly directed to carry out a full review of the
tcod-dty for that product following k\ initial 'ouC-and-paste * and
otheruri.se unacceptable re"!***) even then the reviewers there elected to
have reference cnly to the sixniary prepared Of the. registrants rather than
address the detail^l data contained in the entlrt report. Because of this,
a nueber of in^tortant aspect? a\ the safety of metalaxyl were aqain glossed
OKwr. Wth referenoe to yet another "cut-and-paate" review for that sme
product, raetalaxyl the one-year dog study carried out at international
Raaaarch and Developnent Corporation - I have no knowledge that this had
beer^ re-reviewed by anycne even though I had dancnstrated that this too had
caused iiportant safety aspects Co be sinilarly "Mssad* by the CPA.
Also in chat nHnorandua addressed to Mr. Gray I indicated how a
nuntier of fWfsCT^s both within the EP*, including the «hiinlstratnr
hunself, as wll -as others outside the Agency had been ndsled at the in^ct
of the unacceptable "wnner In whidi health effects of pesticide products
_are being evaluated in tha Hazard Evaluaticn Division.
Me are now almost a year down the road since I wrote those two
mapcranda in tha Spring of last yoar and yet, infcrtunataly, wa oxitinue Co
to plagued by this apparently total failure Co rectify what had gotw wrcng
d by Google
■ Ga audic a Icnff-
Th« r«vi«if g*n«rat*d by th* Haxard Evaluatlcn Uvislai Car tlwt stkxlr
is raprcducad in full en the riqhe sid* of th* fiva pagas to follow
inaadtataly harai ocpoaita aach wuA poga cr tfw tight dda I hava *cut-
■id-paacad* at tha paga facing it en Che la ft sida axcarpcs fro tha
ragiaoranta' aumary ta ocnvay tha actual aoifoa of tha taviawar'a
d by Google
DATE: Jun* 18, 1981
SUSJECT: EPA Xt<3.HSZ-3n; PPHnuS; Leng Ttm FM4fng Stu4r In
C«WEL^wKT?^/ 1* 5*** tac*Ml0n#aTO13<-143
RMOi— nditlBflt:
Long Tarn Fttdlng Stu« (n Hfct with Ounyl (UfL 71033: 5/29/81)
Thret hLndred (nd twenty Chiritt Rtvar CD-I alct of tteh itx Mr*
selected for :studv on th* b«if« Of bo4' Mlglit gtln Mid fUdlngs
obiened dur^rig th* quinntHc period. Th« inlMli Mr* nndaaliad
nto fcup treatnent groupt •ecorfllng U bo^i Might. Th*
rtndanlittlon procMi Mt a>n« ■•(Mritily tar Mltl «nd fsHlM.
d by Google
The doi* Itvili In thi groupi wtr* stt bind upon findings In ■<• tight
MCk rangt rinding )tu4r rwi at WtL, report Attd 9/Z7/77, Four
groupi coniltting of 80 wltt «nd 80 ftMlti war* •stabllihtd tnd
■Ow to tli« witiptcttd high nortalt^ ratci In thi aid- tnd hfgh-
dott grmpt dw-ing UK firtt fm Mtks, thi 100 ppa group ins
AcrMHd to 7 S ppa on wtfk (,
AUo 22 tntr* alci, not provlouily HitCUd tor tht ttu^* but
froa tho tiM ihipawnt «tr* iddtd n/ZB-U/9/77 to provldi
idillttonal nizt fir long term evaluttlon: 7J1 addld to group Z
feule 11/^3/77; 7ZZ added la draup 3 ni a n/ZB/TT; 723, 724.
72S. 726 added to group i fanU 11 28/77: 727. 72B, 7Z9 tddid to
group a malt 1/2B/77; 730, 731, lit added to group 4 female
n/28/77; 73J, 73*, 735. 736. 737 added to group 4 male 12/«/77;
738, 739, 740 added to group* female 12/6/77; 74i added to group
* famalt 12/8/77; 742 added to group 4 fema « :2/9/77. These
animal addftiont avre atdt at the requtst of the spenior aftar
conauUatlon alth the stu4r director. ->
Oiring the stu^', a11 nice viere obierved twice daily for tigns of
■arta11^, toxicity and behavioral change*.
All Bice «
-• palpated once aeeltly for Che preianc* of msmi.
! flndingi Mre recordid at to size, location and appear
A record oil kept on a11 nic* that died or Mre kllltd In enirem< i
during the iXu^. Mice which becane moTlbund or had iud3eii
large i«1gnt Ion were lacrlfleed hy CO; asphyiiation and neeropsle
tCCOrOIng to tha original protocol. Ttssiwi from anfmats dying .
before the end of the stu^ or laerlfletd in eitrenli were
preiirvid for n itopathologic axaninatlon. A gross pathological
eiaai nation aat performed and the tistues saved 1n lOt tjuffered
neutral forHlIn on all anIaaU that died wttli n the first utekt
of dosing. Hoit «f theie latter tltiues were not evaluated
hlitopathologlcally as per Inttructlon fron the ipOr^tdr, jfnce no
ilteratlona of a carcinogenic nature were anticipated froi such t
Short eipoiire to the test diet. A weekly cuiuUtive record of
aortallty was Maintained.
d by Google
Bo4r Htlghts Hcra aMiirid for all ale* onct w^^k^t during tht
tint iti Mnthi (hvcIis 1 through Z9), one* (tit? «mIi dirlng the
second half of the fdit yeir (iietts 31 through S3), ^nd then
once • Bonth uitfl itu^i t*ra1n«t1an (Mtki 17 uiraugh lOSl.
E«cN tlM tne ale* Here weighed, the (BOunt of det conitiwd iQr
eich !(( of each gr^up iMS «e«sirfd. Froa thcie diU, food
efficiency end ivcrtge Inttke 9f Oxavl ptr group Ml calculite^.
Ten aele end ten faule aUe rendcaly selected frea eich group
were bled from the or-ilcal ilnut ifter I, 3, (, U, end 18 wntht
Of doling and prtor lo ternlnat'.on of tlw ttu4. Perwateri
evilueted were: WC, RGC. nmoglobin, hMttocrlt, HCV, HCH.
HOC, ccapleU dlffereittul WBC.
All iirvlving ate* xerc Mighed. lecHflctd with CO2 llplv>Utlen
end necrsptled on NovMber U, 15 16 and 1?, Wt wider tM
supenltlon of Or, Fred M. Sigler. Tht following ergini ware
weighed: liver, klAieys, terti. bretn tna it«, end heart.
erein
Prmtatt
(Forebrein, aldbrein snd hi
ndbreln)
OvaHai
Eyci with contlgueui HerdtrlM gltndt
Cerput and unU uteri
PUuIury
Spleen
Si11v*ry gland*
- LyapKMdtt
Heert
Skin
Thyam
Sciatic ntry*
Thyroid (Psrithyroldl
Hwwry gland
.Lmgj
tan*, bona airrow.
(Z coronal MCtlon with ail
or t1bl*-faMri1 Joint
bronchi)
Nutcia
Trichea
Aorta
Enphigus
Uterw
Stoach
•Naial cavity and paranaial
Inteitine, *Ba1 end large
tinuies
Adrenal! glandi
•Spinal eord (2 la»e1»)
•Head (3 corcnil i«et1on»)
Liver. Z lobei
e«11 bladder
tongue and oral ca*1^
K1<kieyi
•Saalnal »eiie1a
Urinary bladder
Grost 1a»loni (with noraal
Teitei, epiai«Bldet
tissua)
Prior to the Uiuence of the propoied reguU.tlont tlltue ipeclaent
were eoHeeCed froa anlnilt 'ound'dtad and tacrlflced a> "
throughout the stueir according to the above lilt expect
d by Google
Scm atilMli di«d •irly In tlw fint ftw wtaki of Uw itwb' ind
snijr ■ grots ntcropty ■» ptrforatd, no tlsiuci wert Mitologlcilly
•XMlntd (hi Horullty iKtfen). rhet* nice xer* 0. grow I
■tti: J4«, group 3 utt: tM, ;$6, 49S. fU S02, 510, $00. Ul.
S47 1?; 9rauD 4 Ml*; Z69. KB. grouD 2 fniilc; 43S. 40), 436,
410. U3 group 1 r«Mlc: S70. 60« , 6Z«. <2S, 616, 600, Tl». S9Z
JTOUB 4 foMle. Mm. Hvtril nice g«rt jiwged to t>* In tuch an .
•dviTced iMM o/ lutolyili li to pr*clu« nlitopiWiologk
•V*1u«t1on. TMl* nitc« xrt S40, group 4 ealc; 111, }rei9 1
FtMlt: 308, group 2 rmialc; ind S64, ifij group 4 fnult. Htny
aUiir ale* -xre found to Hava aovanced postaarten lutol/iii, but
It KM net Mttnifi* enough to prtclud* ■ nistapathologlci) tvilMtlB
Qm bou** (71, groua 1 Hla) ««* cannlbtHwd (c*V*t utM (n tlM
stu^ hid center oldderi end one Mutt penttrettd the divider
■nd MS cinnlnbillied) «nd one (600, group 4 fwMle) wet net
necropslad (tedinlclin overilghtl.
Atl Other Bice pieced en the itMb' i«r« eurintd htstolettcetly.
Stetlttlcti intlytet of the *U aere perfonMd:
MiMlU;
t iHttrl*1-rel*ted.effect on enr cllntcti
Tfstuc Mises observed and pelpeted throughout the itutfr end et
tenelnition Mrt (vi uacco hIstOMthologicelly. No epparent
eonilstent test Mterlel- rale ted effect ves noted.
firoup 4 nles ntin food eoniMptlon wes significantly leii thin
thit of the control, group , rales for-weeki 11 through B4 with
the excaptlon of aaaks 12 and 19. Froa week S8 through the and
of the ttudir there ait no ilgnlftcint dif'erenc*. No pattern wia
ihOMH throughout the study for the ether tait groups 2 and 3
■lias and Z, 3, and 4 foMlai.
d by Google
Th* H«n boi^ Mights for group 3 mIh «*rt tlgnlficintly 1«tl
than inoit of tne central frop mHi 1-S1 TM min bot^ -cignu
for group * lulei were (gnlftc(nt1]> less than thot« at V\t
control from weeks 2-43 and were varlibls thereafter to the end
of the itudy. There was no significant difference throughout th«
r*>Mlnder of the sta&f TKe man body xelghti for jroup 3 or 4
females were ^arlaOly lgnifU>nt1y differ«nt during the firjl 21
veeks of study but wtri only sporadieally lignificantly Hfftrtnt
- after week Z Ko Othtr consistent oatlern was noted In any of
th( -.r»ted groups compirtd to Uw contrail timvglwvt Uif
Ho conilstent test vtirlal rtUtM afftctt i*r« Mt«d tn th*
body Might of tli« trtaCMnt group* ceapirad to that of th*
control! iftar thi first Bt Miks of th* ttu^r.
Th« eiMulativt Iffi graph diU raflKttd tho Mrly wru11U«>.
Thisi (kattii apotirtd to b* rilittd to Un acuu toxic offoct of
th« t«tt MUrltl In Uit ditt alxtir*. Subsequently, 11f* tibll
■nolyils indlcitad no firthor Increased mortally due to OxMyl
occtrnd diring the renuinder of tlio study.
'Sporadic iignificint differoiK** In hwitology pcrMoton Mrt
noted throughout the study. Thtt* Changtl ar« iiqgttttn of «
coiapound related effect upon rfd cdl hss In group * mIoi tirly
ln tne study oeet 4 but tli<i did not ptrstst,
TlMre IMS a slight dKreasc In absolut* Might of tht 1fvtr In
group 3 Mit} and a slight incrtis* of thttrgsn to bo<tF Migkt
ratios of the kidney for group * MlM. Bastd on tlio «btonco Of
iiistologica findings, these effect* ire not coMldtnd ilfilflcoiit.
Vo significant h1stopat)iolog1c*1 changes wre noted for the tatt
groups when compared to those Of the Controls except Uut the
chronic interstitial nephritis Of the kidney oes signiflcently
lets for the test groups (group Z, 3 and 41, «1**, cwpered ta
that of the control*. Okaayl oa* not oncogenic at aif level tacted.
Conelualon:
DxaaQrl aat not oncogenic at dietary level* if to TS p(*i.
Classification! Cor«>H1nlBifl OaU
TS-76g:tn:T(»/HE0:W0ykstra;6-lB-Bl:*Z
d by Google
Diara la a upddng dallarity tettan lAat ia autad (en th
slOa of tha flv« foeageing pages) Eiy tha cBjiicranta In tta KmiKY
Kaurd Evaljaticn Division ravimr Igiven en Iha rlQfit tfda Fagaa).
apart froo this .fsacura if* itay »lso note tlm following c-
a) Tha regiscrsnta i
^e U» anur* i^vriaw cclgina'tjng In t
rafarane* to miac la prasantad naraLy In tim first 14 pagM of Uia'
and to nothing alaat It fp—ru to na chw tia balarm of 3.331 pi
not avan aracKad for ■ nara oraoy axjalnatlon Cy that t«*l«k«r,
bl nia Initial pa^a of chat ravlaw Ipage t tn tMs o
ravaala chat Us auUnr in uw Haiacd Evaluaucn ^SvlAcn aau nt a>
Initial iar tne signature oi nia owi .^acticn aUperviacr, parhapa in an
attain CO droDvant U» lattac'i posslDle finding Uiat thl* mm TMrely a
'cut-and-paata* joO. Also, slUYMjh chat raview is dacad Jiria tha IBth,
1981. (a data also -fCufid a^ lea wry taat Urw it uaa not intll Oa n«(t
day whan tha cevie»«t apparently tud daddad to append hja (*o Initial* fOt
thoaa of tat auparviaoc. Four additicnal days aaaningly alap«*d tatcre tha
antlra doomant was mxmvcS vlth tha Ottt June Uw 23rd, 19BI, perha^ to
tndleata that t CooK aa Icng for thla'ieviev to have "ripened* in tha
Hanrd Eualu«ci«n Utrlslcn W to have tsen 'apprcwKl* by the nnicotcgy
Brancti Oiiaf or Via Dlractcr of that Dlvislai, avan tMugh tMra la no
•vidsnca that any of these actually sow c vid agraad with ICa conMnta.
It nay alao ba pertir-ent to aid hers that tha r»vle«ar of raeord hara
la ty no naana aona hand of necphyte * a recently recnriled ar^loyee uto
■ay not ba badllar uith eha way tfilnga a^nt te Axia. I wa infonwd that
ha la a Ph.D. IWicolcgiat, that ha had recently £sai pranoCTd to a C5-14
grade level (a catagory denoting an ^iparc and that tw had recently taan
raeognlted aa having [«r(ocmed in an "outstaiding* fashicn for having
^•iionatratBd unusual afd-deney in (arcying cue naviawa of this sort. It
a ■nail xmdar that By havifq reference to lasa than l/lOO-th of the
natarial n * tcsdaty report and. additionally, by helplTig hlaaalf to or
.apfr opn a drg tlv registrant s viaids and re[xesentlr^ cheaa as Ma am, M
can ba very efficient Indeed, In chat ha took But a few ninutaa to do ahat
It oaf take othars hcuri. day*, •aalta, etc. TTila la to a^ noting et tha
tine that ha had 'saved* hla auparviaora at thraa dlftorant lauala to
ovareaa tha quality of tMa wcK.
cl Ihat particular mcuaa study with oui^l had baan algnallad Of
MatCalla to hava baan eubjectad to a "cut-and-paste review. an a^^an-
dlng nara as Aetacmant a amimni cation addraased to CoujUs O, Cmpt,
dractcc of tha ftagistration Division of PeCruary tha 3rd, 19B4 whltfi
camaa tn* signature of Wl lim L. Bumm of the ToWcolt^y Branch, Hai«rd
Eualuacion Olvlalcn and that of Jotn W. Ktelcne, the Uractor of that ■«•
avtalon which pcaaants tha Battalia eamants (allagodly, varbaum
In that tow ajniunlci
d by Google
Brvicli ravioH* (praw.nnMy *lndap«idMit* oC that oC tta r*glatr«nt*l and
Uiat tn* Vvidaua* for (Ms tm» Urn te» Out O* iwlaw In 9J*nlai
^nclidad «i aulyals of U» Itiig cmer data and nocad no paiUddt-ralatad
a en [ogaa 4 tttrajjti 8 In
ID* ex^tly uhen in ttiac
.. -3 lung cjrocs, hduU ba iillUng
not CO cnaraccarlza chat aBSeTCim as a taErlcaclin out of Khola cloth, a*
a Cratan sxj total ialsenooQ. Its CTiLy purpooe cannot ta Cut oo aav*
-otartsanent bx Che Hazard Bnluaticn avtricn, avan at iha n w of
mlsleadlr^ nr Qm^t, ot U» Mslitratlai Clvlaicii tha p
hatw the oitimaca re^onsibiUTry for Eecung Ji coLeron^H
proJuct. The tiaJts to tn» oHmmers oC tM3 oomtry a(
disregarded In this encli-elv uantm and racKlass manner so icrg tnac no
on* in Che -lazard EvaiuaCLcn Diviucn tzh be Unqht it aa havtr^ actad in
Ml In^opar way, and it wegtingly da*« not matlar evan It it taKaa out-
right Ua> to •diiava that and.
HU K. Ca^it in fact odaled In cMa napact 7 J^cvwidvJ hare a*
Attaetnant 3 la the official docunanc [U>UahMl In the Fadaral Mglatar
vhic3i Eeara his mgnacura aid c;is date oeceoQer che 4Ui, 1964. In tha
last paragrapi o( Its secaii pajt vt reM *i1ib data sutaitted in ttm
petiticn and all ociior rolavant macarial hsva Deen evaluated. Trm
toclcDlogical dau considered in suppcrc oC tiM tolerance included •.« a
Muse oiEcgehicity study i*ich ■■■ nejativa ... up to 75 ppa [or J years.'
1hl3 9 rminlscent of -what chere la in cts reviex criginacing fran Che
Haxard Evaluacicn Diviaicn:- "Oxonyl was rat cuccganic at diacacy levels 19
bo 75 ppn under "Reoamendaclona" (first line of cJie review), TKanyl waa
not (nccfleiUc at *iy level tested (last line tefore Tdicluslans-), txa-
nyl uas not -mccgenic at dietary lavala t(> to 75 ppa*, tt» aua total ef tM
"Concluslcna * Chstsalvaa.
Ihla ts By no maena the Drat Una Mr. Ca^iC had Dean odalad Of n-.
•Mlcne, the Krectcr of thac Dtviaicn i» the safety of a pescliSde. 01
Auguat 1st. 1983 wrote to Kr (^npt a datallsd mKrandun indicatli^ a
■linllar aueh situaciiri tcr the insecticide potmathrini ur fortunately, he
hid not seen He to «wn adrnwiedja receipt of chat csmiuni cation of mine.
I do ncK know ca what extent Che other atuUaa nantlcnad In the
rMeral Degiscer itacownt of Decanter Ht*. a^ juscified in tha aanaa oC
thalr having been Cased a
or even t tftey iiara not
ravlews! I have not axapdned those reviews and, cherefore. 1 shall nave n
turtner reference to Chen here Rather fcr the halanoe of tha present
connuni cation, I shall lirott TTy rsriarka i»«erely Co the Z->yaar ficum study
with otanyl, and, mare specifically, T ahall diacuaa mly IMO aspects of
It: did tha revimnr indeed have reference Co lucre than the inlcial i4
pagea of tha registrants
here a review «hieii waa truly Tnd
d by Google
f t>» manfima en whit >«■ Un
urdczUon Eo Cv^t glvwi tar* In
Atucfnant I sutai, Ua rcvleuar had in fact adt^aiMd Eh* lirq tiaors
noud In tn* nio* In cHi* itinlyi ha auild rot hava fallad ta nodca that
(hra* of Cha fmalM at Cla high laval of axpoura, %•. 585, 611, and MT,
praaantad grsaaly vlai&la ^udulaa* in Uw liaig tfhidi ^:uld hava barad out
to t» in tact pulmonaiy tumrs, aithar tenl^i or nallonant an! althar
primary or nataacatic to tha lungi In fact, houavar, tlwaa yoaalypraar
vad Inlona uara net ccnSimd aa baing althar tuoora cr any oCh«r Und at
atncnulity during tha ntcrcaccfile axaninaclcn of thcoa pBrticular ling
aacticna. Thia la not aoiachlrg that i«a dtacouaiad by na aa a co
of awslnlna any Intamal raccrda' nalntalnad Cy cha ijOeratocy c
axacucad tha atii^i rathar. It ii pr***"^ -" ^f* Bnal tapett autmciaa i
tha caQlalranca ts tha EFfk uMch, praauubly, Ma availabla tor Ua
axatinatlsi at tha Haiard Evaluatlcn Uviilai ravlanar, had ha In tan
alaetad to aaraly glanoa at Mat la taycnd Ua Srat 14 tag** ot that
Furthmicra, aid of far graacar iii|Kxtanca, had tha mrlauar In Ike
axBidnad tha Individual pathology rapcrti of tta teat ailnala bayord Ox»
initial 14 pagai of tha rapcrt, parti eularly »ilth rataranca to tha lunp
I Cowid what I A
raport availabla for Ma ravlavi-
Tha fCnala xlnala with pilnonary adanona vara Mca.i- 640, TI4, 31S>
155, 310, 448 Ida*] en 6/31/79), 634, 418, 307 Idaad on 6/1T/T9), 102 Idaad
on 10/11/791, 413, 631, 628, 411, 297, BJ, 637, 195, 413. 619 (dMd Ol
9/15/79), 388, 183, 605, 577 {daad en 10/14/79). 571, 167, 266, 568, 566,
263, 639, 359, 116, and 561.
In aJdltitji to thoaa anlinala, Noa. 419 {daad en 8/3/T9), 599 (daad oi
3/16/791 and S86 (daad en 5/6/79) naniftatwl malignant tUKsra primary In
tta lung, pulscnary adanocarcinanaa.
ITa dlatrlbutlan of thoaa animala anaigat Clw varioua agqarlsantal
grcup* (avan If ona uvre to ignora Cha chraa aninala at tha high laval of
axpofura with groisly vlalDle laaloni auggaitiv* ot pulmonary tuoera but
tMcti uara unccntlrrad hiatopattnlogically) ia sx^ aa to yiald tta
following :-
a] Fcr maraly tta malignant 7-linary pjlmcnary tunoca wA taking aa
tta data baas all (analaa with lurg lactlcna axanlnad ndcroaeoflally,
thara ia a doaa-raspmaa alopa of 0.000,365 with itandard arret 0.000,197,
yialding a chi aguara with ona dagrsa of trawkn ot 3.407 uhoat oia-aidad
proDability 1* cnly p • 0.031 and whidi La ccniistant with llrwarlty (chl
Sjuara uith nn dagreea of fraadon of 0.442 uticsa cvo-aidad protatAU^ is
a* high aa 0.802)i
d by Google
0,69a. yitidirtj i
b) Rr all ^ulncnary CtfOra prlavy in tt» loq noardlMs at Chilr
Dsllgndncy status aid uking u tfa -dau Bu* ttm l^» m In (a) abova, ta
■ ■ "fll.SS ««! standard srrcr of oily
h m dagTH -oC Creedcn aS Ugn M
a only p - o.-oOa -97 ani >*utn la also
« i4cn tw itear«9 o( tCHdag of 4.014
-in as 0.130). Per meraly tn> lav la««i
• tta {roOaUllty CCc Che Increasad t.-iddanca at suOt Osnri onr
u> aanaal rata la 0.011,01 • O.oai.n i- 0.000, ZT + 0.000,31 - 0.013,91
and far Cha hdtfi Ivnl it ti 0.001,91 4- 0.000,22 * 0.000,03 f 0.000,00 -
- 0.001,79,
e> M in (bl abovv But taking m ttm <hu tea* oily ttom tioalaa
i*d* eo^lacad Om t-^ll «xposi.T« ^rtcd, aiaro la a doa»-?eapcnBe alcpe Of
0.002.aoo witn standard Bcrar o( ■uly 0,001.500, yi«iair^ a cW jquar* with
«no degree of fraeJcn A« ^•iqt, as 3.M3 i*oa« ow-sltJad prefcaWUty is u
1 cn li neari cy I cK siTiare -d tn tjo
■ tw>-«ided probability ia aa htgn aa
t lew level of ■xpoaure Che ptooebility (Cc Uia
E BuOi Eunors ewar tta control rata ts 0.015.01 •
+ 0.000,01 ■ O.a]0,79 aid aar thi Mgh Iwal it ts
0.000,0) f 0.000,00 ■ 0.007,93.
a 0.031 a
increased Lnddenoa
accer tw cna sialyl*! the data c
fwOB cn tin malignant axti twnra, m rmm
-related incraasa In tnddanca aia^K
•xpoaad animals by conpariacn wloi the unexposed control anlaals.
I anould tflinlt IMa dHnoostrataa cnnclusiwely »id Daycnd any dnibC
i*iat30ovBr that not CTily ma It not crua, aa fcimaii-mlcno stated, Chat tha
nltial rovlBw-nade in the Haiard Evaluaclm fflvtaian "included m WalyalB
of tha linj timer data" but t -wis also not true (or than to imply uiat
there ara 'no peati dd^^elatod effects" related to ttuH datA. Ccffse-
<luently. their -OvldBnos- auch aa tnis la In r«allty no ertdenoe xhataoavar
t(x ahat they attonpt to innvay to He. -CBiipt that there uu an ^nd
Actually, If aw la
1 Vride
luatifn whatsoever Mhic^ can b
that made O/ the registrants. Per w*w^
itoM In tha laat paragraph Dafcra tha Tonelialcn' o) Om loat ;
of ttm rrrl*H ounatli^ frrm tno Haiard Evaluation Oivislai (paga B h
that Na significant hiacopatholcglcal charges Kara noted for ttv to*
grtupa i*nn ccBparal tD tnoaa of ttm centrols aicopt that the aironlc
Intaratltlal na(*«itla of the Wdney \mt significantly laaa toe tha C
gra^a Ignxp 2, 3, ar>d 41 nalas, conpared to that of the central*.*
a algnlCicantly laaa tor tha b
d by Google
mnvly th* c
an uhat laslaii In that vkv aaM ac^io, Ob Udmy, <
tneraa—d in inddano BKir^st tlw ijcpo— d ■niiuli ■sum
wiUi Ch* public hnlth at thoM hunsia npoMd Co CMs partlculir panidd*
product) ha tould'hava nwl* at laait 4 gascur* towrdi aiaidnlng tMs
tcgddty r*pare teycnd pig* 14.
Hid r» In tact Oxw «o, ta wuld rwa dticcvarad chat rtm
dinrlCutlcn of nl* wiimls "lOi glowruloaclaroals In Ua IdAiaya ia
(wodaud vlCA a itoaa-raaponM (lop* oC 0.001.453 irtth itMidari «crcr of
cnly 0.000.642, ylaldlng a On. squan uldi ona dagraa at fra*lca M td^ U
5.108 wMa* ow-aLded [robablliCy la as Kv aa p - 0.013 md xhich ■■■ mt
-Inccnaiatant vith llnaarity tdi aquar* 4tn oa daqraaa af ftaadtai of cnly
l.BTfi uTeaa oo-aldaii probabiUCy la m Mgh w p - 0.3911. M In tta caM
Of tts pulocnary tinora amngat cha tanala animals diacuaaad abooi, Chis
ajK3 Indlmtea that a NOO, uaa not aataollahad in tMa atudy.
tn ttm paragrapA of tM rcvl*> nada In ttia Hazard Bnluatton Uvisien
juM prior to Xlm irm dead tixm, t* find yvt anoth^" mtrutA rafarabla Co
tl* fact that Om nviaivr did not aa fit to avaluata Ey hLMalC tiia
actual data autanlttM] £y cha raglatrant* In CM> rapcrt but, Innaad, ctioM
to copy thalr oai stalaading avaluatlcna. M find chara that tlwr* xaa "m
(light Incraaai of Vm crgan to bcxly uaight ratla of tha kidnap Cor grotp
* nalaa. Baaad oi ctia aOaanca of hiatologlcal Sndlnga (In tha tdAwys of
group * nalaa, {raaunably), thasa affacti ara not ooiaidarad algnlflcant.*
ttiat la daacly not crua hara la lultifaoatadi-
a) Watolcqiol Hndinga' in Uia Ktdnaya mra not 9ily praaant In
thosa at groufi 4 nalaa Cut alao In tha Uikiaya of all otbac nala niea in
this study; noraovar, tha Incraaw in incidanca of glcnarulosclarosla in a
a mo. not having tean establiiriad in this Study, >a I dncnatratad juat
b) For Bnraly Cha ceoup A nalaa, tha tnddanoa ctf ranal glmarulo-
sclmrosls was incraa**] trot 3.S0t in cha ocntrol nalaa to 14.291, an
alBOSt 4-Cold Incrwaa, which «s signiCtcinC at tha p ■ 0.016, GIB +
0.003, Mil * O.0Oa,4ST * 0.000,025 - 0.020,6^3 probaUllCy lavsli
e) Evan had than taan no ^atolcgical findings* such as
glaT«rtiloaclarosls in tha kidneya of Choa* nala itdoa, this xould not maka
tha Incraaaa in cha raladue laaight c£ tha kidney to ba ^lot colsidarad
significant', fn incraaaa In reUtlva Might oC any org«i Is a lasioi or a
manifaatadon of ccaildty In Ita omi right wid in no vay dapandant oi a
linked to Ua presanoa of othar findings. For a Ri.D, toileolcgist to hav*
' fithcut blinking Chis Idnd of )rg<jiianc idvincad ty tta ragia-
, mcreover, Co adcfit it ai his cwn, is In itself an aloguant
db,Google
manl faatatifn of Cha kind of ■•xpK'tlia* vid
A> s nactar of tact, ttm valght oC Chi ki^nif nlatlv* to tta toly-
■i«ignc In tna tmIb animals o( this study manitesMd a doaa-raapen™ slope
of 0.003 Oli wlch sundard arro- c< oily 0.001,117, yialdii^ a c mlua «idi
132 degraaa o' frawKn aa rugh as I.'Dl uMs cna-aldec) praCaCilllty Ls oilr
O.O02,91S and vtudi laa ccnaiscsnt witn UnwirlCr (f valw xll;n 2 and 170
dagrau <!l fceedcn M Iw a4 0.431 wncoa proteciUty la M )ilgn aa 't.Snt
and ttia {±i squac* wlui cia dagraea of (rsedcm for O* gcxidneaa-of-fit <••
■• lot aa 0.003 Mnaa tH>-*it>ad prcAaMll-^ la « M^i ■■ 0.9W.
In mm, ttili rapraHnts t
Tha 'sbsolJta (u distinct froa th* ^vUtlva*) ualglit at tha Itfifaay
(or Uia >nal9 iiii«* in Uiia study vaa avtn wan •pactaeularly ant aloniCi-
cantly Increaaed In a <toBa ■ rt Uled raannar, ^E tMa la being gloaaad over
In cna teWaw orlglnatlrq frcn tlM Hazard Evaluation Uviacfi: tMs la
ibwiause U1B nglstrants elactad not co'nlgnllgnt tMs In CM ClrsC 14 pagaa
oC Uiair report and, cha EPArevlaver In turn, ctioaa ta Igncrv averyUilng
alaa In chat ngoct. Had rs noc alected ta ds u, ha ould twn dttatmlnad
Hhat I dldt- a dosa-reapanae alapa ot O.DOO 15Z 'AO\ standanl err or o( cnly
0.000,109. yielding a t valua ulth 121 dagraes of frsedcn aa wtronaly Ugh
as 6.6ii utioae cne-aided proCiaDi. Ilty is ds axcronaly leu as n.oOO, 000^000,$
and where the ^oodneaa-oE-flt cni square witn tw deQrees oC fraMkn is aa
IcwdSa 0.002,8 wlch a cw-sidoj ^cbablllEy as Ugh aa 0.949.
At anottiar faatura not addiaaaad in the nviaw crlglnatlng trot tha
Haiatd EvBluatioi Dlvieian (o^ain, protebly Caousa It waa not •M'asaad by
the csglatrants In Uie inldal paQ** of Uieir [eptrtj ia the highly
elgntficant slcf» of the dose-reapcnse Euncticn pertaining to tha relative
Height of the .ijver oi ir- ■'.i,.? i; ■-.'.. -. [ found chls ta he as steep as
0.015.441 with atanr!,?' 0.007,776 yielding a t value with
121 degrees of fraedcn .-. 1.9Be vhOH cne-aidad [robaDiUty Is » low B
0.034,6 (0.049,2 t«o-«idedl wich i . r-inc departure froi linearity IP
valua ifltti 2 and 130 degrees at fraadoi f ciily 0.725 whoae probability Is
aa high as 0.4S1) and vary gocd g^Frfri^gs-of-fit (cM Square -rith ttm
degrees of Ai^edoB of 0.OS4 whoaa Qwi-aldad probaOlllcy is as high aa
0.9731.
d by Google
Although tl* tat hours at my dliposal ED audit th* data praMnud tn
this particular itudy did not alliw ma to maka in anhauatlv* avaluatlai of
all «S{)*cta of toxicity tar ctcstyl nanlfaatad hara, navwrUalaaa. what 1*
pcesanud abcva i> aufeiclant co dncnitraU that tha Hazard Gvaluatloi
Uvlsim had in [act ndalad i«. Caific into itaeinj In tta Padaral Mgiatar
prcposal appandad haia aa Attactnant 1 that tta (louaat) HCO. Co te
astaCllifwd tcr cKBiiyl cin bt darivad trm tha ret ttuly anl aatiiaatBd ts
ba a* high aa 50 part* per nllllcii (fpt).
10 a^^vclata tha Mxch of other eatlnatae given In that amm docu-
nant, I vi praaantlnQ Ealow the nsultt of a tCmal risk aaaaiwnt Bade ai
tha baala ot tha data preaantad in itsii (el a aseend paragrafti tn page 13
the Virtually aala' i
reeulta obtsinad at tha olddla leual of axpoaura, wd t
toBulBCad caloH) for ecnverelcn of parts par nllllcn In
I191 body-valght far day, I have uaad tha factors glvan Dy tha A
ot Food and orus officials of the ttiltad states, aa xell as tha
Burface ccrractlcn nsoaasary Cor axtrapolatlng trcm snail lalnrBtory
rodanca to hunansi aleo used here toa the AbBott Correctlcn as tall aa a
tHo^ded cxnfldantB interval et 90%. Ihe aetlmatas are given tbr a wlila
vsriacy of ctiolcaa tor the upper llndts oi the rlak In the table folloulng
limadlately here m tha next pagei-
db,Google
RtsuLis or TOE FomuL roan MWLTOts.
1/100,0
5/100,01
V 10,0
5/ 10.0
■Wrmllv »!(«• UwU of qf«yl
oryj
501
0.
001
S
0.
OOJ
G3
0.
003
SI
0
007
04
p
0»
I
0
0
10s
0
IM
0
.541
0
.985
1
.61
9
.T
li
.000.019,9
.000,079,4
,000,159
,000,794
,001,59-
,007,94
,01S,9
,079,4
159
In wa/lqvaav
a»
0.000,
0
300,010,0
0.000.
0
000,013,5
0.000,
0
000,027,3
0.300,
0
aOO,03T,G
0.000,
0
000,081,5
0.000,
0
000,116
0.000,
0
000,174
0.000
0
O0O,4O«
0.000
0
001,09
0.000
0
001,73
0.001
0
005,«
o.ooe
0
010,0
0.01«
0
048.2
0.004
),0tG,5
],083,t
Cca^nlng in tM Cable abovs tlM Mtinaua oqirssMd In [^ with
hos* BXpriissBd In n^iV^qi/ilay, <• may nota that ttm latcar ara aullar
hvi tha fccnar by a factor sllahcly lasa tun lOOi aa to Cha OB^xa.-
lllcy oC tha asclmatas ganaraud l:y eodi at Om Oa axCrBpolaclng proca-
uras, w may nota that Uia cna-nie aatliucaa k« ■nallar than tha cempa-
arsDla cnaa ganaratad by t>i* Icg-prcMt appcoaOi tn tha louar uppar
inlta 31 Cha rlsKi- tnua tec K\ ivpar Unit a\ tha ri*K oC 1/100,000,000.
nay Bia aullar Cy a (actor In axcaaa of 300) at tha vary high ifpar li-
lts, tha anvarsa sltuatlcn la cruai- tha aatimataa ikrlvlr^ froa Cha
na-hlt nathod ara largar thai thoas originating froa tha log-froblt
athodi tna tw kinda of aatinatai ara vlrCually IdanUoal in tha nalgh-
crncnd of an uppar Unit oi cht risk of dm 1/1,000.
db,Google
■ aC atsnyl that tial baan
iiiopcrtad ftoa Costa Rlc* frcn 0.1 fp 03 0.3 p^,
Iwa t(> prcpaaal p^jUtfi^ in th* IM«al Mgiatar wid tfgnad ty •«. CSipe
aa glVM in Attadnant 2 tiara) and aaimdng (urUiar Chat 0» caaCtdda
could pacnaaca Om antln adlbla pare el tls fndt and thua. could ba fcund
thira at a oowvitraUai cf 0.3 p^, m hav* eha fijilovingi-
UmiATQ that naraly cna mlcMla-alie banana natgUrg aftamlmataly
150 grsM la Indudad in ttv'&ly disc al m aUult twn, BKh dlat >wrti«
an anroga oaight of aivrodDacaly 1,500 gcwn, this wuld rapraaant tha
Ingaatlon of l/lO-th of 0.3 nn, l.a. , 0.03 ppa. If la look iv tMa valua
In tha tabla n-uaaiiuad on Cha fEsvlaua paga hara, »■ noca that it ia ano-
dabla with ^ <VP^ llinic en CM rlak tatwan 5/100,1)00 Md 1/10,000
(liq-irablc) and Danaan 1/10,000 and 5/10,000 (ona-nit). Suet lntanic^*~
tldi uDuld yiald aatlnacaa of tba t^prc liidt en Om liak rvglrv Er^
S, 3/100.000^ (Iq-preblcl to 1.9/10,000 (cna-nlc). Inaauoi am tMa houU'
noc i«[raaant ai inraaKiiaSly Ugh dally ecnau:f>clan rata et bananair I
ahould trdnk that tMi klrd eC rlA !■ parhapa unaecaptably Ugli; fcr
Uioaa I lira I prapertlen ctf tM <3aily dlat axfjciaad cC bananas la Mghar.
Mxl parhapa fa: aow Infants, cha riaka vould ba oorra^cndlngly Urgar.
If »• noH ajdraaa fr. Of^'a atatanant that Iha Am for Ixbhu ia
calculatad to ba 0.025 i^j/lg of body italglit (twI/Uay" an] lock 19 tM*
valua in tha tabla en ctia prseadtng paga tmn, m nota that IMs ivlatas
to u»ar UniU <n tha rlak batvaan I/IDO aid S/IQO tcx- both tM lag-prcUt
«d tha oia-Mt axBapolatlng prccaduna. hot* viact ineacpolatien yl*U*
a valua tawm I.VIOO (ona-Mt) wd I.fi/lOO C "-'
Otfarvtaw and Ganaral Bacuwiai.
Althokqh it la aivly avidant fixn cha faragolng taxt that In tha
fir*t 14 pagaa of thatr raport cha raglatrant* did not proparly avaluau
Cha ilgnltlcancB of cha Elndtnga In thla eo-yaar oouaa study with atm^i,,
I haatan Co add that tne Law, ■■ I mdaratanj It, doas not ratpilTa thm to
do 10.
Htat tha Fadaral atacucaa do raqulra of raglstranta Ecr psstldda or
othar products la that cha drojnsuncas of CM ccnduct at aadi atudy nd
tM actual oMarvatlcnal findings laiglng froa It, l.a., *tta facts*, to
fully and adaquacaly prassntsd to tM Owsrmant. As ■ raault cf oiar aitf t
of tMs mccli at tM slta vtwra its cz-Lginal ncsrda fa storsd, I cmi atsts
chat w (OMvl no avldsnoa whatsoevar tMt thla was not tM easa hsrs.
As to CM procaas eC EM avaluatl en of sjch facts or otiaarvatl cnal
findlnga, tM psopla of CUs cninccy dapand en CMtr Mdaral Govamaant, In
thia parUculK caaa, en CM EnvircroanCAl Protaeclin J^sncy. It i*, -I
baliava, CM ftnctlcn of thla Aisncy to datamlna troi raports aiinittad co
It Cy tM ragulacsd industry i4iat Is CM aafaty of audi poducts wti to
ragulats than In vtaw of chair potential Mnaflts and risks. TMs Is
db,Google
■ ■nmstad to m and h* k« all balrg pild vary
IE Is alao •vidant Out In ttila pwcleulK caa*, w in othar dallar
viaa dud «arllar h>ra. auSi raUMKa «id cniat oentarrad oi thla fgancy
«»y Jmv» Deon In fact uLsplacad. To "cuL-smJ-paBt*" parta ot Um evalua-
Uoi actanpced I3y cl« Tsglstrviu anl to raprnartc tMs .a* ccnstltuUr^ an
inda^icntenE jnd sarchlrq uHaananc of cna Wcmical facta sii^ly b ai
■s avoid drlng U« wzK cna gees paid (o (to and. aiMl d oially, to arctn-
vaot aoocndary ravlaw ty mpatvlicra .410 could haw dtsowarad suai
(rscaces, jtrikaa im ai repcasantirq not only a Cofn o£ a«rtoi« nagUganea
en tn* pare af OoUi -ha ravtmar ard m ctn part o( Ui snjarwisors. Buc
al»3 an ann» of that tmat ard a total dlarogart cr parfupa dcMirighc
mntaqw (cr cna naalth of V» Mwlcn crcpla anpoavl to ^itwUally ixnie
Usccncntlnq or diaacvolntlng ■■ iMa rtqht te. It la alao daw
that the littiaticn in tha particular can discuss^ nan tarn ampouKlsd
i~ch furtheri- in actuality, %h»t tiappwiad >»ro ^th thlB nwiflc study
had tioBn DrnugKt to Ugnt ■aons -time ago tfirnqh the IrLVeadgatlai carriad
out Dy cna Battalia Conxratloi ITieir Hndirq). no>>Bv«[, M vith their
that inlt. NT. Bmaa. In j view -ccnairred itltll ty
Iscr, Ht. ntlona, tha Mrectcr of that avisian.
^iparently dicaa not dily to igncra Uioai
actually dacoiva oOiara in thia fijancy a
UU dene Kith tha aid of tsld «id utter uai. i woiia aasiw that ouch
"aym-t^- effort ws nada By tha out of a dosite to deflect trra tnan-
aalvas aiy poeiiQle o-icidans a\ their oun natnnalUUtiaa m) thair cmi
nagllsance in t>ils entire aordid nattar.
The rat eCfact of aicn ectlcna mu Oiat the Jtoaney pibUahad In tha
ndaral Mifiiter -only a few nantta ajo a propoaal that, ecntrery to tf»
•xpliot atatdwnt oaitained in t, ia in tact iiot ^otecci-w of Om
public healtn* of tha dtlnns of this CDUitry. It hee tssi ahnn tvra In
aoaa detail that the nak oC cancer eaeodatad with the new oslarance
aatabUriiad tor banana* iir^nrted frcn Coata Rica may be unacoeptaDly high
Civ ta 6. 3/100, 000 - 1.9/10,000) and that Che sane Und of nsli aunatiiq
fran -ahac the /gency states is an "acceptable" cansirtptl<n rata ftr thia
peatiQda [rcduct (0.025 nqm/iijn/day I s aa high as i.5 i.6/100, clearly
a rate that on be easily perceived to Ds nothing ahort at cataatrophi c.
Btrhipa aa a nault of such "ailculatlcnB as Uat*l In that Pedaral
fkgiscer proposal oC laac VBcmetxr, the CPA IVpcrt brmi (XV datad ■■ late
aa Harch the Sth, 1965, indtcacaa that a Sectlcn 18 axaaptlal trot tola-
ranee had bean approi/ed (cr oonyl for another food ujuiudity only laal
— .ih _rt ^.> ...g jrcpoami loleranoe en tanenaa publiahad laat rui ■<■!
- - i«« ■Hnal".
d by Google
Ditlraly apKX fm aid) ngulaucy CDnridsraeian ■• tticunad abavai
U»ra ia t*r* yM «i akUtlcful iHman^lai, mvOwr imUcscim w dw jHlo-
Kfhy cr ovanll poUey ■jpirancly In •ffact In Uw iHaisrd Cvaluatloi
OLvlalai en Om ammammit of tiskj poaad Cy (OMntlklly Ende pMcld<]*
ISBusl in a sl.ngla ^ Uwrs u recently u
of tneee aiiinur.lcaci(iis claarly inlicstes
IcBCE^enlc risk s tnldally peroeiwed for » ceruin preduct. m'eXibt?-
Titely osfilax macTdnary i sac in mdcni ■aorgac IW «laiic(ita U»ra s«
dascritsd tn !;>»« Instrucdona 'tripartlca ravlam*, a auElatlcijn Md ■
paUulcglie atpectsd tc lirlng Into actlen, ^ Velimiiury pstancy
aaM* M It cha Eurpoaa of all tM» Intanja aarutiny tfnJ activity la tr>
ainialN tha poesltAliq' Uuc .inv prcCuct Mtially ex- preamoUvaly b
a* Bad n»« will finally oarQa aa wch In an — ' -■ — —
[\ Cha othar it<h by the cowem
tha alMrnaca typa of -ertcr!- whanawt tha Initial rewiow- brma «i
«f)lnli:n Uiac AOH peiticide [x-cducc i 'safe', .e., it doaa not tVav W
be a qardnogan, cnccgen fflutagen, cetiractogwi, OreatOQeo a zna otiiar
Idnd of ...gen neanirq tcnic in son otnec Klrd of way, net cnly tf* chera
■no patnolc^jl sts , no atatliticians. no i»er-revieiiBrs, etc., ■airryina about
to wartfy »uch Eir»t ImprasBiOM, wtilch may aleo Oe falsa, tut tn» sk^iotvl-
*ors of tnat revlewr at the first, aeccnd, and n-tn Inval lu ne have Ban
n -ctB case of onamyl here) apparently m»to no effort vhataDeyer to tuun
thansalvaa or others that aacti first inpreasionB are in tact justl liaBla.
Tt aeou t* I tt\6e a ttHicolojy rapcft auOoicted ty scm ragistrant la
iMtially aaaaaaad as ^reaanting -^yj proOlma-, no am «lsa In tfns Jigency
take* tha croijCla to verify cha aoumlhess of tha initial reviaw ty a
••OCndEy ravlaw of that oricinal rroort suttaltced tn tna EPA.
Clearly, thia altamata type of ToaaiBla atror cmot advaraaly
affect the yalfara of my registrant tut maraly that of tlia cenauar
axpoaad to potentially totlc reslduea of that paatldda prokict. Hsild
thla Ba CM reason far situatiais ajch aS thia nst taiiig (jlvan awan a
BoAeiM of tha actentlin and Ufb enpended on Vw others ? 'usuld thli kind
ot ajtlook cr pillcy in tne Hazard Eualuatii^ Uvlsian rot denote era lack
of an avan-h*ided regulatory aporoaeh, an inOolanoa betwan ■our OOrtcerti
lAUi Cha ^laalth" -of the Industry w are sippowd to regulate nJ that et
tha pecple •« ara supposed Co protect ? Coaa thla not oonnituta a raUar
peculiar fan of abaRatltji in tHnklng 7
Via kind of odd dldiotcny cat ta illuatratad by yat another
OMtimry practloa Oarai- otttn t«an a revlauar (fdnka that thara aay ha a
cardncqanle cr othar toilc rlak aanlfait*! >v acna ataUatically Agmtl-
cant raailt In the dau, cna of two (and aaatlnea Coch) ■aerataolaa* are
rascrtad tot- a raquatt la made chat an addldmal pathologist n
d by Google
id lad to thM pvtlculK AgAaant
■ntially -dwtous 4 cartUn Ucn ot
nllablUcy ot cht rtmiica oOulned by CTia
■ klnd« at
va, thtlr
, (a chey aqlic ts tat
Q rsgueaC aitfi dau and utilln tlwn In wi attw^t b
"■- tideOt tMi rtuiitltji - a cerealn ntntraat bslnj ]WC
. --. 1 significance and yac nhare ccnsidvrfttlon of the
dgmdcanc than uoilcl D> tiv CUa utine narely [»■ IccaJTcr oenuaipora-
tacuA central, dnimdls ara ccruldared. It iA again that very m Intelann
lUiat descriUd aarLier w aoon to itiwa no ettort aimed It claulfylng
pasiicide jgenta *i t*** "Bata" tftan first iiptitnciawi, yat >• pay only
•cant If any anantloi m tha ravara* situation.
IMs siCuaUin with tlm Itlatarlcal coitrol* data In raalt^ U avan
MXaa than appcaclatad aC first glanea. All too fraquandy Ut teart to tm
■atlsfiad with Mut I Ean danou u merely 'anenlotBl ' aucti *>Uscarical
oontrol tlatai- no serious effect Is <ude -to secure Ear ajdi data the kind
of detai ■« expect for aia conMnporarBoua control data, no ^jaclftc
Twjuests ve lUda 0/ me ttaMra Evaluation Dtvisicn to ha« tnoae IdiKJs <<
data "ouditad* Cor 'Jielr raliaCtllty, ato. aijdi tlcnally, sudi data arc
attan uaed in an tnnnw way In aiat Mviaicni- little If any ojiaitlera-
ticn ia given to the rate of mortality of trtosa ■^ilstorical' animals and,
thetefcre, i4iether they t*ro at a risk Co manifest nmara truly ocoparabla
to those in the stuJy under ccnaldaratlan, the axsiilnirg patholt^ista for
those animals aay la entlraly dlffarart (and Uwrefcre, with [oaslOly af-
ferent 'orientations* in the claaalflcaucn of lesions) th»i thoee who
•xamnad the tissues in Ola study ot (rlmary conoam, and Om actual
d by Google
1 ■ totally ImptKcprlat*
Mth nfwancB Co tM* Utt (Dint, j«t woOmC Ubcratcry (uUt In
uMch I pu-ticipitM] cnly luc nonth hid tUscloaad itlU wotNr objactl^
nabl* faaCurai- '■ draft ct ■ oaaaunlcatlai cmcalnlng ortain ^rloui
ndscencapciaia en thia paicLculBr Mibjcct md arlglnacing In ctia Baurd
Eualuadoi UvliLqn hKl taan niaasd n a cartain ragiaawit In Oiac I
teliav* i«a m inautticrliid fatfiicnt thla waa dcna parhapa out of a daalra
to fm^' that pB-tioilBC ragiMXint tdth )ia am Vraluatloi' (T) of Oia
<)ata origlnaclr^ In aciiB ^jacific laig-taiB atudyi you aay hava alraady
guaaaad what ha(f»nad naxti- thac aaia TagiaB'ant aav fit CD turn KVinl
Kid inclute that particular ^draft* i^tti all Ita faulca In Ua cm offldal
raport <zi CAat atudy lAiai xaa aubtfttad cs tM riiiil mnaiil il Procacdcxi ■
foancy for tagulatory purpoaaa. Parhaga tta indarlylng topa hara naa that
eartaln ravimara In chat vary tmm Uvlaicn laxild ba InOuancad'ty tM
oontant* of that flawd original draft orlglnaUy laatad tnan.
If >cu w« Intaraatad In adll ocha
uMA thaca aawia to no a ooaai thraad,
ana, Lac aa knai ari I ahall ta >illlrg t
d by Google
Tin* hutAM Hid twntf mie* «( «m(i «m ««r« MlMtvd tor (todj oa t
tMrit o( bodj iKlsM nln Mid flndnp obMrvad durlnf th* quwvitliM pwti
T>M Mdmili wm nndoraliad Into tow tr*«tB«it p«upi Mooranc to tM
walfht. TtN rindomfialtan proewi «m don* wpttUalT [or nolo* 4
nle* *«r* hauod
ladttifaaBi Pr«tt «at« ■
PwlM Uboruery HmL ova provldad ad UUtm thraufhout tb« ttudf.
d by Google
Tht doM lav^ in tta pai«« mwn Ml biMd tv«n HnAnp la •
k raifft Dndnf (tudf nn at WIL. nport dtt«d t/rt/rt. Foa
irirtlnfl or M mtiM aid N tmilm mtn wUblWiad nd iiwa ■
1-M n-iu
ia-140 i4i-4n
IlMOa 401-4M
.Ul-SM HI'**)
VIL-TT013 ■Dm to mxpaettd Mfh mortality ntm fai tht mM- and
:. L dtt P«it 4t KMiovt M|t»-dDBa poupa durlM tha Hiat !•■ naala, tha IM pan
lo«Ono»canldtT Study p^.«.daerMaad™n|>p.a..a*l.
Aln It axtra mlaa, not pravtouly Mlaetad far tha Mudr but Inm tht tana
■MpniMit strt addtd ll/M-ll/I/1T.t« prarlda addUonal mica foa lane ttrm
tvaiMtiom til addad to paw t Itnalo 11/M/Tli Tit addtd to pe«v )
■aalt ll/»/TT| T113, TM, T», Til addtd to (ra^ 1 ttmala U/limi Tit,
ni, TIB addtd to row 4 m^ 11/tl/TTt T3«, HI, T31 addtd 10 poap 4
twaala U/ll/n; TU. TM, 7)1, lit, »T addad to iratp 4 aiala 11/l/ni Tia
•Mad to poiv 4 (amalt »/l/T7| T41 addwl to poap 4 IwatU IM/TTi T4S
addad to poup 4 faaalt It/B/TT. Thaaa mlntf addltlana *■« mada at tha
raquait o( tha vonaor tflar eooaultatlon alth tha Mudy draotor.
DwlDf ttia Mudy, all ulea vara abttr*ad twiea dally tor ripn of
RiortaUty, toddtj and bahattortf etianfat.
b. Palpallana
AD mica «ar« palpatad onea waakly (or tha prnanca of maaaaa. Any
poMtlva nnOnp oart fteordtd a* to ittt, location and appaMica.
0. MortalltY
A raaord *aa kapt on lU mica that dad or nar* Ullad bi axtranlt
dntfeif tht itudy. Ml«t MM«h bteama mcrlbund or had t auddan larfo
atlcht loaa aara aaorinead by CO. a^ihyxiatlon and naeropdad aooord-
Inc to tha «1|Jnd protocol. Tlmaa tram aidmria dyln( batora tha and
of tha atudy or aacritload In axtramli aara praunwd for Natopatho-
locle tMRllnatlon. A pas patholofleal aumlnatlBn wat partormtd
and tha Uanna nvad In 10% buttarad nautrtf rormalln on all animal*
that dad witMn tha tint waaka of doakif. Moat of thva Uttar tbMoa
wart not avaluatad M*tapatholo(ieally ai par Inatructlona from tha
wonaar, rinet no altaratlona of a oardno(anlo natwa Ktrt anUdpatad
from nth a abort aapoaira to tha taat dot. A atakly e«adati*t
racard of mortality xaa malntalntd. ^-556 1304
d by Google
ly ««le U ««r« mtt ir<4 tor ill mtea once OMkly dwtnf tha tint
t month. <ii*tlta t t ni|h ID, i»«« trwr otiMr wmK durinf th*
sand hill of Uw fit . yt (wMlct 31 tlroufh S3), and than onct a
anOi ntl aludr tarialnatian (Kaaki »T thro««n lOS).
lOdCewnntitlBB. Food EttlelMtcT id Plat Cancantmlcii
.adi Una tiM mlaa vara waifhad, tha anxMnt of dat eenautrad by
Mch lax of aaata sroiv wm maifwad. Proni thaaa data, food atflelaiKiy
and av*«f« intaka of oxaaiyl pm pav "•> ealeulatad-
J for Hamatolagf
Tc laolc and tan (anria mlea randonlir idaatcd trooi aaoh poup wara U«d
from tha nUtH ^w aftn I, 3. t, 11, II mantta of dodn| and prior t*
tarminatlai of tha ttudy. Pvainatan maluatad nerai wMta Nood o«U eoint,
rad Uood ean eouit, hamoflaUn eonaantraUon, hamatoerit, maan oaD ■olinie,
maan eorpuaetiv hamoclaUa, maan oBrpuaedar haraaflabin concantration,
eompleta ditfarantial WBC
All nrvlvlng mica waro walfhad, aaeritfcad with COj ophyiiatloa wid aoaop-
iiad on Hoiraffltxr 14, IS, II and IT, 1*T> indar tha aiparviilon of Or. Frad H.
Slglar, a Board dlglbla vatarinarr patimoflM.
I. Organa Weighad
LIvat Taataa Haart
Eya «lth eontliuoui Hwderian ilaiMk CorpiH and earrtx atari
FIttitary E^laan
Salivary ilandi Lymph nodai
Hewt S«n
Thymua Sdatle narva
Thyroid (Paraltiyrold) Mainmary (land
Lui(* Bora, bona mvrow,
(3 coronal (eetlona with or tlUo-tamoral ioint
Enphatt* UtaruB
Stomaeh ■Kaaal eavlt)
IntesUna, •mill and lirn dnuaai
AAcnalglandB ■Spinal eord (I leialt)
Panercai ■Head (1 coronal aaetlona)
LIvar, 1 lolws naaopharyni, miiMa aar,
Oall bladder toncua and oral cavity
KiAiayi *Semlnal variola
Urinary bladdtr Oroas lesioni Iwlth nomial
Taitai, apiddymldaa tlnua)
Prior to tha iKumca of tha propiaad raiulatloni tlsnie ^Mcimant war
eoUactad tram animal* fouid dead and aaerltlcad moribund trrou|hout tr
itudy aceordnc to ttw abova Utt aieapt for tha tlMuaa mtrkad with *.
Bl-SM o— 88—
d by Google
8c dl dad aalr la Um tint ran «a«la «l am atudy tai ortjr ■ pan
K «« p«rf«nt«d, IM ttaMM Mwa M*lalo|laaO]r nmnliMd baa
If ■■ ■aattgn). TImIm mlea Mar* no, irMV 3 airiat IM, fra«p 3 mdai
4' ', m, S14. Saa, SIO, mm, 4I1, mi, 491 imv 4 ndai lit. Ml,
r t«Ml«| 4U, 4a>, 4H, 410, 44S frotv 1 ramdai >T0, (01, 014, •»,
01 0, no, ttl |rg<v 4 faraila. Alas, Mvaril mloa >ara jodfad to ba In
MK in advanead (taU of antolinla ai lo pradnda Mauvatholotio anlua-
tior. That* mlea n^n 940, Crotv 4 mdai III, fnvf 1 famalai Ht, fcoiv 1
fanalat and 514, MS fcouf 4 tamala. Manj ethar mlea •»« touid (a hava
advanead paabaartam autsljr^ but It waa not oxtanilTa anoufh to pradud*
a Mttepatholoileal ainlwtlai.
Otw nn«a (Tl, patv 1 mala) aaa aannlballnd (oa(a« i**d In tha ittidir had
eamar dvldara and on* momm penatratad tha divldv and xaa eannlballaad)
and ona (100, fioup 4 lamila) km not naerofdad (taetaileian ooaisigM).
WlL-ITOll
E. I. du Pont d< HaraowJ
MouM Oncottnldtj Study
O. CBnIeal QtatrnatlBna
T1>«a wM no atvartnt law matari*«latad alfart on uir dMeal obaana-
H. Palpation of MapM
Tlnua moMi obatrvad ind- palpated tHouchout Om itudr and at tarmlna-
Uon war* avduatad hiitopathologleillr. No apparont eoMUtnt tat
kI otfaet •«■ mttd.
Oroup 4 malai mMn food eonaonptlan «aa rifninoantlr Itai
than (p < O.OS or p < O.Ol) tMI of tha osnttol, ftm^ t, malet for ■eaki 11
throu|h 14 Kith tha axeeptlon of waalo 11, II, M and 44. Prom waA II
through tha and ot the iludjp thata wn tm ripilflcut dttaranea. Ko pattern
««i tnoma througtBut the study tor tha other teit croupa t wid 1 mala* ud
1, 3 and 4 remilai.
db,Google
jightt
mbp- ^tt tor pmvS nUMi>*r«ricnineantlylM« tiMn thOM
--'' onbc MMka I - <I. The mun body nalfhU for froiv 4 malat
tpiin'.' iati tiMn thOM at Um control* from oioki 1-41 and
■arliU* uft«r (o lb* and at th* ttgdy. TTMra >aa tm ^piineant
imwa tir;. nout tiM rwnalndar of tb* Mudy. Thi ma«i body «al(hU
troiv 1 dT 4 rrnialot wn-a variably ripiltlcantly diriorart durlnc Iha
It 11 «aak* or the ttudy, but wva only iporadeally rifnltlcantly
>:lH<r«nt aftar woak II. Ho otiwr eoniMont pattom naa noted Ln «iy of
Um traatad |r«va oomparod to tha eontrola ttrouftnut the romaindar of
thaitudy.
Ho eonriitant laat matartal rriatad effaeta war* nolod in tba body orifht of
tha traatmont (roupa compared to that of tha oontreU after tha tint tl
■oak* of tha ttudy.
A. MortaHty
Um eirniiiatlTa Ufa papli dote roflaetad tha early laortalltla*. Theaa
daatrw appeared to be rtfatod to ttM acuta toxic afleet of the twt mttarlal
ta the dot ralitwe. SubaaquenUy, Ufa table analy^ kideatad no further
Inoreeied mortality due to ouniyl oecurrod duifnt tha ramalndv of th*
atudy.
C. Hematolep
Spor«a« rifnllloant dltfareiMti fai hanatotofy parareeurt M«r« noted
throofhout the Mudy. Theta eh«iff«* ve aaneatl** of ■ eompomd rdatod
effect ivonrededl nan In poi« 4 male* early In tha«tudy«a«li4lMl thU
dd not pordit.
D. Organ Welittt* and Onan/Ftnal Body Wel|ht Hatioa
There wo* a dlslit decreaae In abaoluta weliht of the U*«r In froup 1 male*
and • dlght inereate of tha ortan to body «el|ht ratloa of the UAiey for
iroup 4 mole*. Balad on tha abaaiea of Matdofleal flndbip, theaa eriectt
mm not eomldarad tlfnifleent.
E. Qroa* and HIatopatholcgj
Ho ^fntfieant hUtopatholofleal ehonfu were notwj far the tatt pa^
•hen comporad to thoaa of the eontrcU exeapt thet the ohronk Interatltlal
nephritis of the UAey «aa rifnitleantly lea* for tha tMt p-<»V* (poi^ % 3
and 4), male*, eonipared to that of the oontroU. Oxemyl <ra* not
e*rdnof*M« *t any level teatad.
d by Google
5SS'
miftkmtni I
^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACENCY
HEMOBAKDUM -
TO!
mgiitratlon DivUlon (TS-7ST1
TBRO.
John w. M«10ft«, Oiractor C*0^&S*S' ■ '
aatard evaluation Diwlstof {TS-TS9)
SUMECTi
Oxaayl Or.cogar.lclcy Study ip. >ttea
Th*
purpoat oE efii« nana is cha faliouir.ai
I.
to atata itia Sactalla poaitlon ragardlng a study
to bk tha aubjaet of a 'cut and paica* :avlav.
J.
TO .eata th. poaltlon o£ tna B.vl«. Group.
3. T* pr«vld» ay opinion o( tha r«9Ul*toty ■taniticane*
of cha Raviaw.Group-a ClrJing.
Battallafs Coaawnts (varbaClB)
Conatdatabla duplication of taxt froit tha ragiatcant'a
tapoEt la Ir.cludad In tha EPA ravlaw. ina only original
COmponaRC of tha EPA ravlau la tha concluaton at'tanant on
paga S that Oianyl waa not oncogar.lc at dlataty lavela up to
TS ppB. Ho Ir.dapandant avaluatior. of tha saglatrar.t'a data
was parfomvd to aupport thia coneluaion.
Raviaw 0-oue'» Connatif
Tha Ravlau G=oup notad that tha Initial TOX Branch cavlaw
includad an analyala of tha lung tumor data and notad no
paatlclda-ralatad affacta. This aa«ns to b* avldanca of an
Indapar.dar.t avaluation.
Ragulatorv Opinion
Baaad on thli Battalia tavtaw thara ■«•■• to b« no caaaon
to altar our praaant ragulatory poaltlon cagaEding Oxanyl and
tha cavlaw atatlng that Oxamyl ahouad no oncogenic potantlal
Willl«M L. Burnaa, Chlaf
Toxicology Branch
Kaiacd Evaluation Olvialor
db,Google
«S«0-SD
ENviROHHeHTAL PHorecTtuN Nit»ii
(40 CFii PAKT laoi
IPP 3Eiai3/ I
OXAHTL
PROPOBED miEIWHCr
AGEHCIi envlronsancal P>««actlon Agancy (EPA).
ACTIONi Propoaad Hula.
!i[THnAti:fi Thti doeuiient propoaai that a tolaranca M •■tattllinarl
for raslduan of tna Inaacciclda/nanatlclda oxanyl In or on the
raw ajrlcultural coavnodity bananas. Thla provoaad rayulattnn .
to oRtablicn a oaxlnuD pnrnlaitbla lava] (or railduaa of ovaTyl
In oi on tnr eonunodlty waa raquartad, pucauant Co a r-eCltloii.
TATLi coTrp-anta nuit be racalvad on or hatora t Inaart rtaf 3" daya
attax puOlleatlnn In tha fEfCPAL BFGISTEBI.
ARDRLSM Submit written eovnanta by nail Coi
pro'iirsi-. Hanaganant and Pupror* Dlvlalon (TS-757C)
igton, DC 2n4«0,
ISll Jafleraon Davit Hluhway,
AcllngtO
d by Google
roB rDKTBBK INrOIMATIOM CONTACTi f Aj^mM ± t^ S\
J«y ellanb«rgar, W ' / '
Froduce Htnagar (phi 12.
It«el«tr>tinn Dlvtoion (TS-7«TC),
Offlc« of Mstlclila Progru*,
' Bnvlromnant*! Frotaction Ao'ncy.
HooM 30],.Cnl2,
1911 JatCacson Davli dlghway,
Arlington, VA 11201,
<70}-59T-ll««).
SUPPLeHENTAPy tnpoiviATIOI'i E. I. duPont da HwnouT* and Co^any*
wllnlngton. Oc 19S9*, hai subnlttad p*ttlcl<1a petition 3EI133
tc tha EPA prot>oatng to anand 40 CPR 1X0.303 by aatabllshlng a
tolaranc* (or c«*ldu*i> al tha tnaacclclda/naiMtielda oxanyl
(oathyl N'N'dl»«thvl-H-I<rathylcart>ainoyl)o>yl-l-thloo»*i*tdat«)
In or on tha rnw kgrlcultural co«!>odlty bananaa linportad fieri
Costa Rica at O.a part par nllllon (ppn).
Tha data ■ubirtttad In th* patltlon and all ethar rilavant
natarlal hav* baan avaluatad. The tox 1 colog 1 ca 1 data conaldaraci
In lupport of tha tolnrane* Includadi a 1-yaar rat (aodlng/onco-
vaniclty atudy and a l-yaar dog faadlnc atuOy, both bhleri >«ra
nagltlva undar tha cnrdltlont of tha nturilfti, wltn no-obaarv«rt-
•ifact lavaik (ui'tL) o( 50 tP^ '"d lOu fipr-, raspactlvclyi a >«g>H
oncoganlclty itudy vhlcn wan nagatlva undar tha condition! of tha
study at dlatary lavals up to 15 ppix for 1 yaarai a throa-^anaratlor
rat raproductlon atudy with a NOCL o( SO ppsi a rat taratognnielty
study which was nagativat ana • rabbit taratoganlelty atudy which
d by Google
kU,U-t^f'l(f1'i'^d)
was ncgatlv* ac up
B 4 >llllaraaa tBgl/klloaraM {kgl/day vlth a
HOEL of 2 ag/ko/day (or latotoxlelty. Baaod on tha 3-yaar chconlt
rat (aadtno/oncoganlcity atudy otth a NOEL of S0>0 ppm and uilng i
safaty factor of lOOi tha accaptabl* dally Intaka (ADI> (or humant
la calculacad to ba 0.03S usAg of body waight (bv|/day. Tha
thaoracical aiaxlauoi raaldua eonttibgelon (IMKCI taaulting In tna
himan dlac troai thla and pravloualy ••taOllahad tolarancaa utlllti
42. tT par cant of tAa ADI.
t&a patabollap of oxavyl la adaipiataly undaratood, and an
adaquat* anaj
ptiotOMtrlc c
ragulatory ac
tratlon of oi
In tha ••tabliahiH
llvaatock or poult
raalduaa In naat,
tolacanca aatablli
public haalth
aatablUhed a
rtlcal Ml
(ga> ehroaatography i
■llabla tor anforcon
currantly pandlng agalnai
:■ thara any ralavant eoi
thaaa tolarancaa. bacai
id itana inTolvad, thara
poultry, and agga aa a \
Infomatlon conaldarod b]
F aawndlng 40 CFR 180,303
iropoaad, tharafora, that
:h baloH.
■a no aacondary
of t>il« uaa.
ftganey, tha
lould protact tha
la telaranca ba
ttio f,roi.o*acl rojulatlon. Con»wnt> *vat boar i
tne uocunant control nunbcr, IPC 3E2833/ |. All written
co(»anta fllad In raaponaa Co thti patltion will ba avallabla In
the Product Hanagar'a (Pn-121 oftlca, Keglatratton Division', at
tna addraaa givan abova fro* BiOO a.r, to 4(0(1 p.in. , Monday through
Friday, axcapt lagal holldaya.
d by Google
514
nudgat has •xenptad thla rul
qulr»n!«nt« of saetlon
S of e»cutlva (icdar 1«91.
,u
« to the t.:4i.lr<,B.nt
of the Reyulttory rlcxlhUlt
s
-3S4, 94 St-t. 1164,
U.S.C. 601-S121, the AdiPlnli
rr,
n.<3 M.t r.5ul.tic.n.
atabllihino new tolecancai or
to
•ranc* lav* In or eit'
liahlns aienptloriB from toler
.n
■ do not have ■ Bignl
leant eeonoBic Upact on a
ta
numb.r ot .nail .ntl
lea. A certification atitama
•.c
vas published in tSe
FEDEDAl. RECISTE): of t1a> 4. l»
^'fO
db,Google
/HkUw,ii(f^J'^^')
LiHi or atmjECTB iw 4n cfB pa»t ibo
AdKlnlBtrallvB practice ann proGodur*
Agricultural Fo— ndltU"
Past lei <■•■ and paat*
o...d, DEcc-:;.i4
Off lei
, ItaviatxatlDn DlvUlon,
of Paatleld* Vrograna.
-riBtafoca, 1
that '0
CfP 160.303 la aMHdad
hy adding
and alphatwtlcally
naartlns
, tht ran ■grlculturnl
coTJBodley
bananaa
to raad •■ teUowai
f iao.103
OXBKVll
Parta p>r Kllllwi
d by Google
A \
.SB.'
I)4h4m»i 3
^
■S ENVIRONMENTAL PliOTCCTlON AGENCY
MEMORAHDUM
SUtJECTi 'Rlak A«>«»Hnt' tor Baygon
TOi
Hobart P. landiUn,
Acting Section Haul
Saetion II
Ton le« logy Branch
Mco Englar, Ph.D.
Chiat, Scianttflc
Toxicology Branch
and clak aaaaaaaant.*
A* you knov, «• ai
clak aaaaaaaant procaii
a conaultlng ravian avi
oC tha prlnary ravlawai
pkthologlat. Iha othai
Involvaa tha rafarral (
panalr bafoca ■ risk er
onca this la cc
chaalcal'a potaney I
tha ad hoc oouilttat
of a Ciinaly conplatj
toxicologiat managa
praiafitly intending to c
,o ■ dagraa. Ona of tha ehanga* Involvas
latlon at tha facta by ■ taaa coniiating
toxlcologlatli a atatlatlclan and th*
changa In evaluating oncoganlc affecta
tha Clndlnga to an ad hoc paar ravlew
rlzation la carrlad out I tha latter
Backui
appa.
aaana appcoprii
1 pathologist.
ba vary good
lant for ad hoc
a that tha >atarial
ad and a prallnlnary aaaaaanant of tha
llabla tha packaga will ba rafarrad to
ballava that it la In tha bate Intaiaat
thia Intardlacipllnary ravlan that tho
eonplatton. Mould you, thar«fot«.
Tox Branch Sacclon Haada
db,Google
^^
sszy
UNITED STATTS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AQENCY
SOBJSCTi '
unc* BroBOsyQil
Mto inglar, ph.D>
ChUC, Scianclfic «
Toxicology Branch
1 Support Staff
A^
a BaBo datad January 17, 19S9. you raCacMeM ^^^^^
Aa you know, wa intand to ehanga Co aeaa dagraa
of rlak aaaasaaant. rlrat, atudlSa ahowlne an oncoganle affaet
ahould undargo a oonaultlng (tripartita) raviaw by tlw Cos-
- tcologlati tlM atatlaticlan and tha pathologlat. Saeond, tk
toxlcologlat should prapara a eoaprabanslva aunaury raviaw of
tha eh^ical In guaatlon, conalatlng of tha oncoganlc (trlggar)
acudy and othar ralavant atudlaa. Tt)ta auaaary raviaii packaga
alao lauat contain a praltninary potaney ■■aaaasant ol tha
ehaalcal. Ttia ariluatlon of tha chaalcal la than ratacrad to
. tha Ad hoc Paar Kavlaw Cosaittaa for furthar action.
Following thla ganaral procadura, wa ara satarcing tbla ~
ehaalcal back to your aactlon and Dr. Koblnaon. Dr. Hoblnaon
•hould Banaga tha ■tripartita* raviaw, providing furthar Inter-
■ation aa nacaaaary for avaluatlon. In ordar to aanaga tha
procaaa raaaonably •ttlcacioualy, wa would appraetata an apprex-
iBata tl>a fraaa (or coaplaCion.
T. Farbar
L. Kaaxa
B. Utt
S. Boblnaon
Sacelon Baads
d by Google
- (UE. owiroy II, rx
OCfio* of CcnpUw
PMtlddra Mid TCK
n ttOBB, BUD, OPP, TS-768/C.
1 labocatory liupacUox
I «■ ^c*'''H'V 'WT* (CT vixz' IndxnaClcn a ocnruiTlcaClm nada
Inumslly within th* OfClca ol Feitldda Pccgrsn. Although eh*
Hndlngs dlscusasd thsra acotm during > laboratory Incpactlen ml data
audit asalgned by your Ofllca, It aaans tnllliely to na that you noiUS
b* dlractly Infcmal at this iutt«-t tMi could ytappm alnca I uaa
told that, baciuaa of lt> aanaltivity. It ihould not ba dlacuand In
Om (rftldal raport of Chat inapacticn mS audit.
a) i&iat In ytuc o(itnlon could your (xcoroi oC Inapactiois oC
ni audita at atudlaa by iBbnrntarlsa In thi ragulatad InduaBy
WKOvvr that wuld ta awan rmotaly aqulvalant n <jjifmabl» In afCaet
to lAst xa iM«i to hava hara T
b) do you baliava that ^*»t happaned with thla particular study
of wsnyl In Men Ivd, wra apadacally, with Ua "oovar-up* aipacta
o( It) nay oxitdn alvianta of nalfaasanca and. It as, do you tMnk
thia should ba ratartad to tha OCflca of th* intpactor Ganaral of tha
eph fa: an inuaatigation 7
yl^
db,Google
nt. JXX D. BUUC, PHESlEBir
NNnCmL H3tICDL!n]RU. aiDiIIC3U£ ASaOdKnON
uBou m
suBCCHonm cn cBAEaHSfr otsnTKHS,
ICSUBDl MD PCREIGK ASaCUUnJBE
CF 3SE
Gcmri'iiiE CM KsacuurasE
WITED 3BSES BXBR OF nmESmUlTIVES
HtV 21, 1985
Good RDming Mr. ChBiman and Menteiv of tbe Si±oc^idttae.
I m JacA D. Early, Pmident of the Haticnal Agricultural
Ownicals Assoclatlcn. I aa aoconianled today by Mr. Carl J. Kensll,
Vice Qiaininn of our Board of Diractora and nnaldent o£ Ciba-Oalgy
Corporation's Agricultural Division, and by H. Soott Farguaon, our
General Counael.
You, Hr. OiaiunaTi and otters en your fiuboomlttee have called qpCR
all of us — industry, agrlmlture, gororrmnt, and t— ^"i lntai»ata
to be part of a prooeaa to adrtr»»s acne of the nagging ocziKms in
pesticide regulatlcn. He are ready to help.
In giving our pledge to help, ms add cne obeecvatioot He believe,
as He think manj here do, that tr^ ananAnKits to Finn diould reflaot
d by Google
the testinony given befon the StlxxxmlttM l«st annth ty Oh's Dr. Aabn
A. Hook, that FIFBA is « 'fundaoantally aouid Hivlzanwntal lat." Vila
BtaUUHit ceinforoes uuiiuhiLb Did* l^st y«ar beCcn this aixx—dLl— bg
QA's then Adninlstrator, Hillljn D. Ibctelriiaua, ytto t<wt.ifliri Utat
FUVh is "basically a ■□und and Morktble atatute vhidi glvaa [SAl
suthoriQ to act on aevciial fronts without waiting fee dtmgea in
loglslatlcn.* He ttgree with these SA views and uige the aiaoawwittee
not to flake the octensive revisions to FIFIK uujjuaLuil in H.R. 24B2,
1116, 1910, and ott^r bills that we believe m^ be yet introduoed.
He understand that H.R. 24B2 has been intmduced in a bipartisan
effort to enotura^e oonstructivE dialogue en FiFm, Wiile tliis bill nay
ediieve this lauddile abjective, enactment of the bill and the Beftel
and Seiberling bills would cause severe injury to our industry and,
perh^s, to our agricultural custaners.
FJFKi currently strikes a careful Kiii«»if» ^aong nany legitimate
ooncema and interests. Changes proposed in bills befcze this
Scboonnittae would i^iaet this iii|xirtant talanoe, I«t na give sons
acwples: Scrapping the present canoellation prooeAues in favor of
rul^-fraking would speed ratcnnl of products fnxi the narhet, but at the
cost of procedures that ensure due process, where literally nllllcns o£
doUars of investment, czopa, health, and the livallhood of thousands of
Biocfaars of the piiillc ride on a product's registraticn. Wholesale data
disclosures to foreign govemnaits wmld sake SA's aAninlstxatlcn of
FIFRA ^sier, but nay cause data owners to lose their intallactual
property ric^its and their investment in the data, ttnlishlng
imtamificatioi to those injured by federal suspenaigvcanoellation
d by Google
521
actions and infCBing f«es m the registration o£ perticlilpg >i^ appeal
to federal budget VBtdwis, but would expoae pesticide naufacturuM and
distributors to potentially cataatiDEliic financial risks and operating
<x>sts. lliese are just a few eaoiileB of the hi^y cbjocticnal
modifications {oopoeed in H.R. 2482, 1416, and 1910. The pccpseals
slnply 90 too far. Sons modest changes to FTF1K are worth considering,
however, but we Bdanit that majm: vanAnents are not only unnecessary,
but also potentially dangerous.
I would lite to turn now, briefly, to
ijifilarentaticn of the current law and how it relates to a decision en
the scope of tTJVk HnenOnenta. As SA has previously testified, the
Agency has eetiBrked on a vigorous progran to address a^iinistratively
tte icng-etanding concerns in pestidds regulation. This effort has
gone a long way in restoring SA's credibiliQ and the tiaeliness and
scientific quality of its regulatoory decisions. 1 will not npeat now
the q»cificB of vtmA prograss SA has nada, other than to ci)Secve that
this painful eAninietratlve prooeas has relieved Oangress of the need
for making many statutory dianges. But, scne Bodest legislative wDck
rcoBins that vdll still retain the carefully crafted balaioe in FIFIK
that has served well.
I would llJce now, in ny naadjiing Roiutes, to discuss ar»as for
ocnstructive PUKA Mreniknnts. He are not asking foe a •O'oalled *wiih
list" of inpiovaiente, solutions to mote prcfalm, or ways to Bake our
life easier. Insts^, in tte spirit of mmiiwise, we offer ideas en
d by Google
FIFRA changes that are not in our apeeiAl intarsst and a^ ascist you in
preparing an acceptable bill.
The st^^estions which follow are poieparad at our fim ocnviction
that FTPBh should not be evened to si^stantial diaKfaa, in whatever
form. If our underBtandii^ is mistaken and FmA is to be ovcihmilad,
\^ too have ide2is to amend FIFRA in the p(i>lic int«reat and to wintain
proper balance. For exaiple: nere ore anblguous FIFTtA provisicns
affecting the use of data 9jf:porting registratima, ocnpenaaticn for
data, and re^xxisiveness of coqpeting registrants to data call-ins.
"Riere are local jurisdictions and camunitles which st^Brsede this
Congress' jud^nent in FIFHA and CTft's sdaitiflc anl cagulatory
assasanents with their own. While such ccnnunities nay be eloaest to
local ccncems, they are not tednlcally mpable of asaesslng rlAs and
benefits and do not have the natictial perspective on assuring food,
health, and ocmnerce for us all. niere are potoitial coiflicts and ga^
anong the Federal statutes affecting our industry, Mgecially in the
areas of research and develcpnent, grounAnteE pcotaetion, ootnunity
right^to-^OYM, and Morfcer CKpoeure. There are increasing reports fr^
our motbers of inflexible ^A regulation evidencing an e^parent
indlfferenoe or lack of understanding of the agricultural and cznnarciAl
iB^iact of certain regulatory apptoai±teB. Finally, there axe inCTBasing
efforts In scne sectors to fruRzate B%'s registzation of fcodbcts and
the Federal use of pesticides throu^ the use of the Natlanal
Bnvircnnental Policy Act,
We plan not to pursue these and other issues now, tie belisve that
FTFPA can fwction well, with few changes, if the belance is aeintalned.
d by Google
523
To further satisfy pi^lic ccncams with the validity and ooqilatenesa of
data ai^iportlng pesticide regletrBtions, housvar, we auggeat that the
Stixxmnittae consider the following:
1 . iBfoeing stiff penalties on those Mho would willingly
falsify any data in sifpsrt of a pesticide zegistration.
2. iPBcdiate suspension of pesticide registrations if the SK louns
that the registraticxts were cbtained en the baois of daliberately
falsified data.
3. Mandatory time-tablee for identifying ard filling data gapB.
4. SA inspection authority for laboratories develcping data in
si,f;f)ort of registrations.
5. Congressional authorization of increasad funds for SA to
re^xxisihily adninlster FIFNl.
He have legislative language on these 5 points that Me will ponvide
the Siliocziiiiittee in our written teatincny. He will alao address in our
written testiitony a mnber of other issues raised by picfxssad
legislation being considered by the SiAocmnittee and by others'
testlDO^.
Hr. diainnan and narfcers of the Siixximxttme, in ocncluding my
testlsDRy this uoming, let wb assure you that the agricultural
d by Google
chonicAls ijidustry stands ready tx> help you and othsrs framilAtB
consUuctive Moentaents to PZFRK in a spirit of aoaper^tiai. Oix deaixe
is to ndrirese nja In legislaticn, to the extent we can, those fow
unresolved coM^ems about the regulaticn of agricultural pestiddea,
and to avoid re-visiting tlTBh ■nenfaents again fei tha foEeBeeable
(Attachment follows:)
d by Google
xS(5fe
VJ?,
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION
Hcnorable BerUey Bedell
Oiaiman
SiijcCTifnittfie or Departmajt Operaticns,
Hesean* and Foreign Agriculture
House of RepresenUtivss
Hashingtcn, D.C. 20515
Dear Congreseren Bedell;
As I prtxniaed in n^ appearance before the Si^cciiinit±ee en Nay 21,
19BS, I am hj^^ to provide you picpoaed legislaticn en the five issues
mentioned in NACA's testimony. (Attactnent 1) As always, we stand ready to
discuss these thou^ts with you and to answer questicns.
I uculd also lite to tate this cfiportunity to sin>ly yc ^^^ the
SUxxnmittee tOCA's views on a umber of other issues raised in the
proposed legislaticn to mend FIFBh. (Attaidinent 2) Given the ntirber and
conplexity of the issues, and the fact H.R. 2560 had not yet been intro-
duced, we thou^t it would be better to pcovide our views in this form and
time, rather than in oral testiircny at the hearing. Hcpefully these views
can be inooiporated into the published record.
In closing, I would liJ(e to toucti t^xxi a further thoi^t that perh!^>s
should have been nore strongly eni^usized in our testincny. UKA is fiimly
Ofposed to opening FIFBA to sifcstantial changes, even those that way be
vieMed as favorable to our industry or so called "business" issues. He
believe that EPA has adequate statutory tools no* to da its jcfc right and
that nest deficiencies in its perfonmnce that scne see can be attributed
more to a different assesonent of priorities or to the lack of adequate
resources than to w^ikness in PIFRA. Mding ncre re^xnsibilitieE and
dsnands en the Agency, as do nost of the anendnenta proposed, will cnly
d by Google
Me believe that efforts should be directed nctt to a major le-wtite of
the law and a correspcfidingly reijor EPA funding increase, but to ttxxe few
adjustments necessary to deal with the public's ccncems, ihis course oE
action is both reascnable, in light of the real needs, and fiscally rE^xxi-
y^' J Jack D. Early
Attactments
WSF:kab
cc: All DCSIFA Subcormittee
/ 7 Jack D. Early / 1
d by Google
Attachment 1
'If the Adninlstrator detennlnee that a regiatrant willfully
aiAxnlttad clata that he knew were false in si^port of a
legistratlcn and such data are significant to the Adninifitra-
toc's detemmiation under either sidasecticne (b) or Ic) of
this aectiui, the Adninistratoc my, by OKder, cancel the
registraticn of the pesticide ImiBdiately pursuant to this
i safety dataT~
Amend Section 12(a) 12) by adding the following new sub-paragr^iA:
(2) It shall be unlawful for any perscn —
" (Q) to willfully falsify all or pert of any data in ainxart
of a reqistraticn or applicaticn for amerim^ital use permit,
or to willfully sdanlt such falae data m airoort o' -
Amend Sectloi 3<c) |2) (B) 1:^ adding the following neM eubparagraphs:
' (vi) Notwithstanding any other prcwisicr of this itet, each
registrant of a pesticide for use en or in food or feed, registered
prior to August 1, 1984, shall prcnride the Ackninistrator within 6
mcnths after the effective date of this Act a list of data and
informaticn H\±niitted by the registrant in support of its
registraticzi and shall identic suc^ additional data and
infcssnation that may be required under the guidelines established
under (c) 42) (a) of this secticn. Registrants of pesticides for
ncn-focd uses, registered prior to August 1, 1984, shall provide
sucii lists and identification within 9 ncnths after the effective
date of this Act. The identification of such adlitlonal data shall
rot be construed by any court or in any other [wooeeding as
indicating that the pesticide for whldi the Information is provided
m^ cause uhreascnable adverse effects on the envlrcment or may
d by Google
t hazard, itie AckninlGtrator shall identify those
iregistered pesticides in Bi±faragraphe (vii) (I) , and (vli) (II) on
or in food or feed, as determined by the quantity of eadi sixii
pesticide used for sud) purposes, and those registered pesticides
in sul:¥iaragraph (vii) (III) no later than 6 mnths after the
effective date of this Act.
" (vii) The Jblninistrator shall review the infoEiDatian provided by
registrants pursuant to subparagraph (vi) and shall act in
accordance with st±{>aragra;^ (i) throu^ (v) —
:) later than 36
EatJi notice issued under sutiparagr^^i (i) shall require the
additional data to be sid>nitted by a date certain tt> more than 5
years after the issuance of the notice.
' (viii) TTie Adninistrator shall review the additicnal data
sufcmitted by a registrant pursuant to a notice issued under
subparagraph (i) and may within cne year —
3 cancel under sections 6(b) (1) c
III. issue a notice of intent to su^end under secticxi 6(c) .
"If the Adnijustrator issues a notice of intent to suspend t
registration pursuant to this
as described in section 3 (c) (2) (B) (ivj o'f this Act.
Adninistrator shall report annually to the Senate Qannittee on
Agriculture, Nutriticn and Forestry and the House Ccnmittee cr
Agriculture the data submitted that have not been reviewed by the
Adninistrator within Budi 1 year period and the reasons therefor.
Informaticn sitmitted to the hikninistrator, the Adninistrator's
notification of data required, and the data sctxnitted in rcqxnse
to such notification pursuant to this secticn shall be made pidillc
consistent with secticn 10 of this Act.'
In addition, anend ETFRA section 3 (c) (2) (B) as follows:
' (ivi Notwithstanding any other peovisicn of this Act, if the
AtininistrBtor determines that a registrant, within the tijne
raquired )3y the At^ninistrator, has failed to tate afpi^opriate
st^s to secure the data required under this stA]paragrs(4i, to
d by Google
ragistrant's ccntrol, to participate in a procedure for
leadiing agtomcnt. . . , the Mnimstrator may issue a notice
of intent to suq>end sudi registrant'E registraticn of the
pesticide for which additional data is required."
Allow CTA infection of laboratories.
« paragraph after the
'Fot purposes of verifying the accuracy of data sulxnittad in
ojggact of an enperimental use permit or registration, officers or
aiployees duly designated by the Ailninistrator are authorized,
after the sitanisslon of an ^plication for an experimmtal use
peimit under aecticoi 5 or an a;plicaticn for a registraticn under
secticn 3, to enter at reaacnable tines any laboratory to in^sct
relevant parts of sixit laboratory, related books and records, and
data that have been or are being develcf^ed to si^i^ort such
^plicatlcn . "
Support the following author izaticn:
lliere is authorized $ to carry out these fl«neni4Dent8 to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rsdenticide Act and to iicprove
and expedite the registraticn and ceregistraticn of pesticidea
under sudi Act for the fiscal years 1986-1990.
d by Google
Attachnwnt 2
During the 13 years since the revised Federal Insecticide, F^aigiclde,
and Itdenticide Act (FIFRA) was enacted, it has beccne inciwwlngly
clear that the Federal law has respcnded effectively to the tedmlcally
ccriplex anj politically charged subject of pesticide rggulatlm.
Anxiety ancng certain individuals and groups, hoiifever, has caused
Congress to look again at FIFSk amendnents. Hie following discussicn
presents NK3V's positicn en the major issues raised in those a
H.R. 24B2 j]
Certified flpplicators
H.R. 2482 [a^oposes to delete FIFtA Section 2(e) <4) , defining the
oanoept "under the direct si^ervisicn of a certified ^plicator," and,
throuc^ cdipanicn ciianges, allow SA to specif the extent of
sif^rvision lAiich nust be exercised by c^±ified ^plicators ixer the
ag>licaticn of restricted-use pesticides by moertified aiplicabors.
Me share the vieM of many — including agricultural users of
pesticides — that restricted use pesticides should be afiplled only by
those adequately st^ervised and trained in their pn^er use. The
onencknent, houever, does not address the basic prcl)leni of training and
sifiervisicjj. The change cfily addresses increased EKi discreticnary
authority over the terms of registrations. While attractive to SPA
pertu^, the aienctnent will lead only to a nore ccnplex registratiicn
process (in lAudi z^licaticn nonagarent nust be debated and possibly
regulated) , pat(±work regulatioi, and ocnfusicn — all without
addressing the key elanent: adequate training and supervision In the
field.
Disclosure of Inert Ingredients
Currait law allows ^A to disclose the identity and percentage of
deliberately added inert ingredients vhen sodi disclosure is necessary
to protect against unreasonable risk to health or the enviroranent. H.R.
2482 proposes to atnend FIFRA to require the listing and peroentage of
Inerts en pesticide labels if t^ inert ingredients are deteimined by
^A to be hazardous.
Our industry does not object to the disclosure of inerts if It is
clearly in the public interest, but believes that there is significant
anti-ccnpetltive inpact in the virtually unrestrained disclosure alloMsd
by the snendients. Hie confidenti^ity of deliberately added inerts is
the "fomulatlcn edge' in cne product's cccpetiticn with another. Uie
purpose of naintaining the fomula in ocnfidence, except v^ien pisssing
health or envuTxiiEntal factors ccnflict, is to protect the research and
develcfraent, marketing and other investments that a cciifiany has made in
its product. The prcfx)sed FIFRA <^iangee go too far In elurdnatlng the
current balance between the need for disclosure and confidentiality.
d by Google
Deflnitiiyi of "Dlatrihute or Sail"
H.R. 2482 would define the tem 'distribute or seU' to include
"hold for distribiticn" and 'hold for ah^nmt" in adiiticn to othor
activities described In FitVA aecticn 3 (a) . Currant FIFBh le ^it^*-'^ to
those activities rfiicii nay ea^ea the public and owizcRoent to a
pesticide, tfaivfaoturing and related warehousing activities are ccwared
by other lows ^^llcable to the ifort^lace. lite mednent inserts ^9k
earlier into the manufacturing and distribution parooess what there Is no
showing that this is neoessary. FTFIA should caiBin unchanged.
Definiticn of 'Pesticide Testing Facility'
Sectioi 3 of H.R. 24B2 picposes a new pioviBlcn that would define
the terrn "pesticide testing facility* to Include virtually ai^ peracn or
locatlcn that ccnducts ai^ research activity en pesticides, including
tests, studies, and sucveys. Ttie operaticn of this definltlcn, throu^
the cither suggested nDdiflcatianB to FIFSh in H.R. 24S2, uould eati<>UsA
a naticnal regulatccy program for laboratories ard other research
facilities. If this needs to be dene, it should be dene in separate
legislaticoi and not by 'houseteeping' noen^nents to t'ltVA. Miile scne
degree of ^A inspecticn of laboratorleH develcping data for
registration n^ be atymtiiiate, the prcposed anoxtaent Is eKOesslve.
Judicial Review of Arbitratlcwa
Section 4 of H.R. 2482 would prtwide judicial review of arbltratlcn
decisicns Involving ccnfiaisatlcn for use of pesticide research data.
nd.& anentaent is evidently designed to raiedy possible ocnstituticnal
The questicn of the constitutionality of FIFRA's arbitration system
presently is before the Sapcnx Court of the United States in the case
of Tftanas v. Unicn Carbide ftgrlcultural Products Oo. The issues in that
case are ccnplicated and could be decided in sewefaT different ways.
Sane ocnpanles have taken the view that Ccngress should defer en
efforts to devise a cure for potential ccnstltuticnal prcblene until the
Siftrane Court decides what the prcblene are, if ai^. We understand that
the Suprene Court is Bisected to rule in this case before July.
On the other hand, there are acne in our industry and elsewhere who
believe that Ccngress should not trait for the Si^rcfne Court to act, but
rather should resolve ai^ potential prcblons with the arfaitratlcn ^ston
Suspension - Cancellaticn Procedures
d by Google
envircnnent" >4)en used "in acocEdance with widespread and ULouuily
recognized practice.* In addition, the Actadnistxatcc B«qr suapend
registratiiSiB if he detsimiiies that the action is neoeaaary to pvawit
an imninent hazard. H.R. 24&2 proposes that this process be 'ijifnCMed"
to inake it ncre efficient and qulclcer. In fac±, the pcapoeal to ciianga
the procedure to an informal hearing will turn the entire pcorxaa en ita
head, and unreascnably curtail the ri^its of the publicr fanerSf and
industxy to es^lccB the factual and legal baaia far withdrawing ex
onKidlng the ragistraticn of a valued product.
Prcocntly, cancellation and au^ensicxi decislcns and ixiderlying
question of 'unreaacxiBble adverse effects' are baaed on aound acientific
and eccranlc evidence directed to irtiat would serve the p^lic intKest.
H.R. 24B2 would plars tt^ (^ciaicn-naking on far less acientific
grounds, where evidence of risks and benefits would not be tested oar
Qcamined, in infomal 'hearings' conducted by agency officials trix) wculd
be considerably less cbjective than adnlnistrative law judges in
deciding the a^prcpciate regulatory acticn. ^sed and efficiency of
cancellation and suqjension proceedings are a lagitinate ccnoem, but
there are less extrene ways of expediting the piTX»ssr including
internal adidnistratlwe ccntrols that wculd lead to ncre proipt,
scientific, and raspcnsible declsicns. Using ispartial scientists,
together in a panel with an adnlnistrative lAf jui^, would speed
scientific review, e^iecially if the panel's juc^nent was presiKptively
correct in later adoinlstrative review.
RB-Reqistraticn Del^s
The current pace of EPft's re-registratim of pesticides ia
intolerable. Our custoneirs in agriculture and the pil>lic are entitled
to the assurance fron Q%, irtiich they finance thioi^ Uielz taxes, that
pesticide products are safe and effective. 'RaiBity years to wait for
that assurance, on the 600 active ingredioits preasitly registered, is
too long.
He sifport irost Of EEA's adninlstrative efforts to speed vp the
le-registraticn process. Unfortunately, legislative su^esticns en
qieeding i^ re-registraticn have fallen far short of a real aoluticn to
the prcblon. He vigorDusly appooe the pn^xisal in H.R. 2482 that
inf oonal rulanolung serve to detexrnine whether a use or a prcfooed use
of a peaticide or class of pesticides 'causes or will cause unreaaonable
adVK^e effects en the envlrcniEnt.' This is essentially the standard
and function of section 3 registrations that the proposal would
virtually eliminate, leading only to nore del^, ccnfusicn and
frustration.
Burden of Proof in Cancellaticii Proceedings
Proposed section 5(d) of H.R. 2462 provides that ttte burden of
persuasion in a cancellation hearing rests with the party or parties
contending that the use of a pesticide does not cause unreasonable
adweorse effects. Itie proposal significantly anmds the current Im/ in
allowing the ^k to eacape its obligation of showing that credible
evidence raises prudent concerns of unreaaaiable adverse risks to nan oc
d by Google
the envinxKEnt. Hlth the imrestnent the SA, the reglBtrant and the
public turve loade in the registzaticn pntJCeas, it is essential that Sft
aeet a isasdudile thieshold in concellatiiixi proceedings befcwe the
burden of defending a product is rtiifted to the registrant and others
who wish to have the product registratlcn ccntinue.
Initiation of Cancgllation PiooeedingB
H.R. 2482 adds secticn 6(h)(4), allowing ai^ perscn, ngaidlsas of
their interest in the outccne, to petiticn EKV to cancel or su^end a
pesticide registratlcn. The evident reaaon for the anendnent is that
oertaia apacial interest groi^ie want to be able to doiand a hearing to
diallmga Q>A'a diacreticn that additional restrictions inpMed on
zagiBtrants, as a ocnlitian for cxxitirued registration, do not go far
enoue^. In BJP v. C3oetle, these groifw unsuccessfully contended that,
under aecticn 6(b) as curraitly writtai, they ha\« a right to euA a
SA mst have diacxeticn to decide how nud) restricticn on
nertaln product is enoue^ to protect the p<:t>Uc interest.
Agency will be wable to functicn ef Eactivaly if B>A
aanagers and scientists are reguiied ccntinually to
■nduze second guessing through lengthy atkiinistrative
(b) FIFRA alreat^ offoidB the pi^lic the ric^t to dvOlenge ETA
decisiczis to retain rather than cancel a pesticide. Section
16(a) clearly permits judicial review of Agaicy refusals to
c«noel or su^end registrations.
(c) fecial interest groups have aeple c¥pen±unity to oeninaiL and
siteiit scientific data in the special review process and prior
to a final EPft decision, nte «nendnent would nake current
review procedures meaningless and shift the process Into an
adversaruil and tiire-consxnijig ■»«ifn»n»tirwi,
Sectlian 6(a) (2) Beports on Onreascnable Adverse Effects
AmmdigitB to Secticn 6(a) (2) in H.B. 2482 would attenpt to ccnfirm
EPA's proposed interpoetation of the section and si^iiflcantly expend
the burden and cost <xi registrants for rq»rting adwrse effects. In
essence, the mdificaticn would require rqxirting of all Infoonatian,
fron whatever source and validity, on all inpacts of a pesticide,
tdiether favorable or unfavorable. Ite anendnent goes too far.
Our Industry sifiports the current low vdiicii states that registrants
nust siAnlt "additicnal factual infonratlcn" on "unreaacnable" tt^verse
effects. Ihose quali^lng tenrs are inportant liinitaticns en the
siAxnittal of inflanmticn fron the flood of reports, both confijaned and
unocnfinred, vdiich are received by each ocnpai^ in its routine
d by Google
day-to-<lay operations. Tlje anemdnent, however, attaipts to cxnfinn
EPA's excessive expansior of CcxigresH's clear e^qjEessicn in the iwreocnt
6 (a) (2) . The anendnent shculd be soundly rejected and a nore raanxidilc
aneniinent adopted, defining with more specificity and reason, the scope
of the ireporting requirenent,
ESepanded Inspecticn Authority
H.R. 24B2 picposes to amend FTPSA section 9 to expand EPh'a
inspection authority to allow inspections virtually anyt*ere ^ft
believes that FIFRA nay be violated. Given the pervasive use of
pesticides in the United States, the proposed anenlnient effectively
allows the Federal, state and local govermEnts alnost unlimited rlc^
to enter any area of conrercial and private activity in the country to
ferret out what they believe nay be violations of the pesticide Imi,
copy files and seize products. Is this necessary? He believe that
there has been no showing that this eiqanded authority is needed, in
addition to the inspectdcn authority and penalty previsions already in
FIFRR.
Data Disclosure
tOCA has often st^tied its wish that the data disclosure issue could
be finally resolved so the EPA, registrants, and the public could
operate with imre certainty under FIPRA. He thought this h^pened with
the Mcnsanto decisicn in the Si^jroTe Court, yet now, again, the issue
surfaces in H.R. 2482 — this time in the expressed desire to give
registraticn data to foreign ccnpetitors, foreign gt^/erments, states,
and anyone else who wants it. Miy? Tile answer is EPA's aiininistirative
conveni&x^e. The ^ency sinply finds the responsibility of protecting
this kind of ccnfid^itial data tioo botherscme.
It is not the position of our industry to block the dlacloeure of
health and safety data to tM U.S. public, or to inhibit scientific
scrutiny of such data under appropriate safeguartls. He think FIPRA
permits adequate disclosure and appropriate review by the plijlic and
should not be c^ianged. Disclosure of valuable registration data to our
foreign coifstitors and others, however, is a bizarre extensicsi of the
U.S. public's legitiiTBte and presently realized right to )tnow. Our
desire tio protect the ccnfidmitialil? of our teclimlogy and to prevBit
the disclosure of our data to foreign countries and ccnpetitors Bpcin^B
fnm the essential need to preserve our investirent in creating,
registering, and marlceting U.S. pesticides. If this naticzi wants an
industry willing to invest in developing and producing these essential
productis, we nust continue to protect these intellectual pitf^rty ri^tts
fron foreign expropriation and e)q>loitation.
Violation of FltTft Requlaticns as an Unlawful Act
FIPRA Secticn 12 identJ.fiea over 20 separate activities as unlawful
acts for which civil and criminal penalties may be inposed. H.R, 2482
propoees to luqjand this list to provide that a violation of any
regulatlcn under PHUA is an unlawful act. While superficially
appealing, the an^idnent goes too far. ttist statutes, including the
d by Google
'Kad.c Siij&tanoes Ccntrol Act and CFther statutes implemented by EPA,
limit unlawful ae±s subject to civil and criminiLl penalties to violaticn
of regulatiois issued under clearly identified sections of those lows.
FiraA follows the sane pattern by identifying acticns under certain
statutory secrticns as unlawful acts, lb expand EPA's authority without
restricticn would permit EPA free reign to ragulate in areas not
pressitly ccnterplatsd by Congress. Bjforcenent of "good laboratory
practices' thitnigh this means, for aaiple, wculd ocnvert FIFRA into a
vehicle for EPA to regulate the naticn's laboratories. Certainly, this
is not what Ccngresa would intend without special legislaticn
ocnsidering all aspects of such federal cwersight.
Registration Cancellation for Falae, Misl^KJing, or Inaccurate Data
FIFRA secticn 12 currently states that it is an unlawful act to
knowingly falsify an implication for registraticn or other siimissions
to EPA. H.R. 2482 ^xrpoooa to add authority for ^A to cancel
registrations baaed on false, minlmdinj. or inaccurate data.
While attractive in general concept, the proposal raises a ni«±>er
of difficult questidis that may pose preplans in its inplenantation.
Data which may be accurate i4ten siiaidtted, iray appear false, inaccurate
or misleading several y^urs later when further informaticn >»''•«—»
available, lite falsificaticn of data by an initial registrant,
morecwer, may lead to the cancellation of subsequent registrations and
significant eccnonic losses by innooent follow^-on r^istrants.
If a irodification to FIFRA is neoessary, the sccpe of the etoencknent
should be limited to those instances where data are willfiilly falsified
at the time of sutmissicn and are of oontinuing inportame to the Agency
in determining whether the pesticide presotts an unreascnable himn
health or envirwiiwital concern.
Vicarious ''-'"^■ility for Civil aftd Criminal tenalties
Section 9(b) of H.R. 2482 is reported to be a technical c^iange
tAiid) redesignates current FIFBA secticn 14 |b) (4) as section 12 (c) .
Section 14 lb) (41 shoild be deleted fron FIFRA altogether or
substantially amended, in its present form, section 14 |b) (4)
arbitrarily and unfairly extmids civil and criminal penalties to
registrants for violaticns that nay have been axmitted by any enployee,
agent or any other person acting for or efiplcyed by the registrant,
regardless of the registrant's lack of knowledge or actions to prevoit
the violations. This draconian measure goes for beycnd any enforccBEnt
needs in Fifra. ite secticn should be sharply anmded to limit the
registrant's liability to acticns of those officers and oiployees in
posititms of respcmsibility.
Civil and Criminal Pejialties
Section 10 of H.R. 2482 significantly expands the amount of civil
said criminal penalties, including increasing civil penalties fi\«-fold,
for mast violators i^ to $25,000 per day, and increasing ciriminal
penalties frcm miademeanors to felonies. Ihe justification for this
d by Google
Dcdificaticn piesmably ie to provide a suanger incentj.i« for
coipliance with FITm and to Rste FIFBA ccnfonn to othor 'oiviicfinBntal'
statutes. Hecognizing that PIFBA is a ccnswer statute, tAieiS
individuals may be peialized for applying pesticides inccnslstoit vith a
pesticide label, the hitler psialties and other lAcreaaed sancticns ar«
excessive. Further infomaticn en wty FIFBA enforaanent has been
inadequate and wt^ suc± a significant change of this kind ia HWimil Iwl
rimld be provided before Ocr^ress considers this anenhent.
Indamificaticn Ptovisicn for Suapensicn/Cancellaticn
FIFRh SecTticn 15 currently requires S-A to reijrfaurse pecple »*0
suffer losses when the Agaicy suspoids and later cancels the
registraticxi of a pesticide th^ own. H.R, 2482 prcpoocc to delete tills
aecticn. Ihe reascn for the change has been stated that pesticide
ocnpanies, vtfiich have profited fron the sale of the pesticide, ahculd
absorb the losses of ai^ audi cancellation/ suqxnsicn actioi. tte
Indemnity acts as a strcng incentive bo rencve frcn use thoae
pesticides that are determined to be imninent hazards and to flinpTM. of
existing stocks prcfjerly. The pervasive use of pesticides, in mny
fonrulations, by different supliers, makes private recall efforts
virtually JitpoasiblB. Indawii f ication , RDreewer, has been viewed
historically as a Federal cbligaticn to be fair to those pecple tAo
innocently have pesticides on hand that cannot be sold or used. Having
registered a pesticide after careful review and, by that action, assuEsd
the pifclic that the pesticide was available for purchase and use, any
ssise of equity would dictate that an innocent owner of the product
should be entitled to public ccapensatian if the E>aderal govemnent
later decides that the product can no longer be used.
EPA/C6HA Overlapping Jurisdictlcns
Section 14 of H.R, 2482 aJds a sidisecticn to PIFRA to sanction
CTA/CSHA mierl^ping authority to prescribe and enforce wcffl^laao
standards affecting ocopaticn^ safety and health, lliis anentent is
an invitation to aiininistrative ocnfusicn and less effective pcotectlon
of workers. FIFRA currently allows EEA to regulate the ^iplicaticn of
pesticides and worker raitry, sufficient to protect the safety and health
of workers exposed to pesticides. OEHA covers manufacturing woricplaoe
e)q]osure to pesticides. The anendreit would serve only to coifuse tliix
separate authority and to raise other questions on the scope of EBA's
and osm's jurisdiction.
H.R. 2580 jBBOm)
Oaimmlty Rl^t-to-Know
H.R. 2580 requires sidmissicn and disclosure of infomatlcn on tAe
producticn of pesticides, including the identity and amounts of
pesticides produced, intennediate chonicals, sunmry of h^ilth and
envlromental risks, manufacturing locations, nature o*f surrounding
neighborhoods, evacuation plans, and infonraticn on exported pesticides.
d by Google
nie laticnale for this ECquiraiEnt has been stated to be increased
public awareness of Hie risks of chemicals and prcper local cmtrol and
anticipation of «
As a part of the larger dioaical manufacturing industry, our
in±istry sutpciLLa stdndssicxi and disclosure of useful infcmnaticn to
increase public knowledge about the hazards of certain t^onicals. tixii
of this informaticn is already available to the piJalic under ETFKA and
other statutes. Sinoe the pesticide industry is not unique in using
chemicals that may be tcotic if mishandled in storage or manufacture!
other, more generally ^iplicable statutes are irore ^propriate vdiicles
than FTFPA to ensure adequate public acareness of cJioaical hazards in
the worJ^laoe and connunity re^xnse to onargencies.
Public Participaticn in the Registraticn Process
tOCA sif^ports the principles of evenness and pdslic imrolvonent in
regulatory deciHion-making. We appose, hmever, the proposed dunges to
FIFRA that would permit special interest gro^ to obtain a pervasive
hold en the Agency and frustrate S%'s regulaticn of pesticides.
mcfi believes that pdilic involvonent in govemnent decision-making
is a natter of balance and reason: the piislic should have a reascnable
cffiortunity to participate ccnstructively, but should not be permitted
FTFBA presently strilces a proper balance between pii>lic involvenent
and i^ency capability to function efficiently. H.R. 25S0 would disn^it
this balance and overload the adninistraticn of FIFBA with new layers of
involvement with interest gro^s in a imnner that would seriously li^ede
the ocnduct of t^jesicy business. 'Rie bill vculd lead to extensive,
unwarranted del^s in registraticns that would not be in the pdslic
Pifclic Acoess to Pesticide Health and Safety Data Prior to CTA's
Reqistraticn Decisicn
H.R. 2580 requires discloBure of h^d.th and safety data prior to
^A's grant of registraticns. Itiis provision would inpoae a severe
corifietitive disadvantage cxi innovative ccmpanies. Data subnitted to EXA
often contain state-^f-the-art scientific techniques, developed throu^
extensive and costly researdi, and ocnplete chemical and biological
profiles of the newly developed but not yet registered conpound.
Advance informaticn on these stiajects to ccnpetitors can be of enonnaus
cdimeroial value. It not only permits ocnpetitors to apprtpriate the
proprietary tedmiques, but also gives then years of valuable lead tine
in vAuch to develop indtaticnS or to engage in predatory marketing
practices and pricing to discourage further rxmiit'n'ial deuelc(inent ■ ^Rie
ccnpetitive disadvantage of such disclosure Mould be a strong
disincentive to research aftd develcjawit of pesticides. Par this
d by Google
Grass ley^ftllen Aaienanewt Repeal
catncellaticn acticns and invalid claurs. Ttie Grass ley-Allen ArEninent
required EPA to have validated evidence to initiate an interim
a*umstratiwe review. H.R. 2580 would re-introduoe the cxnfuaien and
administrative abuses prior to 1976 by allowing cancellation and
suspensicn proceedings to be initiated with little or no scientific
basis. Only a sound, scientifically based ctncem should initiate a
special review of a registration. If a product is in fact causing
unreasonable adverse effects, its ocntinued use should be re-evaluated.
But acticn should be based only en well-substantiated clains and throu^
Registration Cancellation for Pesticides in GrouiKiwater
H.R. 2580 requires registrations of pesticides to be cancelled if
the product is found in grouiKkater , unless preventative acticn is
taken. FIFHA currently gives EPA sufficient authority to regulate
pesticide registraticns to eliminate imreaaarable adverse effects en
groundwater. Arbitrary cancellaticn of registraticns, pcopoaed by the
aneminent, merely removes epa's legitirate discretion in assessing ooeta
and benefits in ccntlnued registration.
H.R. 2580 prcMbits new registrations of pesticides that have been
canoelled, su^ended or voluntarily withdrawn because of health or
environnental reasons. The issue is mere properly addressed
adninistratively under current FtFRA, without statutory changes. Ttie
mendnant unreasonably lijnits a>A discretion to consider now information
and oonditicns. If the ccncem has been satisfactorily resolved through
new tests or interpretaticms of existing researdi, then the pesticide
should be eligible for registration or conditional registration.
Restrictions en Ccrdltional Registraticns
H.R. 2580 eliminates use of ccnditicnal registrations for new uses
of registered pesticides or registration of new chonicals, and otherwlae
restricts conditional registraticns. He believe FIFRA adequately
addresses this issue and Chat ^A has suff iciait authority to de&l with
the scc^ of ccnditicnal registraticns atktiinistratively. No FIFTA
afnenlnEnts are needed.
Citizens Suits
H.R. 2SS0 would create a new Federal cause of action for violations
of FIFRA, notwithstanding adequate ccmncn law and other statutory
renedies defining and protecting the rights of the pi^lic in instanoea
of pesticide misuse. ^>art frcin the request of fecial interests, ther«
has baext no convincing showing that the precision for citizen suits
d by Google
would materially iiapaxe the enforceoEnt of FIFBA. In fact, the
anenlnent has the potential of adversely affecting gnvemn^tt
fenforcoTEnt. Our industry subparts the ri^t of injured parties to seek
judicial redress against those t#io imy have caused their injury. In
virtually all states, uae of a pesticide in violatlcn of govenment Iimb
and regulaticns is negligence per ae or, at least, stnxig evidence of
negligence. Hhere an individual ia entitled to equitable relief,
virtually every state allows its citizens to cbtain injuncticns against
such unlawful or negligent acticns. 'R^sre is no reason to amend FTFRA
to permit ^Kcial interests to frustrate and confuse EPA's enforcenent
Begistration Fees
EIA recently testified that PIFRR should he anended to permit HA
to assess fees en registrants to cover tlie cost of the Federal pesticide
registration program. Hhile we siffiort Federal bu^et recbKticn
effcpTts, we believe that shifting the cost of the Federal pesticide
program to the pesticide registrants is inq:propriate.
Hie reasons for our view are: First, a systeb of pesticide
registraticn fees vould dramatically incnase product costs, resulting
in increased ccnsuoer prices, and would have an unfair and
di^irci»rticnate urpact en small businesses. Seccnd, a user fee is a
revenue-raising measure that would require additional review, with
attendant delays, by the c^prcpriate House and Senate Ccnmittees.
nurd, such fees would iiqpezmisslbly and inevitably mcwe cere dscisicns
en funding, saope and directicn of EPA's pesticide regulatory activities
frtxn Ccngress to the regulated ccnnunitY. It is in the pi^lic's and
inaustry'a interests to have an independently functioning and financed
EFA. Finally, the cost of operating the pesticide program ccnfers no
direct benefit on pesticide s^plicants, but rather meets the
rsEfcnsibility of the Federal govemnent to regulate pesticides in the
public interest.
H.R. 1416 (HBTE.)
Foreign Trade in Pesticides
Our industry fully si^ports and actively encourages establistncnt
of effective pesticide registration and enforcanent systene in natiois
vAiere agrichemicals are used. We are ccntinuing to expand this effort.
Tte major problon with exported agridioiiicals , however, especially in
developing countries, is misuse. Iliis prciilati cannot be corrected or
ocntrolled by the changes prcpssed in the Pesticide Iirport and E^qiort
Act of 19SS (H.R. 1416). ne reascn is sinply that tl« i»ed for
agricultural pesticides — those registered and unregistered in the
Iftiited States — will be not by foreign manufacturers if eaqxirts are
prohibited here. Barring U.S. exports of unregistered, restricted, and
banned pesticides will not solve the prcblen. It will cnly take
respcnsible U.S. coif^anies out of the limited foreign markets trt^re we
are ikjw — where U.S. oaipanies can provide the kinds of products and
training to avoid misuse, reduce eiployment avail<^le to U.S. workers.
d by Google
1 ccnBiderecl and legitdrnte
Hiese cxmnents do not nBan, however, that our cfcmBrment is co:
should be blind to toipacts of products eu^erded or rannel Iwd In the
U.S. FIFRA cunwitly providea for respcnsible actioi by our gcwemnent
to noti^ other gwemiBnts reosiving such products, niere n^ be areas
of iapa-'ovanent in our notificaticr prooedures, but our country's currait
treatment of fcareign trade in pesticides is correct.
Bevocatiai of TBXeranceg
H.R. 1416 requires ^A to revoke tolerances of residues vhtn
pesticide registraticns have been revoked, suspended or withdmm. Hie
proposed awmdmnt attcn^jts to ocntrol indirectly the sale and use of
pesticides abroad by ocntrollii^ vtvt foods nay be inported into the
U.S., not en the basis of trfiether the residues en food nay be safe, but
whether a pesticide used en the food was registered in the United
States. United States registration has little or no bearing en Hheth^
a pesticide is safe in foreign agricultural uses or en imported foods.
Many pesticides are designed for ncn-U.S. crepe, such as ooffee or
bananas, vrtere no U.S. registration is needed. Whether a tolerance
should be set or revoked should not depend en registration decisicns
that involve catpletely different ccnsideraticns — for exa^lei
pesticide efficacy, ^plicator exposure, or local enviiednental factxars
— but whether the residue continues to pcesent a risk after the fozeign
crop is treated, shi|;ped, distributed, sold and used ty the ultimtte
Birth Defects Registratien Bar
Proposed amendments in H.R. 1910 would prohibit registratioi of
pesticides shown to cause birth defects or re^onductive afcnoonalities.
Our Industry recognizes that potential adverse reproductive effects may
be a legitimate consideraticn in vrtiether and how to register a
pesticide, given certain oonditicns and exposures, and that the
potential for this toocic effect'should be oonsidered alcng with other
potential todc effects, suc^ as cancer. We also believe that PIFM is
currently structured to deal responsibly with such c
d by Google
HWEDtE. HINtLE
DIKBCTtW
AGUOILIUUL POLia
(UTIOWlL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. chairaui and aaaben of the tubcoMittee, tbe Nttlonal Audubon
Society a^rectates cbls opportunity to testify before you. Ttie National
Audubon Society ha» been officially conceined ulth the use of pesticides since
1957, Hfaen chapters In the South objected to USDA prograu to eradicate the
lafMrted fire ant with heptachlor and dleldrln before research could be
cc«)ducted on imintended side effects of the pesticides on wildlife.
Tliroughout the 1960s tbidubon focused on the chlorinated hydrocart>ons and
their adverse effects on huaan health as well as on wildlife, pactlculacly
birds. Audubon Joined with the BivirooMotal Defense Fund in brlntlog
cancellatioi cases against the use of IVT, Aldrin/Dieldrin, and airex, all
chlorinated hydrocarbooa that not only adversely affected birds, but
bloacoBulated in the blood and fat tissues of huaant as well. Audubon MS ■
vital part of the legislative battle to enact the 1972 aaendacats to the
Federal Insecticide, Fu^iclde and Kodenticide Act (FIFilA], and has been
involved In every legislative effort since 197S. Audubon has also
participated in the rule-Baking opportunities provided by FIFRA for aore than
IZ years. Our interest in current congressional action on FIFKA is a
continuation of these efforts.
It is the hope of our organiiation that long awaited refora of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentlcide Act will take place this year.
The need for legislation is clear and has been illustrated in recent years
through hearings and reports generated not only by this subcoailttee, but by
d by Google
other congressional ciWBltlees, the National Acadeay of Sciences, inl tlit
General Accounting Office, In his forthright testjaony before this sti-
coaaittee In April, Dr. John A. Moore, EPA Assistant Adainlstrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, explained hou the Bivironaental Protection
Agency has recently reversed the deregulitory direction of his predecessor.
Hhile the National Audubon Society agrees that great i^jroveaents hare begin
to be Bade in the adainistratlon of the Office of Pesticide Prograas (CPP), w
believe that certain legislative reforms still are necessary.
Groundwater protection
0£ BBjor concern to our aeabers is the growing problea of gromduater
contaalnation by pesticides. Since the discovery of Aldlcarb (TeMik) and EDB
(ethylene dibronide) in groundwater supplies, public concern has MUited and
govenwent agencies and others have beca«e auare of the threat to the nation's
groundwater resources. Groundwater is a aajor source of siqiply for driidiiiig,
as well as for agriculture and industry, in this country. Alaost half of all
Americans get their drinking water froa groundwater sources, and in rural
areas, the nuaber of those so supplied cllabs to 95t. As population increases
and agriculture and industry expand, withdrawals froa groundwater supplies
aultiply. In the early ISSOs, 34 billion gallons of groundwater were
witlidrawn every day. Estiaates for 19SS put this figure at 100 billion
gallons per day.
As use of groundwater grows, evidence of widespread toxic cheaical
contaalnation of this vital resource continues to aount . Studies by the
d by Google
Envi ronaental Protection Agency sbou that one-third of our public Miter
systeM coflUio deiecttble WMunls of aan-aade cheaicals. In low*, pesticides
bave been detected aore often than industrial chealcals. Other fan states
■ay well produce siailar findings if aonitoring were cooducted. Private,
p(i>lic, and industrial wells are also affected: 4,000 of thea have been
closed, or are partially contaminated. Unlike surface water, underground
aquifers cannot -be cleaned up through natural processes. Groundwater
purification Is prohibitively expensive and, in wtny cases, technologically
i^>o9sible. Various aettiods, such as installing physical barriers or altering
groundwater flow, have been tried but are liaited in their effectiveness.
Evoi Hailed success is expensive. Average costs for containaent and clean^i
of even saall portions of contaainatad aquifers are estlaated at (S allllon to
$10 aillion.
The Elivirooaental Protection Agency is currently developing a Katlonal
Groundwater Strategy which involves a "cross-aedia" approach, coordination of
the various statutes which govern grouMlwater protection, and an liproved
■oaitoring and detection prograa. He believe that the Agency's prograa has
■erit but that it needs to be backed up by the developatent of a co^irehensive
preventive prograa in idiich regulatory action would be triggered whenever
groundwater conttai nation was discovered.
We urge Congress to require the Envlronanttat Protection Agency to
establish, on a nationwide scale, groundwater protection standards siallar to '
chose recently adopted by the state of Wisconsin (Hisconsin Act 410, Hay 11,
1984). These standards create protection at two levels. For every substance ,
d by Google
detected In groundwater, an "enforceaent standard" and a "preventive action
linlt" (PAL) wculd be established. Depending on the properties of tht
substance, the PAL would be set at 10 percent, 20 percent, or SO percent of
the enforce«ent standard.
The PAL would serve two finctions. First, it would be used In the
developaent of Mnage«ent practices and pesticide regulation so that con-
tamination could be avoided. Second, the PAL would serve as a trigger and,
trfien reached, would indicate to appropriate regulatory agencies that a
hazardous level of cent aai net ion was being approached. The PAL Is Intended to
give regulatory agencies forewarning so that further growidwater cootMinatlon
■ay be prevented.
If an enforceaent level Is reached, the activity or practice which led to
the contBBination is subject to Itaedlate enforceaent action. The appropriate
agency would halt the activity until It could be shown that cootaalnatlcn
levels froa the activity could be kept below the PAL. If contaaination camot
be prevented, and studies conducted on the pesticide Indicate that chronic
exposure to the substance poses a health or safety threat, EPA should be
required to suspend the registration as a public health eaergency.
Audubon agrees with ^A that states aust take a lead role in protecting
their groundwater resources, but if the establlshaent of • national strategy
is discretionary, residents of soae states will be left uninntected. Ne urge
Congress to require EPA to establish basic non-discretionary grouidwater
standards and to aandate a ccqirehenslve plan to help states devel^ the
d by Google
I tools necessary to carry out a valid prograa to protect our
nation's invaluable jroundwater.
Hithout coaprriwnslve groundwater legislation, groundwater contaalnatloa
Is being addressed In the context of existing statutes. For exa^ile, FIFRA Is
responsible for pesticides, TOSCA regulates for toxic substances, ROtA covers
contaBlTWIlon of gratndwater froa disposal sites, leaking storage tanks, etc.,
and the Safe Drinking Hater Act (SOW) Is responsible for contaalnants coalng
out of the tap froa public uater systeas.
EPA is developing a national groiaidwater strategy, a grouKtwater
■onltorlng prograa, and the Agency has focused on pesticides found in
groundwater. Nevertheless, as E)r. Moore stated In his testlaony on j^rll
ISth, "These are but the first steps of a long aarch." It is Audiiraa's
contention that protection of the groundwater resource should be encouraged in
all areas of existing or potential groiatdwater use. In order to ensure that
contaalnatlon froa pesticides Is appro^tately regulated, we believe
legislation Is required In FIFRA.
BeHulation of inert Ingredients
Under FIFRA, an Inert ingredient is defined as any Ingredient In a
pesticide product which Is not pesticldally active. TUs definition includes
all intentionally added inerts, such as solvents, surfactants, aerosol pro-
pellents, dyes, or stabilisers In the foraulated product, and non-pest Icidally
active Iqxirltles In the technical grade of the active ingredient or foiau-
' la t ton.
d by Google
In Miy, 1984, Audubon uked SA to require inforattlon on imen
Ingredients at the suae tlae the ■sencr focused on tbe reragistratig*
progru. Our letter read in part: "In vie« of tbe presence of ii«rts la all
pesticides registrations, tbe toxic hazard ■ large nuiber of cbese inerts pose
for Dontarget species including aan, and the vagueness with Wiich cumu
regulatory requirearats apply to ingredients designated by registrant* as
Inert, an analysis of inerts is in order. As EPA develops accelerated sad
expanded data call-In packages. Inert Ingredients aust be Included i£ tbi
prlaary objective of the reregistratlon process is to identify potential
health or environaental probleas created by the use of tbe registered product,"
Ifk re^onded positively and proaptly to Audubon's request, and, en-
couraged by the tlie agency's Science Mvlsory Panel, developed a dlscusslM
paper for the Pesticide Advisory CoMlttee (APAC) neeting of October 2S,
1984. EPA reported to the coMittee, ot hUch Audubcn Is a aeaber, that nw
regulatlcd* proaulgated by EPA require acute tests and cc^lete rtwlitrf
characterltatlon of all su^osedty inert Ingredients contained in a pestiddt
foraulation.
Ttirougbout Che past ten years, however, the caq>lexlty of regulation of
inerts has served as an excuse lo delay agency action. In view of tbt
Deceaber 4, 1984, vote by the APAC that regulation of so-called inerts be a
legislative priority, a aandate froa Congress is in order to require tests oa
inerts that aay pose health concerns.
Congress should direct EPA to require chronic studies on those Inert
Ingredients identified as either biologically or chealcally active. Regls-
d by Google
cranes have objected to tuch testing on the gnxnU that disclosure of the
identity and characterltatlon of Inert ingredients Is confidential. If the
clai> of ccnfidentiality is insisted on by registrants, studies aay be
(h^licated by the several ca«p««)ies using the stmt toxic inert tngredicmts.
Di^licating tests of toxic Inerts Is not the only option. Other possibilities
tiave been identified by EPA: registrant co^itaent to develop data and 10
allow EM to share data with others; change Inert Ingredirats; refuse to
conduct studies and request voliaitary cancellation; and pool resources for
conduct of required studies.
As Dr. Hoore pointed out In his sttieaent, there are several legal,
scientific and econo«lc aspects of the regulation of inerts that need to be
resolved. A congressional aBendnent could speed the process. Such legis-
lative language could Include, in addition to the requireaent for chronic
studies, Bonitoring for residues of toxic Inerts, identification of hasardous
inerts on the l^>el, and disclosure to the public of the identity and haurds
posed by selected Inerts. Hitbout legislative redress, EPA Is likely to
procrastinate on this co«plicated problea until either a crisis Involving
lAeri ingredients, or court action.
Public participation and legltlnate legal challenge
Itegulatlon of pesticides has been Inadvertently havered by Sections i,
6, and IS of FIFItA. The prospect of adalnis trail ve hearings to appeal a
prtqrased restricted use classification under Section J, cancellation hearings
under Section 6, and the anticipated costs of Indenificatlon for g
d by Google
oses under Section 15 (dlsciusod at greater length belou) heve all created
pressLTe ijaiJiat EPA restrictliif a use, cancelling a regiitratioo, or SUi-
pcftdlns a pesticide It otherwise ml^t with to regulate. CeDgreti nseds U
encourage appropriate regulation, rather than allotdug current lax to terve u
a regulatory constraint. Specifying legltlaate legal challaoge lAn EPA falls
to act, and strlLiof the IndevU fleet ton section would discourate the tondcnqr
for EPA to back euay fro« necessary regulatory action in order to avoid
resource- Intensive litigation.
1972 aMutaents to Section 6 of the Federal Insecticide, Fwigiclde and
Rodenticlde Act provide that a person "adversely affected" by a Mtlce of
IntMt to cancel a reglttration or to change its classification can request a
lieering. The Congressional Intent of this aaendaent was aade clear In the
Senate report on the 1972 anendnencs:
Hie Agriculture bill...peralts any cltiten to initiate cancel-
lation proceedings, obtain judicial review of every actlen and
inactlcn he disagrees with, and intervene In every proceeding... (S.
Report No. 92-S», Part II, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session 39 (1972}
In 1979, EPA Adainistrstor Douglas Costle ruled that FIFRA appeal rl^ts apply
only to those with a direct ecooowic stake and tdio are adversely affected by
agency decisians. The consequence of this ruling is the exclusion of envi-
ronnental, consiaer, and labor groups fron neanlngful and cost-effective
challenges to CTA decisions. Because of this niling, pesticide registrants
are able to control idiat cases EPA Initiates as well as Mbat issues will be
considered. Preferential treataent of the cbealcal Industry prevents a full
d by Google
fevtew of risk/benefit isiues ind precludss Bff«ctlve public particlpttion Id
the regulatory process.
Hie National AuduboD Society does not believe that Congress Intended to
deny tbe public the right to a hearing, nor do tM believe that participation
in the Special RevlcM process is an adequate sUtstltute for this right. He
ask that Section 6 of FIFRA explicitly glre to aaAeri of the, pUjlic with or
without an econoalc Interest In the cootlnuatloo of tbe reglstratlcn coocemad
the right to Initiate an adalnistratlve cancellation bearUw.
In addition, adalnistratlve hearings need to be streaalined in tbe
interest of all parties. As participants In several cancellmtion bearings,
envlronaental groi^ have expended considerable resources, tiae, and finds cm
lengthy proceedings. The resource-intensive nature of currant hearings has
prevented EPA froa initiating cancellation wless a case Is forced t^on it.
Even industry's resources are taxed beyond their aeans. Hw world was sbodied
i^M) DOH Oieaical Co^any pointed to attorney costs as the reason to halt
2,4,5-T cancellation hearings. Finally, ^otracted hearings confuse the
public as to the safety or risk of tbe pesticide i^le cancellation hearings
are under way. Congress needs to aandate EPA to streaaline the adalnistratlve
bearing process.
Indeii fleet ion for suspended pesticides
Sectim IS of FIFRA, tdiich provides for indeanlty payaents to registrants
for products that have been suspended, provoked one of the stormiest debates
In Congress in 1972. Tbe Republican adalnlstratlon had two conslstmt and
d by Google
stront objections to the legislative package Boring tltrough Coagnss In 1971.
These objections centered on the ](c](I){DJ data co«f>ensatton and Indeail-
flcation provisions. It Mas argued by the Ad«inistratlon and by the Senate
(tliich rejected the indesiiflcatlon provision} that having existing stocks of
a pesticide tAen cancelled or suspended should be considered an ordlnarjr rttk
of doing business, and econoalc hardship, co the extent It exists, can be
coapMisated with the pricing structure and, or private Insurance. Id
conference, the House provision for indeonity payments ms retained at quid
pro t]uo for t voluntary suspoislon provision wanted by the Senate.
Ittitil 1983 the Indeanities provision was only invoiced for a handful of
ainor cases aKxnting to less than fi Billion. - In Jine, 1983, bowever,
$12,880,M2 was awarded to Chevron Otealcal Coapany for existing stocks of
sllvex. At the tlae of EPA's 1979 suspension of sllvex for hoae use, Otevroa
agreed not to contest the suspension In return for Indeanltles. The Court itf
Claias awarded the autoaatlc appropriation of funds based <ai ■ finding ^
legal conditions net as required by Section IS of FIFKA. In 1984 EDB In-
deailties paid to registrants totaled several ■lUion dollars.
EPA's fear of •ultlaillion dollar Indeailty paysents if It bans a
pesticide needs to be eaphaslied to this fiscally-aiikled Congress. It Is no
longer a natter of ubether or not a registrant can be paid off, it is Ikm Mich
can he extract fron the govenueent.
Previous Indeanltles had be^ noalnal: $S3S,771
(224,932 CO Old Fort Industries; $1 ■illloo to
Nursery; $500,000 to Ag Way, Inc. in 1981.
d by Google
Tlie uxptyers should not co^iensato coaptnles for execs > itodis a£
substutces uhlch have been profitably aarketed for several decades, and whose
risks have been well dociaented and knoun for ytm. If a product Is sus-
pended without advance wanting. Congress can enact special legislation.
Indeed, the trls-treated pajaaa coapensatlon Is a case in point.
Ttie only rationale for Indeanlflcatlon is assurance that stodis of the
suspended chealcal will be collected and destroyed safely by the govemnnt.
As an altentattve. Congress should consider the establlshMCiit of an Industry-
fimded pool that would cover the cost of the Indeanlflcatlan prograa In the
future. If indeviif teat ton ts to craitinue, the taxpayers should not bear the
burden of the pesticide Industry's business decisions.
In vlcM of the prevailing philosophy of this Adalnlstratlon, as 4fflT«ed
by Assistant Adainistrator John l«>ore In his April 18, 198S testlaony to
strike Section IS, the tiae is ripe to reaove the indeanlflcatlon provision of
FIFM.
Registration fee systea
Cne of EPA's largest prograa activities Is the review and evaluation of
ai^llcatlons for registration and rereglstratlons of pesticides. In 1978,
Congress required EPA to conduct a study on the feasibility of charging fees
for registering pesticides. The directive was enacted In recognition that
pesticide registrants received benefits froa registration and could achieve
earlier aarket entry if EPA had greater resources to review applications.
Currently, the public pays for EPA pesticide evaluation, and as congressional
d by Google
■pjiropriatlans have dwindled over the yean, tb« luabcr of rqlttratloa* EPA
can process luffeTed. By 1980, CMB told OPP ttuit no increase In appro-
priations would be approvBd until registration fees uere collected fro*
pesticide registrants.
Because registration is re<^ired for every pesticide before it can be
■arketed, the aanufacturers of these products are direct beneficiarle* of the
procbss. Since 19B0, the Office of tanageaent and Budget and the Bivlnn-
■ental Protection Agency have been exploring the possibility of establishing
fees so that pesticide nanufacturers pay for the services provided for tliea at
the Office of Pesticide Progran. In the currant ataospbere of fiscal respati>
sibllity and budgetary restraint, the establlshaent of fees for services
provided by the fitvlrooaental Protection Agency to the cheaical Industry Is a
logical step.
Althou^ the cheaical industry has opposed such a aove, a 1H2 £M
analysts of the l^le«entation of fees showed that the costs of the services
provided EPA would represent only five percent of the total laoimt spent by
pesticide aanufacturers on research and developaent. National Audii)aa uises
Congress to legislate a registration fee systea so that the financial burden
of placing and keeping pesticides on the aarfcet will rest on those lito stand
to gain froa this aaiieting.
Cu^aiiiity right to know
In 1981, the Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition, headed by a aeaber of the
Wyncote Audubon Society, helped establish the cowtiy's first local rigtit to
know laws in nilladelphia. Hie laws rehired that industry officials reveal
d by Google
to the Fire Deptrtsent and Air Pollution Control Board a list of the cheaicals
wuiufactured and used in their plants. City departaents keep the lists on
file along with inforaation about possible health hazards fro« the cheaicals
and instructions about what to do in case of accidents. The recent tragedy In
Bhopal, India, deaonstrated to the world that the industrial accidents are not
i^Mssible and that ready access to Inforvttlon such as that aalntatned by the
city of PhilidelfAla can sake the critical difference dien such eaergoicies
However, because the cheaical industry has vdieaently o;q>osed the
establishaient of right to kiKw provisions around the country, aost cities and
towns are tnequipped to deal with such eaergencles. For this reason. National
Audubon Society supports aaendaeots to Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fmgiclde, and Rodentlcide Act requiring pesticide aanufacturers to sutait to
the Environaental Protection Agency details of all cheaicals used in ttw
■anufacture, fonulatlon and packaging; the Identity and aaount of pesticides
produced annually for doBestic use and export; enviroiaental and health risks
associated with exposure; the locatica of all pesticide aanufacturlng plants
in the United States and abroad; Information of the proxiaity of facilities to
residential areas; and craitingency, evacuation or fail-safe plans in case of a
disaster. Only with this type of infoiaation available to appropriate
officials can United States cit liens have assurance of protection fro*
potential industrial accidents. In addition, the piAltc needs to knoM what
cheaicals are being produced In their vicinity and be able to co^nt on
contingency or evacuation plans.
d by Google
Section 24(c) - apeclil lool needa
As EPA's special review of toxaphene registrations was uaienay, state
registrations of toxaphene for use against slcklepod in soybeans was dis-
covered. SouUiem states reglsteretl taiaphene in 196Q, but under Section
2t{c) agency notification did not occur until 1980.
Section 24(e) needs to be tightened up by requiring iBedlate noti-
fication to EFA headquarters together with subaission of data in si^port of
the state registration. If iaaedlate notification and subaission of data are
not cade, the state should have its authority suspended. Section 24(c) is a
■ost attractive loophole now that Section 18 e«ergency exertions have been
tightened i^, Caigress needs to act to prevent a dangerous proliferation of
pesticide uses by states htilch result fro* local ties to fonwlators and user*.
i because based on false, nlslcadlai. or Inac-
Hearings following the e;q>osure of fraudulent tests conducted by
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) revealed that Q>A officials did not
have authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlcide Act
to cancel or suspend registrations which were based on false, inaccurate, or
fraudulent data. Since FIFRA provides for cancellation on the establishaent
of unreasonable adverse effects, evidence that data has been fabricated is not
grounds for cancellation. To ellainate this problea, AudiAon urges Congress
to authorize the Adalnistrator to cancel registrations under Section 6(a) and
revoke tolerances if they rely on false, fraudulent, Blsleading, or inaccurate
data.
d by Google
Data iharing with 8I»te» «nd foreign govenwent*
under current law, the Environaental Protection Agency's ability to share
data with state govemaents Is Halted. The law does not distinguish between
private Individuals and state govenwents and therefore, EPA sharing ulU)
stale analogues of health and safety data as well as confidential business
inforattioo is severely restricted. Without this Inforaatlcn, states cannot
ade<iU4tely enforce FIFRA or coordinate local activities with those oo the
federal level. Me urge Congress to aaoid FIFRA to allow ?A to share data
with states provided that the states have the authority to protect
confidential business Inforaation.
A siailar problea exists with respect to the sharing of data with forelpi
goverraents, especially close allies like Canada. He urge Congress to enact
legislation tdilch would allow data sharing if: 1) a bilateral treaty for data
sharing exists; Z) the foreign govenent shows that It can protect the data;
and 3] the sharing of data Is lo the national interest.
H.R. 2339 - integrated pest ■anageaent and cosaetlc use of pesticides
H.R. 2339 UBS Introduced on Mty Z, 19SS by Barbara lennelly (D-Ol) to
authorize and direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Mninistrator of the
EnviroRBcntal Protection Agency to study nethods to accelerate the use of
integrated pest aanageaent and to decrease the use of pesticides to aeet
domestic cosaetlc aarfcetlng standards. Audubon urges the Agrlcuiure co^ttee
to include H.R. 2339 in FIFRA legislation.
d by Google
Despite the co^rehensive authorities given to ffA to regulate the ute of
pesticides, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs essentially regards lis aaiidate
to be a licensing activity, and for four decades the sale and use of pesti-
cides has continued to increase each year. At the saae tlae our inderstandliii
of the envlruaental and health i^llcatlons of these cheaicals continues to
be fearfully Inadequate.
One result of this chea leal izat ion of Aaerlcan agriculture Is pesticide
residues In grounduater, in rain. In food, fish, aeat and poultry, and in cb*
blood and fat tissue of nearly all Aaerlcans. This can be expected as agri-
culture accounts for between 60 and 90 percent of the use of all pesticides.
Yet the acreage devoted to agriculture has not Increased. Cn the aodein fara,
a given acre Is treated with an increasing Bultttude and quantity of cheaicals
to perform a variety of tasks. Pesticides are used to control not Just in-
sects, weeds, or even pest birds and rodents, but also to accelerate ■Bturlqr
of fruit, promote early ripening, i^irove shape of fruit, and even assure
uniformity of color.
Like an ancient Greek chorus, a broad apectna of scientists and others
■re urging a decrease in our reliance on pesticides as anxiety moiaits about
pesticide residues in our drinking uater and In our food. CongresswoaaB
Kennelly-s bill, H.R. 2339, uould Initiate positive steps towards rBducliM
unnecessary use of pesticides, and therefore Audubon Is extremely enthusiastic
about Incorporating it entirely in FIFRA legislation or attaching it as a
directive to H.R. ZliS. Congress could direct the $1.2 mlllica autborlutlon
d by Google
-to study tlw encoursBeaent of integnted pest <unige*ent and discouraging
cosnetic use of pesticides out of the (11.9 ullion additlm to EFA's budget
for "related researcb activities."
ConserTition tlllme
Conservation tillage ha* eaerged as the aajor cropland Hnageaent
technique in the United States. Vte basis for this Increase and for pro-
jections of froa 240 to 410 ■illion acres of our cropland in conservation
tillage is savings in fuel, and labor, and erosion control. These savings are
possible because of fewer passes over the field. Essentially, conservation
tillage is a tera applied to a range of tillage aethods that reduces dis-
turbance of the soli by the aoldboard plow. By substituting herbicides to
cofttrol weeds, and e^loying a surface aulch to cover the bare earth, soil
erosion and nmoff of agricultural chealcals are reduced. In the short tera,
conservation tillage is extreaely attractive as the aost efficient technology
for reducing soil eroslcn and runoff of cbealcals.
Because of the use of soluble herbicides in conservation tillage,
however, infiltration and leaching of these chealcals to groundwater and
eventually to surface water In detectable concentrations has bean increasing.
Currently, the Soil Conservatioo Service and EPA are cooperating on studies by
the Agricultural Research Service on pesticides In groiaidwater resulting froa
agricultural practices.
Research en long-tera effects of pesticides in the soil biota Is vital in
view of the undisturbed coiklitlon of the soil under conservation tillage.
d by Google
Understandlns effects on water quality is even aore essential In regard to
chealcal BoveBent in ind through the sol! to ground and surface waters.
Seme Initiatives by EPA, SCS, and AR5 have focused on conseratlM
tillage. The National Audubon Society encourages this e^:lMsls, and urtes
Congress to direct EPA to cooparate with appropriate other federal and sute
agencies In researching the envlronaental 1^)11 cat Ions of conservatiao
tillage. I have attached to our testlnony a reprint of an article on
conservation tillage.
Conclusion
After the backsliding of the Gorsuch/Burford reglae. In the last two
years, £PA has deaonstrated progress In regulation of centaalnatlon of
grouidHater by pesticides as well as toxic inerts contained Id pesticide
fonulations, but legislation Is needed If these issues are to achieve the
priority they deserve. The Agency has given siqiport for the concepts of
providing citizens' standing to Initiate cancel lal loo bearings, and to
striking the Indeanlflcation provisions of FIFKA. lliis gives Congress
every reason to act on these pri^sals discussed above. At the saae tine.
Congress needs to give EFA a harder push to establish s registration fee
collection systea, to enact a coaaamlty right to know provision, and to place
a lid 00 special local registrations. Even industry accepts the need for
Agency authority to cancel registrations based on false, alsleading or
fraudulent data, ■ provision that involves only a ainor change in FIFRA. Data
sharing with state and certain foreign goveiTMuits is also necessary and
d by Google
broadly n^iponed. FiiaUy, EFA research on integrated pe*t aanageaait,
cosaetic use of pesticides, and conservation tillage offers a positive
direction for FIFRA.
The National Audubon Society appreciates this opportunity to share our
concerns about pesticide regulation and legislation. Audubon's views on
inteniatiofial pesticide control will be presented by Edith Meachaa, riio
directs international pesticides for the Society.
We will be glad to respond to any questions you aay have on any aspect of
d by Google
mtlH D. WKHW
AGUCULTUtE FOLICT ASSOCUIB
MTIIMAL AUraBOR SOCIETY
Mr. ChairMui and Msbers o£ tbs MtbcaaalttM, Hational Audubon Sociatr
miraclatei this opportunity to tsstify b«fore you on tlw l^wrtant tSM* of
pMtlcids a^^ort cmtrols. Our half ■illloo ■saber* ham sxprauad giMt
coocvm about Uoltad States pesticide ei^ort policies; their coocam staai
Eroa the nuasrous exa^iles of problsMs sumxaidini pestiddo um la darcltfl^
countries. Since aany of the probloas are the result of a lack of •claotlflc
knowledge and expertise, hb urge Ccnsress to direct Its efforts TnwTrl
It^rovlns laforaatlon exchange on pesticides between industrial and dvnlopiv
nations. 0£ even aore concern are reports that pesticide use In tbe Ihlid
Horld will quadn^le in the next twDty years. As pesticide use axpands. tte
establishaant and aalntenance of ade^ute controls becoaes Incnasinily
critical. It Is the hope of our ortanliattoo that changes can be aada ia tta
Federal Insecticide, Ptaisiclde and Rodentlcide Act this year to lipnm Vaitd
States pesticide export policies so that Aaerican consuaers will be better
protected froa banned or untested pesticides on i^wrted goods, and pastlcldM
will be used In a acre beneficial my aroind ths world.
On Deceaber IS, 1984, the ibiited States was again the sole oppoosnt In tti
IMited Nations General Asseably of the continued publication o£ a dtmctwy
listing potentially dangerous products that are banned or otherwise restrlctil
worldwide. This vote can IS days after the tragic leak of aethyl isocyanaU
in Bbopal, India. In siibsequent hearings before the House Subco^Uttee on
Haaan Rights and International Organliatlons, State Departaent Assistant
Secretary Gregory Newell testified that while the Adalnlstratioa apposed
continued publication of the list, it felt that Infoiaation shariiq was of
d by Google
uoost liportance. Since tlie AdHlnlstrktlon saaas unwilling to provlda this
Infonatlon through IncenntioDBl chuinels, m« uise Congress to adopt the
ColloHlng provisiaas that Kill l^irova tlM notlflcatloa process by Nhich
foreign govsnaents are Inforaed about hazardous products, expand the
InEonatlDa aVHllable to tlu Food and Drug Adainlstratlcn so that it can
batter protect Aaerican consuHers froa iaported produce cootMlnated with
. illegal pesticide ivsidues, and H^rove cooperttlMi at the intematlMial level
to encourage tha dovelqaoit of appropriate pesticide use Morldwlda.
iBprovad notification
The current sjqmrt notification procsM can be Basil/ clrcunfeoted.
Uilted States chailcal ceapanies can go through the notification systea with
their am subsidiaries in iqwrtlng countries and have a shipaent on its way
before tl» L^wrtlng country's govemnnt is Infoiaed. To tighten this
loophole, Matiooal Audubon urges Congress to adopt a policy <rf "inforaed
request" idieraby the govemaent of the i^wrting country w»t sUbalt a reqwst
to the BoviranMntBl Protection Agency before certain cat^ories oC pesticides
can be eiported. We advocate this change because it will give countries
without ade^iate intenial regulatory structures the ability to control what
siAstances enter their country.
Ke also advocate ••a expansion and clarification of the categories
ofpestiddes requl.iDg notification. He believe that restricted use,
voluntarily cancelled or suspended, and acutely toxic pestlcldos sliould be
Included In the notification process. The benefits of mttendlng the
d by Google
notification requlrwnta to thess types of pesticides are nuKFous.
Increased knowledge about acutely toslc ami restricted pesticides Kill twl])
foreign goverawnts take steps to protect fan mikers and applicators. The
addition of voltntartly wlthdraiai chealcals Is Iqwrtant because mutf
coopanies reaove chealcals froa the U.S. aarket in order to avoid BFA
proceedings that are likely to result in cancellation and attendant
restrictions. A voliattary wlthdraml oiten aeans that there are aajor
probleas with the cheaical's health and safety data. For exa^le, sndrln, tke
■ost acutely toxic of the chlorinated hydrocarbons, was withdraun frna tha
U.S. aarket in August, 19Si, one aonUi before EPA was scheduled to caq>lete ■
review of that controversial chealcal's naaining uses. In 1979, EPA
cancelled soae and restricted other uses of endrin based on its caodustoa
that endrin caused birth defects, killed aany non-target ^ecies, and was
■cutely toxic to wildlife. But even under restricted use, endrin continued to
cause significant probleas, contaainating several species of gaas birds in
Montana and other uastem states In 1981. Because of these and other
Incidents, EPA reopened its review of endrin and would probably have cancelled
the reaainiiw uses last fall if Velslcol Chealcal Coapany had not reaoved th*
chealcal f roa the aarket.
In 1982, the Bunese Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry l^rarted large
quantities of endrin and proaoted It widely throughout the country. Flshenon
boi^ht the chealcal, du^>ed It Into rivers, and collected the potsomd fish
that floated to the surface. While the use of natural poisons to catch £ish
d by Google
is a comon practlca in Burma, thoir effects an taaporaiy and lioitad. Tbe
results of tbe large-scale release of enlrin were staggerins. Hucf ^ecles of
fish and wildlife. Including otters, Unsflsbers and herons, disappeared froa
BuTMese rivers. Under current law, endrin could still be eicported wlttwut
triggering tbe notification process. National Audubon Society bellev«s that
this loophole Kist be elialnated,
Iwproved HonitorinB of Pesticides on liported Food
One of the Food and Drug Administration's aost l^M^tant jobs is the
■onitoring of i^xirted produce for pesticides cancelled or severely restricted
In the United States. However, FDA's ability to carry out this duty is
baapered by a lack of Infoiaation about uorldwlde pesticide use patterns. He
go to great Imgths in the United States to protect consMers froa food
contaainatod by pesticides, yet tw have little accurate Inforaatlon ^Kut what
other countries are doing In this area. National AudiAon Society suggests
that Congress include in the notification systea provlsicxis that require
govcnMents of i^Mftlng countries to disclose to EPA the Intended use of tbe
cbeaical, the nature of the country's applicator training prograa, and, in tbe
case of food use pesticides, any regulatory requlrenents that night affect
residue levels. Further, we suggest that Congress require United States
cheaical coqianles to subnlt to EPA an annual report stating the aaounts and
destinations of exported pesticides, inteiaediates, or fonailated products.
EPA a»l FDA could use this infomation to Idmtlfy overseas use patterns and
l^irove the accuracy o£ our pesticide residue aonitoring systea.
d by Google
Httlooal Audubon Society urge* CmigeM to li^rove further tbe proWctlM
of Aaerlcan cmsuaers by requiring EPA to revoke toleraoces in food utd f«Ml
for cancelled, su^Mnded, or voluntarily uitbdraiei pesticides. In tlw cue of
highly persistent clwicals, tlten aey be a nnod to phase dcMD tolerances to
allow residues to dlalnish with tiae. We recc^Hitd that Congress establish
residue action levels for these highly perslstMit cheaicals and require the
revocation of all tolerances for food uses of cancelled or suspended
pesticides. EPA has recently taken tbe Initiative la this araa by pratMsUg
to revoke tolerances for IDT, THE, aldrin/dleldrin, schraden, strobana, DBO,
and airax, but ue believe that re(filre«ents for tolerance rsvocatloa and the
setting of residue action levels should be dearly specified in FIHtA.
Penitting foods to contain cancelled or suspended pesticides at levels
uhich exceed Mounts attributable to tbalr historical use aocourages foreign
faiaers to use less ffi^ensive but nore hazardous pesticides to reduce their
production costs and gain a conpatltlve edge over Ansrlcan faners. Ibe
enectnent of requireaents for tolerance revocation and the setting of residue
action levels will protect /aerlcan faiaers as mil as Ansrlcans' health.
Cooperation with International Initiatives on Itoardous Btport Controls
The United States has been a leader in efforts to ensure that liportlng
countries have the ability to nake Infomed decisions about pest control.
Ibis lending role has bewi relinquisbBd In recent years to the detrlnant oC
the International Inforaatlon exchange systen. He possess technology, data,
and the ability to share It, and it is our reqionsiblllty to enter into global
d by Google
efforts an hazardous export controll ^toleliaartsdly. Instead of arguing that
tbs Ibtltad States has done eaouib In this area, we sbould continue to work for
i^roved and unlfors pesticide research and regulatory programs, and provide
technical assistance Mtaenever possible. National Audubon Society uijes
Congress to adopt and define this policy clearly In the Fttderal Insecticide,
Ftmglcide and Rodenticide Act so that United States lewlershlp will have ttw
support of a Congressional Mandate.
Conclusion
Tlie use of pesticides Is expanding exponentially In developing coiaitrles
and the United States Kist play a prlaary role In developing an International
strategy to ensure that this expansion will not cause a coa|>arable explosion
of probleas. In addition, we Hist take steps to protect Aaerlcan consuners
Eron unsafe residues, and Aierican faners fro* infair co^MtlMU HatlMwl
Audubon Society urges Congress to enact the above provisions and return the
United SUtes to its foner position of leadership. With its wealth of
resources and eiqiertise, the U.S. can nake a substantial contribution to
ongoing efforts to solve International pesticide problens.
I tMuld like to subnit for the record an article on the subject tdiich I
wrote for Audubon tetlon. a bl-nonthly newspaper lAlch goes out to AudiAon's
half-aillion aenbers. I think It will further deaonstrate Audubon's interest
In this issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to Csstlfy.
(Attachaent followa:)
d by Google
Endrin: Exporting the Danger, Releaming the Lessons
»g*»l> Hii»pii
db,Google
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
1412 Sineenth StfMt, K.W.. Wnhinpon, DC. I0O36 101—797-faOD
STATEMDn OF BABBJUtA J. BRAMBLE
OH BEHALF OF THE tUTIONAL WILDLIFE FEDEKATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOHHITTZE ON
DBPAKTKENT OPERATIONS, RESEARCH
AND FOREIGN AGRICDLTURE
OF THE COHHI'rr£E OK AQRI CULTURE
On behalf of eha National Hlldlifa Fad«ration, I am [il«»a*d
to hAv« thia opportunity to appear bafore you today to clarify
our concema about peaticid* uaa in thia country and abroad.
I am Barbard Branbla. Director of International Programa of the
National Hildlife Federation. The Federation ia tha nation's
largaat conaervation organization, with over 4.5 nillion mambera
and aupportera dedicated to the viae uaa and managemant of
natural reaourcea. The Foderation'a conatituency haa a
longatanding awareneaa of the atrong link between auatainabl*
development and intelligent uaa of natural reaourcea. He are
diamayed by the proliferation of peaticida uaa that daatroya fiah
and wildlife, poiaona humani, and threaten* tha natural balance of
predators and pray. He therefore aupport the pesticide reform
bill aponaored by Rep. George Brown, H.R. 25S0, which will
strengthen the Federal Inaecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlcide Act
(FIFRAI by incraaaing protection of developing couiitriea againat
peaticide miauae, augmenting control of pesticides that endanger
Unitad states citizena, and aaauring public participation in
d by Google
ijBportant dkclsiODB concaming paatlcidai. Hhila tha bill will not
■olva all pasticida-ralatad problama , it i> a naadad affort to
addraai known inadaquaciaa in the current FIFRA lagialation.
Tha pacfcaga of awandBianta conatituting a.R. 35S0 covara aaracal
diffarant facata of p««ttcid« regulation and use, and tha Fadaratton
■trongly support! the entire bill. But in tha intaraat of brevity,
ay taatinony will concantrste on thcaa point*: (1) Our principal
area of concern cantar* on the unrestricted export of haiardoua
paaticidsi abroad and tha aubiaquant exposure of 0.5. cltitans to
many of these ■>■« cheaical* aa reaiduea on imported food. Feati-
cidai manufactured only for export should be reqiatarad in tha O.S.
Developing countciea must be given a fair chance to make an
'informed request' for canceled, suapandad, restricted, or voluntarllr
withdrawn peaticldea before they are shipped, and residues of
canceled or suspended pesticides on food imports must be eliminated.
12) He are concerned at the slew paca of ra-regiatratlon of the
older pesticide cheodcals irtiich came onto the market with
inadequate testing for health and environnental Impacta or, in aota*
cases, with falsified test data, k strict schedule for finishing
this work must ba set. And (3) we believe that many dangerous
regulatory decisions that have been nada about pesticides could have
been avoided with adequate public review of health and safety data,
and we therefore favor increased public participation in the
regulatory process for pesticides.
db,Google
Ths National Mlldlifa Faderation la concamed that tha paatleldaa
•xportad by tha Unitad Statas to davalopln^ nations aay not proaota
health or austalnabla iigriculcura In thosa countclaa. All too
fraquantly. it li laamad that paaticida uaa abroad cauaaa lllnaaa
•nd daath, poisons food and watac auppliaa, and contaainata* fiah
and wildlifa. Bundrads of thoDsanda of paopla ara affected by
paaticidea yearly in davalopin? countries. At least tvanty thousand
die. This constant and unapactacular tragedy equals several tiaaa
the numbars killed or injured by the accident at Bhopel, and it
happens every year.
Overuse of pesticidea, particularly the persistent organo-
chlorines, has resulted in the survival of the sust resistant of
past species, many of which are the severest crop pests. The
pesticides also destroy nany of the species which prey on these
pests. Thus, pesticide use has increased ths reliance on hamful
chemicals. In this country, these dangers led to the adoption of
FIPRA in 1972. Unfortunately, nany other countrlea have not yet
reached the same level of understanding.
n of Exports and Record Keeping
Assuring safe pesticide use is hard enough in the O.S., as you
have haard and vill continue to hear frooi sMst of the other witnesses
testifying during these two days. In developing countries, pesticide
1. Estimate by U.K. Economic and Social Conmittee for Asia and the
db,Google
nicu** 1* nagniflad by povscty, illlcccacy, th« high coat of
prataetlv* gear, lack of wacar for washing after peatlcida lUe,
and Inadequate (If any) training for applicators . To add to
these •Dolmoua obstacles, the U.S. — and other countries —
have adopted a doubla standard which specifically exempts
pesticides made for export froB important legal safety requita-
ments which are Imposed if the pesticide is to b« used
domestically. For exanple, under Section 3 of PIPiU, pesticides
made only for export need not go through the registration process.
This means that even if an importing country ask* BPA for
information about the health and safety effects or efficacy of
certain products, EVh has no intonnation to give. In addition,
not all domestic pesticide container labeling requiranents apply
to exported products— manufacturers of pesticides destined for
abroad need not label pesticides wltb Instructions for proper use.
The current provisions ease the financial burden on U.S. corpora-
tions at the expense of the health of pesticide users abroad.
In contrast, the proposed auendmenta In B.R. 25B0 remove the
double standard by requiring registration of all pesticides manu-
factured in the United States, and requiring label instructions
for use.
The amendments also strengthen Section B(al and (bl by
clarifying that current record'keeping requirements apply to
manufacturers of pesticides both for U.S. use and for export.
d by Google
Export notification
ona of th« HOC«t faatucaa of th* currant law ia that not all
important infonaatlon about peaticida ragulatocy action in the
United States la deaaeDinatad to foreign govamnants. Ondar
FIFRA, the U.S. need only notify recipient govammenta about
cancellationa or auapanaions of pesticide ragi at rations . No
sharing of information about r«*trictBd-u*e pesticides is
raquirad. Yet. Dost hazardous pesticides are subject only to use
restrictions; only a few have been eanealad or suspended.
Horaover. restricted-use pastlcidas may be the most dangerous
for developing nations. Training in safe •ethods of application
ia rare, and nost applicators do not understand the dangers posed
by these chemicaXs. Even if containers were labeled with use
Instructlona In the appropriate language, speclallied equipment
and other precautions required tor their aafe application generally
ia unavailable to users In reiaote areas.
For example, in the United States parathion uae ia reatricted
to certified, trained applicatora or individuals acting under their
direct aupervislon. The use precautiona required by EPA include
wearing natural rubber glovea, protective clothing, a maalc, gogglaa,
and aui approved respirator. Farmara are instructed to keep husuns
and livestock away from the sprayed field for forty-eight hours
after application and to wash their hands, face, and arms after
spraying and before drinking, eating, or s>oklng.
It Is wholly unrealistic to expect fana workers in Third world
countriaa to follow these Instructions, especially the restriction
ST-SSe 0-86—
d by Google
to uae by tcainsd applicators. He nust ramadMr ttwt In th« C.S.
failur« to lollotf thasa lab«l caquiraaant* i* unlawful undar
FIFIUk. T □.S.C. S13Gjta) (2) (S). In ochar worda, bat foe tha
aaiunption that tha labal Inatructions will ba followad, parathion
would not ba lagal £oc uaa In this country, parathion la an
axtramaly haiardoua chaoical, which aone axpacta ballava la
reiponalble tor aa aany a* 80 paccant of all paatlclda polaonlng*
in Cantxal Anarica. Yat It la ooa of tha many paatlclda* for lAlcta
FIFRA raqulrea no wacnin? irtian axportad to davaloping countriea.
Aaida froa tha fact that raatrlctad-uie paaticidea ara not
covared. tha currant statutory notification ayatan is inadaquata.
Ondar tha praaant achama of ilT, adoptad in 1978, thara ar* two
typas of notification!. Saetion lT(b) raquirai EPA to notify
foreign countriaa whan it acta to cancel or auapand a paatlclda
raglatratlon . Only if a foreign country aaka for further
information doai sn lb) require BPA to explain why It took the
raguLatory action.
The second part of the notification achaaa involves shlpaant-
ralatad notlcas (SlTIa)) which tell a country that a cancalad,
auspandad. or otherwise unragistared paaticide la being shipped to
a daatinatlon wltbin that country. Thia type of notice is coapli-
cated and unhelpful, first, the ijiporting coapany aaat acknowladf*
to tha axporting ccoipaDy that it Icnaws tha pesticide la unragiatarad-
which would presuaably not ba n«w* to the Idportar (who Is oftan a
subsidiary of the exporter) . A copy of thia acknowledgaant than
goes to BPA, which prepares a oatification docunent for tranaaittal
d by Google
to th« Stata DvpsrUMnt, Uia U.S. ^abaaay, and avanGuslly an
official of tha Inporting govariuMnC. Kaanwhila, howavac, th«
paitlclda ahipMnt i* long gona. Ho acknowledgaent !• requirad
that t)i« appropriate authoritiaa of Cha iaporting country avar
racaivad tha Infaraation. Nhlla this ia an Liapcovanant ovar no
notification at all, tha ayatam nsada to ba laprovad.
R.R. 25B0 atrangthana the notification achaaa in two
taportant waya.
Firat, an anandad Sactlon 17 (a) (II axpand* tha claaa of
action* about which othar countciaa muae ba infomad. AM notad
abova, PIFSA currantly raqulrea notification to ao iraporting
nation only whan a paiticida ragiatration ia cancalad or auapandad.
B.R. 3580 will anlarga tha category of paaclcidea requiring
notification to Include thoae that are reatrictad to uaa by a
certified applicator, voluntarily withdrawn or daniad reglatration.
Sacond, tha caaaloing portion of Section IT la) Inprova* tha
notification procedure, while tha Act curcantly requires notifica-
tion, it mandata* neither confirmation of receipt of tha notice
nor an opportunity to request or refuse the pasticida. Frequently,
the notification is received long after tha pasticida shiptMnt has
been received and at that point it can ba very difficult to refuse
the ahipawnt.
H.R. 3S80 corrects this deficiency by requiring the Information
exchange to precede the shipment, officials of the importing country
must acknowledge receipt of information about tha effects of the
pesticide on human health and tha anvironmant. The officials must
then request the shiFOent, as wall as furnish s description Of their
own pesticide use and residue control measures.
d by Google
This procaaa will larva to warn Cha iMpoEting country and
to proBota ragulaCOEy iBprovanenti in davalopln? countriaa ovar
ttna. Although w« cannot pretand th«t thsas naasuraa will
rsBuXt liimiiill III iilii lo raduead haiardi to workan in tha Ciald or
laas contanination of the anvlronaant, tha onitad Stataa owaa it
to ita cuBtooara abroad to iBprova the flow of timely infonutioo
about peat Ic idea.
A recant resolution proposed by the Hational NildLifa
Fadatation and paaaad by the International onion for the Conaarva-
tion of Nature and Natural Basourca* (lUCN) , an International
foruB of citizen groups and government conservation aganeiea,
adoptad the 'prior infomed request' position. (Beaolutlon attached.)
A number of other countriea and International organisations are
considering adopting a similar position. It ia important that,
as a world leader, tha United States alao endorse 'prior informed
raquatt' while other organizations are ra-axamining their policiaa.
Tachnlcal Aasiatanee
The amendments suggested by Representative Btovn anhanca
International cooperation by requiring the Administrator of EPA
to provide foreign countrias with technical assistance In aafety
training, regulatory prograsM, and alternative nathods of past
control. This section could be a powerful tool to Increase
tional awaranass about safer pesticide use and methods to reduce
reliance on haiardous chemicals.
db,Google
H.R. 2580 will acrengthan PIFRA by assuring sinilar standards
Cor axportad and domtatlc pesticides, increasing the avsilabilicy
of pesticide Information to rsciplsnt countrias, giving importlnq
countrlaa a fair chance to make an Infomed choice before the
chamlcali arrive at their docks, and providing developing countries
with technical a*siatance to improve their own regulatory capabili-
ties. EPA has drafted a version of FtFRA amendments which never
amerged Cron OHB. Hhile the BPA draft tinkers with some of the
domestic provisions, it is strangely silent on these important
I.S. CITIZEHS FHQM EXPOSURE
TO INADEQUATELY TESTED PESTICIDES
In addition to iaproving policies regarding pesticide exports,
the Brown -span sored FIFRA amendments (H.R. 2580) also will reduce
Che threats now posed to U.S. citizens by exposure to hazardous
pesticides.
Thera are several major areas of conc«m on the dosMStic
front, but we will concentrate here on three: importation of
foodstuffs with residues of pesticides for which registration has
been canceled or suspended: re -registration of pesticidesi and
compulsory reporting of adverse health effects of pesticides to EPA.
Residues
Under currant law, whan a- pesticide registration Is canceled
or suspended the tolerance levels (legal limits of pesticide
d by Google
raaiduaa parmlttad on food products) corraspondlng to UMt
paaticida ara not sutonatically ravokad. Thia »aana that a
cancalad or tuapandad paaticide can b« iM«d abroad on Cood
daatlnad Cor Unltad Stataa laarkata, and eha FDA mac accept: tha
food for Import unlaaa tha raaidaaa axcaad tha lavala aatabllabad
bafora w« )ui«w oC tha paatlcida'a dangart. A« a >±<^n««quencer
avan after a peaticida la cancelad In thia country, wa continoa
to conauma it on inportad pcoduca. For axaaple, a 1984 atudy
of importad coftea beans by tha Natural Resourcaa Dafansa Council
found raalduaa of peaticida* bannad tor uae In tha Daltad Stata*
on 301 of tha beana aaaplad. Ha import nearly all ouc eoffa*.
This policy not only endangara our citizana by axposura to
hatardoua chemicals, but it also is aconoMlcally unfair to U.S.
peoducara who are prohibited from using the usual lyehaapar
bannad paaticidea. EPA justitiaa thia procedure by stating that
raaidua* of loms pesticides remain in the anviromsent long aftai
their application to crops haa ceased. The current procaaa cooU
be improved wbila also taking into account EFA's objection,
although the agency's draft bill fails even to try.
John Moore. BPA Assistant Adainistrator Cor Paaticidea and
Toxic Substances, teatified before you on April IB and aaid that
EPA la 'In tha procaaa of* revoking tolerances for fourteen pesti-
cides canceled in the 197aa. Surely we should expect EPA to act
more quickly.
3. S. Hearne, Harvaat Of Unknowns: Pesticide Contamination in
Imported Foods. 13 JHatural Besources Defenae Council. 1980.
3. Statement of John A. Moore, Assistant Adntiniatrator foc Pestl'
cldea and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA. before the Subccmnitta*
on Department Operations, Reaearch and Foreign Agriculture of
the Bouse Cc^ttee on Agriculture, 7 (April IS, 138S) .
d by Google
H.R. 2580 addnasai Chii problan in Sactlon 17 (d) by pro-
hibiting import of agricultural comnditiea with datactabl*
raslduaa at • paatlclds foe which ragiatcation haa baan cancalad,
•uapandad, or voluntarily withdrawn. Howavar, it allows an
•xcaptlon for aituationa whar* EPA haa sat • tol«canc« lav*l
apecifically b«cau*a tha psaticlda unavoidably parsiats in tha
envirorunenc. Tha bill also prohibita Import of foodstuffs with
raaiduas of pasticldaa for which thara 1* no tolaranea astablishad
unless thara ia a apaclal tolaranea axamption.
Another potential solution to tha residue pcoblsM which you
have proposed, Mr. Chairman, is simply to forbid import of a food
•hipoMnt froD a country whose regulations permit use on that crop
of a paatlcida which tha united States hsa canceled or suapendad
for UBS on tha soma (or aiailar) product. Such a provision would
ba on incentive for other countries quickly to develop significantly
stricter regulations. He would welcoita such a atcong atand and
support tt. But because compliance with auch regulations in many
developing countries Is not enforced, there still would ba a need
for FDA spot checks at the border.
Re-registration
Another major concern is the ilow pace of the ra- registration
process now underway. Under the 1972 fifKA Amandmanta, all old
pesticldsB were to be re- registered using Bodam aclantific tasting
protocols. The deadline for coopletion of re~ registration has been
changed twice, and in 1978 EFA was ordered to finish tha project
d by Google
*in th« moat •xpwdltious mannac practicabla* . John Moor«'a tastlMony
lait nonth indicatad that of the at laaat 600 paaticldai Eaqulring
ra-ragiatration, EFA has a«t tha aaw raglatration atandard far only
9B . Tha conplata data packaga haa baan racaivad foe only G out of
tha SDO. At this paca. It will taka dacada* to complata tha
re-ragiatratlon pcoceaa. Tha EFA draft bill doa* not avan santion
tha problam.
Na aupport Rapcaaantativa srovn'a pcopoaal in Sactioo 3(g) to
put EFA and paaticida nanufactuEars on a tiqht achedule for
compliancs with Congcaat' 1972 mandata. It la important to nota
that nwating tha 1972 Eaqalraaenta la not overvhelningly bucdanaoaa
bacauaa EPA haa a atandard battaey of taata tor paaticida cagiaera-
tion, and no teat take* BMra than thraa yaara to parfont. Tha bill
tequicaa EFA to identify data gaps for 100 top-priority paaticida
active ingredianta by July 1, 1986, and to publlah a li«t of tha
ramaining ingredianta and their data gapa In the Federal Ragietar
by July 1, 19B7. It allowa ragiatranta four yaara to aupply tha
niaaing data. If ragiatranta do not provide the Information
within the apecifiad tina period, than tha Adnlniatrator muat
undertake to fill the data gap* at tha ragiatranta' aspenae.
A related area ia the falaification of health and aafaty test
data, a problem which waa widely publiciied in the wake of tha
1977 induatrlal Bio-Taat (IBT) acandal. Today, eight yeara attar
tha govammant laamad of IBT'a aubaittal of fraudulent test ESSulta,
it remains difficult to cancel or suspend a paaticida ragiatratlon
even when the regiatration is based on faulty data. Finw allowa
cancellation only when there ia evidence of adverae effects on man
d by Google
mai tha onvironmant. Wian rsqistraclon data ia lnea*q>l«t« or
taltlCiad, obviously thara i« no aolld avldanca of nagativa haalth
affeeei. even whan thara ara Indicator* of haalth problaaw, tba
cancallatlon procaia include! four leparata daca-gathartng and
haaring procaaaai irtiich taka yaari to coa^lata. Tha EPA draft bill
doaa proposa loua itcaamlinlnq, irtiich ia an improvasant. But tha
■ugqaatad changea do not aiapllfy tha procaaa adoquataly.
Horaover, the draft auggaata an 'Infocnal rulanalclng' procedure
which would give CUB an important role in tha cancellation proceed-
ing*. Thii could be diaaatroua becauaa OHB haa neither tha
axpertiae nor the incentive to evaluate tha hatard* of peeticida*
properly.
H.R. 2580 proposes • aiioplifiad ptoeadura wharaby tha
Administrator muat act immediately to issue a Notice of Intent to
cancel a registration or revoke a food tolerance if he believes
that falsa, misleading, or inaccurate data has been supplied in
support of an application and tha information ia material to
EFA'b registration. or tolerance decision. The registrant nay
request a hearing concerning the accuracy of the data and may
submit new data.
Ha also support disclosure to EPA of all adverse haalth
effects about which a pesticide registrant Is apprised. At present,
FIFRA raquiras registrants to submit information only about
d by Google
'uiira«*onabl*' •dv«c** h«alth «£f«ct*. nv* IPA draft bj
this a bit by panittlng tha KPA AdBlnlatxatoc to daflna
•unraaaonabla* . It tbarafora pandta a bcoad raadtim of 'unraaaca-
abla' iC tha Adaiiniatrator asarclaaa hia dlacraelooaxy opporttmi^
to giva an axpanalva daflnitlon to tha word. H.X. 2S80 fO*a
fnrtbac, though. It raMovas tha word 'unraaaonabla* anticalyt tlma
raqulrlng ragtateanta to notity EPk about any advaraa haalth aftaett
cauaad by paaticidaa thay nanufaetur*. This chaaga ia appcoprlata,
alnca it paralta aarly warning to EPA about poiaibla avanuaa tor
invBBtigation. It doaa not triggac by itsalf any burdan on. or
paaalcy againat. Industry.
III. BWCOnlUUa public IHVOLVEIIEtlT
Riqht-tO-Know
In tha afteiaath of tha Bhopal diaaatac, D.S. citlsww hava
bagun to raalits how littla la known about dangars In our own
comunitiea, as wall aa how llaltad tha opportunity ia to ba
involTad in dacision -making procaaaaa that affact our wall-baing.
tnrp thacators supports ssvaral provisions of H.R. 2SB0 which will
incraaaa ciciien knowladga about and participation in public policy
concaming pasticidaa. Unfortunatsly, tha SPA draft bill doaa not
addrsss theae concerns.
FIFRA currently raquiras pasticlda manufacturara to aulKit
data to BPA concaming the amounts and types of pasticidaa produced.
But most of this information is confidential and conseguAntly ia doc
available to tha public, intarmedlary chamicala, such aa the aetliyl
isocyanate (MIC) used in tha BhopaL plant, are not covarad. As a
db,Google
r«sult, lik* th« E«aid«nts of Bhopal, D.S. citliwia hava vary littla,
if any. Information above the poiaons Banufacttirad or ua«d in ctM«ic«l
plants in thair conmunitiaa. Moraovar, thay ara not awar* of proca-
durea wUch ahould ba followad during an aaargncy.
Hajor paaticlda coapanlaa, pactienlarly Honsanto, ara baglnnlng
to dlacloaa thia intoiBatlon voluntarily. Thia ia a co—andabla
action. But it undaracoraa the need for auch diacloaura aeroaa-tha-
Repraaantive Brotm'a propoaal would addreaa this naad. In
Section T(c)-(el the bill raqulraa manufacturera to auhalt additional
infonutlon to EPA, including the nantea of all paatlcidaa produced
or Intarmadiary chaaicals uaad, the aaounta produced and need, a
■uamiary of the health rlaka aaaociatad with the cheaicsla, th« loca-
tion of the plants using than, as wall as 'avacuation plans or
docuHMnta for plant aaployeaa and reaidenta of neighboring coamuni-
tiea in the event of an emargaticy' . It also ra^iiras tbis information
to be Buboiittad to stats and local police, fire, and health officials
and to chaaU.c«l plant anployaaa. The bill protects proprietary
interests by maintaining confidentiality about th« amounts of
pesticides produced and intarmadiary chemicals used.
Public Ravie* of Test pats
H.R. 2SB0 also facilitatea public review of peaticide tsating,
by repealing SlOfg) of FIFRA, which requiras waihars of the public
receiving industry health and safety test data to aaanfe EPA that
they "will not purposefully deliver or negligently causa the data to
db,Google
ba dalivarsd* to foralgn or mltlnational paiCicida pxoducara.
Thi* provision wa* d**ign«d to protact trade aacrata by guaxantaatBg
that forai^n ooapatitoca will not uaa this data to raglatac th«ic
oon product* in eountrias lAieh axa not partiaa to patant tr««tiaa
with tha Vnitad 3t«t«a. Section 10(g) has lad to waminga of
criminal pcoaacution and civil liability againat groupa that Bight
publish or distributa thasa aciantific studiaa for paar raviaw.
Bacauaa the benefits from wide review of paaticide health and
safety atudiea are greater than proprietary intarasta of pesticide
■anufacturera , Sactlon 10(g) should ba repealed. At tha aaa*
tlBe. however. H.R. ISSO recogniiea and protacta co^aarcial
interests by adding Section 12 (a) , which craates civil and oriaiaal
penalties against any party naing this type of health and aa£«ty
data for licensing or registration In a country other than th*
United Stataa. This provision places liability tor niausa of the
infonuitiMi on the spptopriate partiaa— those who Kisuae it for
financial advantage.
Disclosure of Test Data for Public Co^oant
A defect in the present law la its failure to provide diacloaui*
of health and safety data during tha public cooawnt period on
pcopOBsd registration and tolerances decisions. Instead, th« test
results are made available up to 30 days after the final decision
has been made. This Beani that even If an error haa been stade and
is pointed out by s coapetsnt public expert, the pesticide ia
registered and cannot be challenged except by the lengthy cancellatlcB
db,Google
pcocesi. To kaap haiardoua pesticldas off th« »ark«t, it ia
important thac acientific data ba av«llabl« to Ut« public b»for*
EPA final daclaiona ara mad*. B.R. 2SS0 accanpUahaa thla by
aicanding Section 3|c) 12) (A) to provide diacloauxa of data
aubmltted in support of an application for registration or for
•atabliahnant of a tolerance prior to the end of the public
t period. Bowever, diaaaninstion of information would
lin aubject to the trade aecrvt protection!
1 Participation in
Cancellation Procaedinqa
Equally inportant ia cititen participation Id peaticida
cancellation haaringa. PIPRA providaa that *a parson adversely
affected' May cequaat a bearing after a Hotica of Intent to Cancel
is issued. The courts have oonatruad 'advarsaly affected* to
exclude environnental groups and other interested neabers of the
public. While citiiena' groupa rarely oppose a pesticide's
cancellation, they aomatinaa assart that a propoaad cancellation
for certain pesticide uses does not go far enough. In auch a
caae, the manufacturer would have no incentive to initiate a
hearing and citiiena' groupa would be prohibited from doing ao>
We believe that cltizans' right to initiate cancellation haaringa
is necessary to protect the public from possible 'deals" between
EPA and peaticida manufacturer*. B.R. 3580 remedies the problMi
by specifying that pesticide users and ■iiiiiliai ■ of the public
. COstle. IS E.R.C. 1218 ID.C. Cir.
d by Google
without an aconoalc intaraat In tha rBglatcatlon Bay raqnaat >
haarin? concacnioci a p«*tlcld«'a caglatcation, cajic*ll«tlao, or
ehanga in claaaification.
Citiian Suita
Finally, wa aupport addition of a citiian aoit provlalan.
EPA'i caaourcea are inadequate to Bonitor ccnpllsnca with FIFRA'i
requirenents affectively. Nearly all other envieonaental legial*-
tion includea a citizen-ault section. These provtalona bava been
helpful both to encourage private conformity with atatutaa >a
well aa to aaaure BPA'a effective adminiateation of th« act*. Tta*
propoaad aoendnent would create « civil right of action againat
parties alleged to be in violation of the Act. It probably woald
not create a maaalve increase In litiqation, though, becauaa it
also prohibits lawsuits against private pesticide applicators unlen
th« plaintiff notifiea state and federal authorities of the claiasd
violation and those authorities have not coi^enced an action witbia
sixty days after notification.
We cosmend you, Mr. chaitaan, for holding hearings on theaa
vital pesticide Issues. He hope to work closely with you and
your staff to ensure passage of a strengthened FIFRA this year.
d by Google
^^ NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
D.C. 20016 202— 79?-6800
Hay 21, 198S
SOMHASY OF REHASKS
by Barbara J. Braabl*
The National Wildlife P«d*ration atrongly supports the FIFRA
reform package to b« introduced this week by Rep. George
Brown (D-CA) , as well as the similar provisions in the Heftel
Bill, B.R. 1416, regarding export and ii^ort of pesticides.
NHF Is particularly concerned about the export of hazardous
pesticides to developing countries where they are often misused,
causing acute poisonings, as well as long-term health effects
and environmental contamination.
Cancelled and suspended pesticides are allowed to be exported
from the United States. The current export notification
provision does not give developing countries sufficient or
timely warning of the hazards of pesticides they are receiving.
Cancelled or suspended pesticides tend to be persistent in
the environment . If used on a food crop, they may remain as
residues on food products.
FIFRA does not now require automatic revocation of food
tolerances (legally permitted amounts of pesticide residues
in food) when a pesticide is cancelled or suspended.
d by Google
Thu* a •hlpment of Ijitported food may legally contain &■ Buch
resldu* of « cancvlled p«atlcid* as waa parmitt«d whan that
pcsticlda was usad in the U.S., prior to cancallation.
Even more dangerous is the fact that no notification must be
sent regarding restricted use pesticides. These mu*t b«
used with extreme care, and In the U.S. can only b* usad by
a certified applicator or on* under his auparvision.
R«stricted use pesticides cause thousands of poisonings and
deaths each year in davaloping countries. Parathion alone ii
estimated to caus* 80 paccent of the poisonings in Central
AflMrica. Yet Parathion is not covered by the FIFRA notificatia
provision.
Anendments to FIFRA are needed which would:
- require all psaticides exported from the United Statas to b«
registared hare;
- require automatic revocation of tolerances whan « pasticide
is cancelled oc suspended;
- strengthen the notification aystan for hazardous pesticide
exports by requiring receipt of information by the in^orting
country and request for the chemical, prior to export;
- broaden the notification system to cover restrictad use and
voluntarily withdrawn pasticidesi
- raquira the con^ilation of information on the production
hazards, destination and use of exported pesticides i
- offer technical assistance to developing countries to assist
them in establishing training and regulatory programs to
d by Google
rsduc* p«stlcid* misuse and develop leas chemical intensive
alternatives.
Amandmants to 7IFRA are also naedad on tlie doaestic slda.
Including I
- a strict schedule for re-registration;
- cODUunity right to knovi
- citlian participation in review of test data and cancallation
proceedings;
- citizen suits for enforcement.
db,Google
m
WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
mi Nov >ibtk <SrRiuF. N.W.HUilun^an, DC. 20X16. Mtphoner m-UMJOO
Hay 21, 1985
Statcaent of Robeit VaammtBttom
on behalf of Hocld Reaourcca Inatitut*
befote the
Subcoonittee on Depaitaent Operational
Reseacch and Foreign Agclcultui*
of the House Agriculture Coonittee
Fanm*orker Safety and PeaticJde Oae
in the Onlted States
Mi. Chairman, ny name is Robeit Waiseiaticn. I an a Senioi
Associate and Project Dliectoi at the World Reaouicea Institutai
a research center which focuses on pol ley issues concerning
the environment, development, public health, population and
natuial lesouices. In collaboiat ion with Richard Wiles, I have
recently completed a study of pesticide regulation and facHtniker
safety in the Dnlted States, which will be published by WRI
in the near future.
Before Joining the Institute, I served on the faculty of
Columbia Dnlveiaity in the Schools of Public Health and Intsrnatlonal
Affairs. Previously, I also worked as a field officer special Ising
in agriculture and rural development with the National Council
for Science and Technology in Hcxlco, where I was directly involved
In testing insect pest management syBtens. I appreciate this
opportunity to offer ay views to the Committee.
d by Google
I. EP> and Faraworlfr Safety
Since FIFRA was enacted in 1947, Anecican agiicultui* haa
become heavily dependent on lynthatlc pesticide*, which now
represent a 54.1 billlon-a-yeai >acket foi cheoicsl nanufactutets.
Yet because EFA has been unable to codify appcoptlate uses for
th«se cbenicals, as the law requires , significant problems of
human health and safety cenaln.
In part, such problems stem from the ambiguous nature of
FIFRA itself and troni the Agency's convoluted efforts to balance
the price of p*<t control against the need to limit huaan exposure.
This difficulty has recently been underscored by specialists
at EPA ' s own economic analysis branch: 'Nhile pesticide producers,
users, and consumers benefit from the use of pesticides," they
wrote, "...costs are distributed disproportionately throughout
the population (in terms of acute and chronic toxic effects
such as cancer) ."1 Although conclusive proof is not available,
ample evidence suggests that such costs are borne mainly by
farmers, fleldhands and agricultural laborers.
Let m* review some Important facts about occupational exposure
to pesticides. Late in 1963, 94 peach pickers neat Hughson,
California, suddenly fell ill after working In orchards thst
had been sprayed with a common insecticide, parathion. Public
health authorities quickly determined that most of these workers
had not been contaminated during or soon after appl ication.3
d by Google
Rather , Cha woist cpitodes took place In otchatds which had
been treated as much as five weeks beCore the outbreak began.
Opon cloaei eiaoinatlon, auch epiaodes sa«B«d to tit an
•nerging pattern of multiple poisonings Involving labotars axpoaad
to the *dislodg*able cesldues' of organophosphate p*a tic idea,
which were rapidly replacing older, less toxic chanlcala lika
DDT. At least seven tines since 1949, agticultutal wotketa
had become aick after reentering orchards that had b«an sprayed
with these chemicals. ^ Responding to such condition!, in 1971,
the California Depactment of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Issued
a set of "reentry intervals" for specific crops and ch«Micata;
three years later, the federal government adopted sinilar {though
considerably leas restrictive) standarda (Table 1) .*
Today, twenty yeara after the Hughaon incident, apeclalista
still disagree about the effectiveness of such measures or Indeed
about what the risks of pesticide exposure really are. According
to one estimate, for example, between 8 and 9 million people
are employed In agriculture and at least halt ot them cone into
direct contact with dangerous chemicals, 5 Such peopl* fall
Into three distinct categories: farmers, who often conduct
their own spraying operations; laborers who mlx> load and apply
pesticides; and f leldhands, who may come into contact with so-called
dislodgeable reaiduea as they weed, pick, and prune.
Dslng information from California, Dr. Nolly Coye, fomerlf
staff epidemiologist at the National Institute of Occupational
Health and Safety in San Francisco, has calculated that perhaps
db,Google
as many as 313,000 of thass psopl* nay suffer the affects of
pesticide celated illness each yaac. Including such acute synptons
as dizziness, vomitting, 'pin-point pupils" and severe skin
E ashes.'' Conpl icattng such calculations, howaver, la tha fhct
that legionsl diffeiencas in crop production and pesticide use
cates almost certainly give rise to dlffacent patterns of hunan
exposure. What these patterns Bight be remains a mattar of
conjecture because accurate figures on the frequency of polson-
ings--or even educated guesses--have not been compiled. And
beyond such estimates, an unknown number of people endure various
chronic disorders or prolonged depression of sn essential enzyme
called chollnesterasa.
Moved In part by these considerations. Congress has amended
FIPRA over the years and has vastly eitanded EPft's tasponslbllltlas
under the law. As a result, the Agency must now classify all
pesticides into 'restricted' and 'unrestricted' catagorlas,
and it over sees the efforts of state governments to cactlfy
private and coonercial applicators.
Federal enforcement of FIFRA is assent lally based upon
the certification program: in general , state agencies must
take care that farmers and professional fumlgatora adhece to
legal prescriptions — usually Involving protective clothing —
-pr Inted on product labels. EPA inspectors rarely take the
initiative; instead, they review tha activities of local officers
to determine whether the law has bean observed.
HOW well this arrangament works has been a subject of con-
d by Google
Bldaiabla conttovctay. kccotdlng to SAO invaatigatoza. Cot
•xanplo, a tat* •ntotcancnt activltlaa Impzovad algniflcantly
Icon 197B to 19B0, But Mote tacatit avldanca obtalnod txom EPk
by tha World Raaouccea Inatitute undar tha Fcaadoa of lofonu-
tion Kct su9g«ats that thla tiand haa not continoad (Tabla 2),
If fiacal yaac 1981 ia uaed as a banclnack, aavaral facta
ametga. Although tha total nunbec o£ 'atata inapactiooa" haa
cenalned apptoxlmataly unchanqad alnc« the Reagan adnlnlatratlon
bagani enfoccaaient pattecna have ahlfted away from atatnar waaaacaa
like Buapendlng or revoking applicator llcanaaa. Civil actiona
have decceaaed fron 89 to a yearly avarag* of 43, crlatnal proaae-
utlona froa 49 to 28 and the frequency of caaea cefaccad to
EPA foe final dlapoaition fcon 33 to 13. Evan th« nuRbar of
warnlnga has declined by 17,5 percent. Recogniiing thla trend,
fomei Adniniatiatoi Rucitalshsus told hla antorcanent staff
laat year: 'I an nervous about what I perceive to b« an apparent
lack of action and serious conaltnent to anaut ing that thesa
Iswa and regulations are enforced , While tha atataa do have
a larger reaponalbility. ..than they did In tha paat. if w* are
carrying out ovetalght rasponalbilltlaa, thaa* laws should b*
an forced. "7
But even with better anforcevent, significant dlfflcultlM
oust be ovarcoa*. On* of tha Boat important concerns tb* fact
that EPA has largely been "flying blind" in ita affotts to sat
farnworkar safety standards. Wtthont coBprehanaiva data on
polaoning ratea and hnnan exposure, for axaaple, tha Agency
d by Google
has been unable to Eonnulate appropriate ceentcy intervals — even
Mhen the political will to do so ha* b«en foEthcoming. At a
c«aulti tedeial standacds often lag behind the rules uhich hav«
b«en adopted in California (and now Teiaa) .
Although EPA aigucs that tuch diffaiencci atls* naturally
when states are allowed to set thelt own lequirements , th*y
also give rise to some cucious ironies. A case in point involves
Guthion, which is govecned by a 30-day interval In California
and two days In azeas that follow federal Eules--even though
B8 peccant of all th« Guthion us«d In tte* crops Is appliod
outside of California. In this case, BPA's astattlon that Guthion
must therefore represent a greater problom in California than
•Isewhere may be true, but It is not based on scientific evidence
of any sort.
In fact, this problem was recognized over ten years ago
by the federal Task Group on Occupational BxposuE* to Pesticides,
which urged the Agency to require exposure studies a* part of
the registration process. As the Task Group observed, "If it
has been danonstrated experimentally that a 21-day raentry period
is reasonably safe while 14 days Is reasonsbly unssfe, no amount
of debate can transmute the unsafe period Into a safe one, or
the converse. "B And beyond the experimental determination,
we might add, is the question of ascertaining 'ground truth" — the
naed to monitor human exposure levels in the field.
Why have federal authorities shown little interest in protecting
farmworkers? Until recently, EPA maintained the position that
d by Google
stEictec standards were not needed. Instead, ftgency nanaqeit
have general ly focused on a noie limited task — that of finding
safer ways to use dangerous chenicala.
The nost diamatic example of this approach Involves EPA't
policies concerning protective cloth ing--both foe applicatoia
and for famtforkccs In ganecal . Dnder curcent rules, tha Agency
allows fanners to overlook reentry intervals if their workers
are provided with a hat, shoes, long pants, 'tightly woven gloves*
and a long-sleeve shirt. And yet, a detailed report prepared
for ePA by Dynsmac Cocpotatlon argues that such lulee cannot
easily be defended on scientific grounds. 9 Similarly, path-bteaklng
eiper iments by Richard Fenske and his colleagues using special
infrared dyes have danonatrated that even the most " in permeable*
garments (such as rubber gloves] allow considerable residue
deposition on human skin. 10 All of this evidence points to
an unaiistakable conclusion: such garments are far less reliable
in protecting farmworkers than EPA has heretofore assumed.
d by Google
S95
II. Towtda a Hew a«<mlntory Ftawwork
Fortunataly, sine* 19B0, this pictui* has b*gun to change.
Responding to public pressure, BPK at first created a snail
farmworkac safety unit within th« Office of Pesticide Ptogtana
to consolidate existing Information and suggest appropriate
remedies. Then in August, 19B1, the ftgency issued an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPK) entitled 'worker Protection
Standards for Agricultural Pesticides . '11 Recognizing that
current policies have largely failed to protect both laborers
and fieldhands, the AHPR snd subsequent testimony by EPA Assistant
xdninietratoi Dr. John Hoore before this Subcommittee outline
a course of action designed to strengthen existing regulatory
Of considerable importance, the Agency now proposes to
establish a "generic a4-houi reentry interval" for all acutely
toxic chemicals, aupplenented where necessary by longer periods
for specific compounds. Thus, for cxanple> this rule would encompass
virtually all of the compounds included in Table 1 which are
regulated in California but not under federal standards. New
pesticides would not be registered uithout studies of their
field degradation rates that would enable the Agency to set
appropriate requirements. For conpounds which ate already on
the market, EPA would tike to collect such Information under
its on- going leregistration program, initiated at the behest
of Congress in 1974. Manufacturers who failed to undertake
d by Google
these studies would eventually be focced to withdraw their products
The AHPR also proposes to take specific step* concerning
the problem of long-term exposure to pesticides: "One option
the ligency is considecing is to establish reentry Intervals
or other special requirements .. .for all pesticide products that
EPA has found to pose risks of cancer, birth defects, adverse
reproductive effects, or other adverse chronic effects,. . .regardless
of their acute toxicity. "H When agricultural workers oust resuss
their tasks in fields that have been sprayed, for example, tba
Agency tfould now require farm operators to post approprist*
warnings indicating that these intervals are in effect.
A much more far-reaching proposal concerns the suggest ion
thst farmworkers should be afforded the same kind of protection
enjoyed by other members of the labor force under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) . Unlike PIFRA, OSKA directs federsl
authorities to set whatever standards are needed to assure thst
workers remain unharmed by chemicals or other haaards over the
entire course of their working lives, Dslng this approach,
BPA has outlined a nine-point safety program that stresses the
following measures:
setting quantitative levels of maximum
exposure averaged over a working day;
notifying workers of workplace chemicals
to which they are exposed; monitoring
workers' exposure to workplace chemicals
on a routine basis; .. .med icsl surveil-
lance over specified time intervals;
worker information and training pro-
grama; and recordkeeping. i3
Another question addressed by the proposed regulations
d by Google
;h state's eight to set the *tanaacds which fit its
own particular geographic and climatic conditiona. Politics
aside, scientific evidence suggests that paaticid* degradation
rates are dranatically affected by var ioua factors including
BBbient moisture, himidity, tenperature and rainfall. In hot,
dry areas like California, where crops nay only be grown with
•xtcnsive irrigation, residues remain on foliage for long periods,
unwashed by dews or rains. 14 In other places, like Florida and
■uch of Texas, frequent precipitation accelerates the dissipation
process and reduces the danger to hunan beings. 15 Recognlilng
this fact, several specialists , most notably Dr. Herbert Higg
and his collaborators, have argued that degradation rates should
be calculated separately for wet and dry regions using 'weather
*odel ing" techniques thst would yield different standards for
each. 16
In the ANPR, these views are reflected in a provision to
"establish a full range of worker protection standards that
would be set a a either nationwide or regional maxinuiis."!''
In contrast to current pollclaa, which are designed only to
"protect farmworkers from the nost common risks of pesticide
use,' such regulations would 'take into account the need for
itfore stringent standards in areas with certain climatic conditons."
A very sittilar approach was recently proposed by the Texas
DepartMsnt of Agriculture (TDA] , which drafted its own rules
on farmworker safety In 1984.18 Rather than wait until all
the relevant data might be assembled, TDA developed a strict
set of reentry requirements while at the same tine allowing
d by Google
manuf acturecs to provide additional infoimation wbcre they fait
that BhoEtei intervals were juatifiad. Although TDA BubBequentlr
modified thla piacedurcr EPk has *ug9««t«d that new tadecal
rules ahould be baaed upon a 'wocat case* evaluation of the
potential hazard: where Bcientific arguments can b* nustered,
however, ind ividual states nay apply foi exanpttona fcoa tb«
national oc tegional norms , In facta the Agency has already
taken a major step in this direction: last October, after a
decade of deliberations, it published a detailed set of instruct lout
for conducting field exposure stud ies and calculating 'worst
case" reentry Intervals. l-'
If the proposed regulations are put into practice, they
night welt resolve many of the major problems which have plagued
EPA'a actions concerning farmworker safety from the beginning — or
they might not. The fact is that concrete evidence to support
either view is almost unavailable and inevitably gives rise
to contradictory Interpretations, Unless the Agency collects
such evidence, its proposals will leave unanswered several of
the fundamental questions that have arisen over the past 10
Pr Imary among these Is the issue of whether occupational
health and safety among farmworkers have been affected by the
overuse and In some caaes mlsuae of pesticides, Oelng partial
Information from California , for example, it is poasibl* to
argue that some chemicals become substantially less dangeroo*
when reentry periods are lengthened or when protective clothing
is required, while others {like patathlon) cause a more or lass
d by Google
fixed noobei of illnesses in direct proportion to the quantity
applied. And yet, even such piallninaTy and tentattv* conclusions
are difticolt to draw because we have no idea how many wockers
eonie into contact with each of the chenicals involved and cannot
calculate the poisoning incidence rates (number of caaes/ thousand
ind ividuals exposed) associated with each coapound. Without
■uch data, it is difficult to know whether any of the neasuces
outlined by EPA or discussed at these hearings will effectively
reduce human eiposure, or whether the frequency of poisonings
•imply ts fleet* changes in the pattern of peatlcide use. As
a result, the sane data presented to justify longer reentry
standards may b« used to aigo* that a decline In Illness will
occur only if faimers shift to less toilc chemicals or find
ways to apply relatively dangerous ccnpounds more effectively.
Such d ilemmas are compounded by another shortCMaing in
IPA' s procedures, what Agency official* often call the 'old
chemicals bias": pesticides which were licensed for sat* before
1974 under less stringent testing requirwaent* do not necessarily
■eet today'a safety standarda but nonetheless continue to enjoy
a significant share of major markets. Given their popularity*
these chemicals represent a formidable barrier that impedes
the entry of less dangerous ccopounds, which may take ten year*
to develop and coat as much as $20 nillion. Vet the Agency continues
t.o 1 icense each new peaticide without considering whether its
more toxic competitors should be taken out of circulation.
In fact, this problem has recently been acknowledged by
epA's Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
d by Google
Hilton Ru«B«ll. In an artlcl* cntltlwd "Incantlvai to Bticngtbon
regulation of poBticides: the asaa of legulatoty tafora," niaaall
argues that the Agency nuat EoEBulate new pollctaa which "hatnaaa
theae aaiket forces in trays that better ptonota contlnttoua awlft
replacement o£ registcted product! with safei (though perhaps
still risky) ones. . ."30 Specifically, he auggasta that IM
should judge whether new producta are laaa hasardous than old
ones and should then subsidize the cost of registering auch
conpounds by taxing the chamicala which they are daaignad to
replace. Thereafter, as safer peaticidea nova toward coBBercial
aale, the Agency would gradually cancel or suspend the individual
uses of existing conpetltota until it had, in effect, ceopenad
the market to aiore advanced products.
Nhatever the merita of this proposal. It rapraaents onlj
a limited leaponae to the ptobloi of protecting both fa^workeri
and appllcacora. If noat chenicala nay be nada reasonably safa
by imposing adequate reentry intervals or reguiring ttalniii9
and protective clothing , then a tax to support "new entrant
grants' merely adds to the conflicting and burdansene taaponsibi-
lities which EPA must already discharge without signiflcantXj
enhancing its capacity to carry out existing functions. It
also promlaes to e«broll the Agency in endless contcoveraiaa
with the chivical tnduatiy over who abould qualify tot a aUbsid;
and which products ahould be cancelled to aiaka way tor naw en-
trants. And if ex 1 sting compounds cannot be made safer by snbald Itlng
technological innovation, then perhapa the tax proposal ahonld
be directed toward reducing overall peaticide aBe> or reducing
d by Google
the application lata of hlgb-clsk paattcidaa.
Under these ciicuBstancaai Congreaa Right veil ra*x^ine
an idea which It originally rejectad In 1972, nvaly that BPA
Bhould inatltute a ayaten of 'uaa by preacEiption" for paatlcldaa
•Inilar to the one which govarna phaTBaceutical producta. in
fact, this approach haa recently bean adopted In Bratll by the
Ktate of Bio Giande do Sul and ia alio under diacaaslon at aaniot
levela of the Nexican govermant. Hlthln the U. 8., the fr^ewock
for auch a syataai haa alcaady been laid In California, which
■inca 1972 has required tacaars to consult a licanaad "pest
control adviaor" before applying ao-callad raatrletad paaticldea.
But there is another notlve for atressin? what goes on
at BPA. As daveloplng countries daviaa their own pesticide
requirenenta, they frequently look to the Agency for guidance,
advic« and even specific regulations which they Might adopt.
Few Bcientlflc inatitutiona in these countriea can Kuatar the
•Xpert is* and resources to independently test and voElf y aach'
of the standards that EPA has set. Like it or not, the Agency
thus enjoys • broad responsibility to the world conaunlty that
is alnost unique anonf doMast Ic Institutions. By aasesslng
the gaps and Bhortcominga in our understanding of faEnworker
aafety, therefore, we hop* to stimulate discussion of these
■atteis and better enable regulatory offictala at all levela
to carry out thalr conplax responsibilities.
d by Google
■nd R«comend«tlc
Both In Di. Nooca'B tastinony and in ottiec public stataB*nta,
EPA has outlined a aetiaa of atapa wbicb It hopaa wlLl anabla
TvgulBtory officials to nak* Boca infonad judgaanta. Me would
lika to connent on theae Idea* and offer a few auggeationa of
Of pi laaiy Inpoitance, the Agency' a pcopoaal to aet Kueb
moie lestrictive ceentcy standards while allowing state ex^ptlODS
whece justified on scientific grounds la certainly walcova and
should be adapted without delay. So should its suggestion that
fieldhands niuat be Infomed about the standaida In effect where
they have been ordered to work. And If EPA decldea to follow
the sane procedurea sa OSHA, it will have gone a long way toward
ovaiconlng one of FIFRk's nsjoi shoitcOBinga — that It alnglas
out agricultural workera for lesa than equal protection against
chaalcal hazards.
In other reapecta, however, the Agency haa not gona fac
enough In addressing the problm of occupational safety. Pot
inatance. It still favors the idea of suspending reentry liwltatloas
when certain types of protective clothing are provided — daapite
the fact that this poaition romaina unaupporced byaolid ectentifle
evidence. Similarly, Its proposal to enforce the new regulations
by "making then a part of the product label' confuacs lagal for-
malities with substantive action. EPA must undertake a aarioua
d by Google
review of its entice cnforcment pEogcas and devise a ecnprehenaive
plan to astuie that the law It being obeyed.
Although auch steps ace important, it must be cecognised
that they may well not lesolve the basic ptoblena of faEmworkec
•afety. If it tucna out that better reentry atandacds and other
neoaures cannot ceduca poisoning lates to an accaptable level,
both Congress and EPA must confiont ths fact that uoie caoprehansive
policies ace in ocdei. In patticular, they must addceas the
acgunent — caised by economists at EPA — that endsolc ovecuae
of pesticides occuta becauae nanufaetucecs, gcooecs and pechapa
constners do not pay the full cost of cuctent crop protect ion
practicea.il The solution to this dileaas lies in drafting
a national policy of peat managanent similar to the one outlined
in 1972.
Such a pol icy would slmul taneoualy curtail occupational
•Nposuce to pesticide residues while harmoni ring overall use
with demonstrated need. As many apecialists have argued, technol-
ogiea like integrated pest managaaent have made current crop
protection practlcea not only wsataful but obsolete. By sharing
'externalities* anong benef iciar lea and non-beneficiaries alike,
FIFRA discourages farmer a fcoM taking advantage of these alternatives
and lowering their costs. A better attatagy would entail specific
incentives designed simultaneously to incorporate such expenses
into the price of pest control and to reward manufacturers who
explore less hazardous alternatives.
57-RM O— 86—
d by Google
In our vi*H, tti* following r »cc— nfl at i OH* wnld Itad tt
■oza aftactlvo national policy)
*. Ila—Kch Weada and P«ta BaqulriBMita.
1. ■pia»ioloqlcal Monitoring. Parbapa tba aoat glatiag
tmaknaaa in BM'a data collactlon ayatMB invelvaa •ptd^io-
logical aurvaillanca and Bonltoiing. In tha paatt tha
Agancy has leliad laigaly upon paaaiva lapoEttng ■•chanlMa
Ilka tha Paaticlda Incidant Monitoring SyatMi (VtHS).
But hospital aAalaaion racoida glva no aanaa of how widaapEaad
poaticida mpoaure actually ia — pattlculacly what* chronic
eftacta arc concarnad. Hor will thla Infomatlon b* obtalnad
from batter toxlcoiogical atudlea. Although auch atadlaa
are abaolutaly nacaaaary for aatting ragiatiatlon raqulr^Mnta,
thay should b* aupplanantad and chackad by aotaal tlald
data ftow huwan aubjacta. In thia way. foe axaapla, it
will ba possible to verify whether local or regional wraMptiosa
fcon national reentry atandarda are juatlliad on th« gronnJ.
Tha only way to carry out auch atudias ia to monlter
past Ic Ida raaldue lavala In husn blood and urln*. Ibis
progr«n should ba adiinistarad by state health auttaoEltlas
following a atandatd reaearch protocol and unifora sa»^iaj
tachniquaa. It should ba Indapandant of on-golnq af forts
to verify worknen' a conpanaation claima and ahould be aupportad
by federal research grants. SiBllarly> EPA should conduct
d by Google
.accurate annual stat«-wlda Buiveyi of ptatlcide us« and
calculate correapond ing application tatea tot each chwiical
and ciop. Result* ihould be conpilad by th« regional BPIt
office* and forwarded to Haahlngton for review and publication.
Such results will guide state officials in their own regulatory
activities and will enable both Congress and the public
to assess how effective current ptocadures really are.
2. Motltleatlon. Aside fron nonltotlng htaan blood and
urine levels, BPA and the U. S. Public Health Service should
define exactly what constitutes an acute poisoning incident
and require all hoapitals, private physicians and clinics
to report such incidents as a "notifiable disease." This
systen would avoid nany of the Insccuiacias that characterised
PIMS and would clearly reveal how many cases eone to the
attention of medical authorities.
3. Field Degradation studies. implenentation of BM's
guidelines on agricultural worker reentry standard* (4 0
CFR ise Subsection K) depends on obtaining accurate field
degradation studies of dlslodgaable residues. To date,
the Agency has received less than ten of these studies —
-even though several hundred are required by the new regula-
tions. To rectify this deficiency, BPA should danand such
data for all luetic ides used an labor-intensive crops.
Priority should be given to those cbentcals which are most
widely applied and which meet either of the following condl-
d by Google
a. E«gi*tratlon haa been g canted witheut
conplete tnfoimatlon concerning najor acute
or chronic e fleets]
b. registrations standards or special review
notices have been issued.
Given the fact that field degradation studies nsy be carried
out within a single growing season, these data should be
provided within one year. Specific research should also
be conducted for oil-based foraulationai which have the
some active Ingredienta aa other compoanda but which are
designed to be more peraiatant. Products which do not
meet this one-year data requiroient ahould automatically
be suspended until the relevant evidence ia forthcoming,
4. Ap pi lea tor Enpoaure. BPA ' a guidellnea do not
address the problon of measuring direct exposure «aong
pesticide appl icators. Instead, the Agency often
rel les upon whst it calls the "surrogate chemical
approach" by which It eitrapolatea from data on one
set of compounds to set standard a for another. As
many special ists have painted out , however , such procedures
are flawed because they tell us little about the most
esssntial factor : how effectively these chemical*
penetrate the aur faces on wh Ich they land , Inatead
of relying on the aurrogate approach, then, BPA should
sponsor whatever research is neceasary to develop
db,Google
- a unlfom methodology foi ■■■esBing applicator •xpoaur*
sinllar to ita pioeaaucas tot aatting faniHoikaE eaantcy
standards .
B. Strangttfnlng EPA'a aagulatory Progtao
1. Haalth and Safaty. EPA ahauld caleulata occupational
•zpoaure levela toe all workara Mployad in agrioultuta.
Theae atandaida ahould be at laaat aa high aa tboaa
davelopad by OSHA, tven battel, EPA aight uaa tha
*o- called "will andangar" taat taken Croa Section
111 of the Clean All Act (aa Intatpratad in Bthyl
Corp. V. EPA, S41 F.2nd (D. C. Cit. 19761). Thi« taat
enables the Agency to act on tha baaia of riak alona
without a strict asaasMient of acenonic benefits .
To catty out Ita Bandata, EPA ahould create a naw
occupational health and aafety branch within the Office
of Pesticide Piogrsvs, which would replace the axiatlng
one-peiBOn faraworker aafety unit. Ravlaad atandaida
Cor both acute and chronic expoaura auat be set aa
Boon as the relevant data ace collected, and ahould
saaure that agticultuEal workera xecalva the sa«e
deg ree of protection aa othat woEketa an] ay under
OSHA.
If such data are not tottbcoalng in a tiaely
faahion, tha Agency ahould adopt a peocaduia now uaad
In California under the state'a Birth Defecta Prevention
d by Google
Act [19S4), which allow* official* to carry out th«
neceasaiy atudiea themaelvea at the maniif acturac' ■
expenaa, Maanwhllai EPA ahould aet anargeDcy requlatlona
by undertaking a "worst caaa" analysis of aiiatlng
•vidanca. Should tha atudlas outllnad abova aubsaquantly
Indicata that lasa strlngant ragulationa night apply
in pacticulai caaaa or Eegions, BM oe atate olflcials
nay then naka the appcopriata adjuatmants. Finally (
tasponalbility for an forcing thaae regulations aust
be tranafarred fron atate agricultural officials to
health authorities, who would adhere to atrict faderal
guidelines.
2. Raclaaaiflcatton of Paatlcldas. Clasaif Ication
of past Ic Idas should ba tightened to reflect the new
standards and additional resources ahould be allocated
to accomplish this task axpadltiously. All pesticides
should be grouped into three najor catagories depending
on their relative toxicity, the danger of hivan axpoaure
and epldenioloqlcal evidence of Intoxication. Ittna ,
(or example, ch^icala which do not appear to ba partic-
ularly harmful in laboratory atud lea may turn out
to cauaa aignlf leant damage when actually used In
the field. Such Information should figure into BPA's
calculation of how dangeroua theae choalcals are and
who should be parnittad to apply tham. Furthermore,
the Agency should require manufactuieca to pay a "regls-
d by Google
trsnt's fee" lor each new coapound placed on the nacket.
Such f««« would be higher for chanlcals in Category
1 than for thoae in Categoriea 2 or 3, and would effect-
ively shaie the burden of epldmiologlcal aui veil-
lance and monitoring with the chonical industry,
3, Protective Clothing. The beat acientific information
currently available auggaata that protective clothing
does not shield either applicatoci or f leldhands who
must return to treated areas before the corresponding
reentry periods have expired. Until iafat methods
are developed , BPA should enforce reentry rules with
no special allowances for protective clothing rntcegt
where positive acientific evidence shows that it is
effective. Since very few agricultural tasks nuat
be porformed immediately after pesticides ate applied,
this procedure Is unlikely to represent a severe hardship
for most farmers and would rectify one of the moat
glaring inconslstanc ies In existing regulations.
4, Supervision of Sprayera, Mixers and Loaders. Under
current regulations, certified applicators exerciae
general reaponsibllty for superv Ising the laborers
who mix, load and spray pestlcldes> but need not be
present when treatments occur or even give detailed
instructions. At the same time, laborer a do not normally
receive special training in pesticide safety and quite
db,Google
often Buffer the hiqheat incidence of polionlng epiaodas.
To solve this probltn, BPA should Immediately BBSuie
that everyone directly involved in handling such chaaical*
undergoes a degree of training at l«ast equivalent
to what cattlflsd appllcatoca now cecelve.
S, Enforcement. Like OSHh and the Food , Drug and
Coosetic Act, FIFRA should baobservad unlEoraly thcoughout
the countcy. To this «ndi EPA should sat higher anfotce-
mant standards and state authorities should apply
appropriate penalties (including fines) for misuse
of pesticides. Various gaps and loopholes (e. g.i
in Sections XS and 24(c)) should be closed and waivers
granted only under extroae circustances. In general,
emphasis should shift from drafting elaborat* labals
to changing attitudes and behavior — a tasic vhich cannot
be served by haphazard training progrms.
Together with USDht BP& should design and coordinate
a major public education campaign explaining the dangers
of pesticide use and should dramatically expand its
efforts to reach all segments of the agr icultural
commun ity : f armersi labocacs, f Icldhands, migrant
workers, packers, etc. Ihs cost of this csKpalgn
should be shared squally by ths Agency and state govern-
ments, which would lose a portion of their snforcwiant
grants if they failed to meet national standards. Finally,
EPA should evaluate such efforts at least evsrv two
d by Google
to detect weaknesses in oaphasls and appioach,
I focus on specific pioblans where theae occur.
lal Collaboration. Given the paucity
of information on facmwoikeE poisonings in the United
Statesi it is not sutptising that developing countries
have encountered great difficulties in formul sting
their own policies and procedures. Bven mo, several
of these countries — including Brazil, Mexico and Malaysia —
have enacted regulations to protect fa in wot leers or
reduce hunan exposure. EPA and OSHA could play a
major role in facilitating this process by convening
an international conference on pesticide safety each
year which would underscore their willingness to col-
laborate bilaterally with concerned governnents.
K conference of this sort would reinforce the efforts
of such multilateral agencies as the On 1 ted Nations
Environnental Program (through its International Registry
of Potentially Toxic Chenicala), WHO, FAO and DHDP.
More important, it would draw together a network of
farmworker safety specialists with direct access to
and would cr<
mechanlm for the direct exchange of coomon experiences.
d by Google
612
C. A Future Agenda for FIFM Rcfoni
1 . U»e by Prescription. I ( theae a«a aut ea a IfozA
only an Inconplvte oe pattlal E«duction in fsnaMotlME
poisonings. Congress may want to consider more fundsaental
changes In policy. In thla caaei ws would auggeat
that it consider the Idea of rewriting FIFRA to lay
the gtoundwoik fOE a national system of use by prescrip-
tion, aimilar to the one that governs phamaceutical
products. Within each atate, this ays tea would be
a^inistared by enviromental authorities and carried
out by independent 1 Icenssd peat manageoient conaultants
(FHCs) who would be certified according to standards
set by BPA. Their written consent and a description
of the control procedures In use would be required
for all pesticide applications, mca would be required
to advise their clients about alternative atrateglea
like im; their reconnendatlons would be subject to
review by state ofClclala, who would audit these racoa-
neodations periodically to assure that they aet fedaral
and atate guidelines,
2. Peraita and user Fees. Ones the prescription
aystsn had been Inplsnented, growers should be compelled
to request from state environmental authorities a
db,Google
p«ralt covAiing th«lr annual past oanagMient plan.
Such pciDlts would b* laaucd upon paynaot of a ta«
whlcb would vary dep«nding upon th* kind of chanical
and th« nunber o( appl Ications involved. Pcsticldea
in Categoiy I would be taxad at a aignif icantly higher
rate than cheoicala in Categoclas 2 oz 3, In evaiy
case, however, fees would reflect the leal coats of
' caclying out related surveillance and monitoring actlvl-
tlea, and of adiiniatarlng th* pesalt systan itself.
Bstiaates of how auch fees night affect production
costs ace Included in the Appendix,
Whether theae neaaucea succeed will dapeod largely on BPA'a
1 Ingneaa to develop and Implcnent a coherent national progran.
past experience with FIFRA has dononatrated , partial roiedles
not the answer: pesticide misuse cannot be corrected by
nting more detailed instructions on product labels. Congress
uld accept Its responsibility to take the steps that an effective
rategy dooands. Like nsdicines, pesticides ace both a vital
t of modern life and a potential haiard. In neither case
1 narrow interests be allowed to set the terns of public policy,
one orchard worker put It , "Chanicals are here to stay;
»y' re a threat, but they're alao a boon... If preasure could
put on oDployers to not go with the cheapeat but the safest.
It will be to my kld'a benefit.*
d by Google
EPA, Ragulatory Impact An>lv>l«. p>ta Byqutcwnt* tor
Reg later Ina P«>tlcldca under tha Federal in»ccticid», FunglcM*
and Rodentlclde Act (Waahinqton, D.C. i Offlc* ot Paattclda
Programs, Auguat, 19S2) , p. 37.
Thodiaa Mil by ct al . ■ "Pa rath ion Reaidue Poisoning JMong
Orchard Workera," Journal of the American Medical Aasoelatlon,
189 (1964): 351-356.
Robert C. Spear, David L. Jenklna, and Thomaa H. Hllby,
'Peaticide Residuea and Field Workera, ' Environaental Sclenca
and Technology) Jamea H, Stamper at at., "Growth and Dlsalpatloo
of Pesticide Oxons," Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, 27 (1981): 513-517; California Departnent
of Pood and Agriculture, "Incidence of Multiple Case Syatenatic
Illness of Agricultural Field Horkera Irco Expoaure to
Residues of Org aniphoaphate Peattcldea in California, *
(Sacrtnento: California Departjoent of Food and KgclcultDre,
1983) .
Gunter Zweig, James D. Adama and Jerome Blondell, "HiniBlslng
Occupational Exposure to Pesticidea: Federal Reentry Standards
for Farm workers (preaent and proposed]," Residue Bevlww
75 (X9B0): 103-111.
Task Group on Occupational Expoaure to Pesticides, Occupational
Expoaute to Pcatieides, [Washington, D.C: Federal Hocking
Group on Peat Management, 1974J,pp, 16-25; PatriciaA. Porter,
The Health Statua of Migrant Farmworkera, (Hew Tork: The
Field Foundation, 19B0); Molly fioye, "Occupational Health
and Safety of Agricultural Workera in the United States*
In Lawrence Busch ed.. Pood Security In the Ilnited States,
(Boulder COi Hestview Press, 1984) .
ssion on Mental Health, Report of the
int and Seasonal Farmworkers. (Washington.
0. C, 1978] .
Molly Joel Coyo, "The Health Effecta of Agricultural prod-
uction,' unpubllahed manuacript. Department of Medicine
and Division of Family Practice, Dniverslty of California
School of Medicine (San Francisco, 1984).
"Transcript of Wlllittn 0. Ruckelahaus' Reoaiks. EPA Hational
Compl iance and Enforcement Conference," The Environmental
For UP, April, 1984, pp. 14-17.
d by Google
Task Gcoup on Occupational Expo aura to Peat icld*s,
Occupational E«potui>, p. 76.
Dynamac Cocpoiatlon, Rev lew and Evaluation of Paatlcld*
fcppllcator Enpoaure, "Application Effictentv and Efficacy,.
(Rockvllle, no. 1983) .
Douglas Baughai, 'Expoaure to Pcatlcldaa During Appllcationi
k CEitical Ravlaw of the State of the Kit." prapatad fot
Wocld Reaourcas Inatituta, Haahlngton, D. C, 1984.
Envitomental Protection Agency. "40 CFR 170. Wotket Protection
Standatda for Agricultural Pestlcidas," Padaral Beqiatet,
49 (1984): 32605-32609.
'Woikei
. 32607,
Protection Standarda
for
kgi
rlcultotal
■worker
. 32608.
Protection Standarda
for
»g>
ricultural
Jamea P. Knaak, 'HlnlBlilng Occupational Bxpoaute to
cldes; Techniquaa for Batabl lading Safe Level* i
Foliar Reaiduea" Healdua Bavlawa, 7S (1980): 8 1-96
Sutaka Iwata , "Hlnlnl zing Occupational BKpoaui
H. H. Higg, Jamea A. Re inert, and G. B. Pi tips trick, "Heather-
Dependent Beaidue Behavior of Malathion in Florida Citrus
Varieties," Bulletin of Environmental Contawination and
Toxicology, 2l (1979): eg7-7«'. ~
H. H. Nigg, J. C. Allen and R. F. Brooka, "Haather
and Peat Icide Residue a," Proceed Ingaof the Intern-
ational Society of Ci tr icui tuca, 2 (1977J: 437-441;
Herbert Higg and John C. Allen, 'A Ccmparlaon of Time
and Time-He a thee Models for Predicting Psiathion Dia-
appearance under California Conditions, Envltonaental
Science and Technology, 13 (1979)i 231-233'!
"HoEker Protection Standards for Agricultural Practlcea,"
p. 32607.
Texas Department of Agriculture, Pasttclda Safety for Texaa,
(Austin, TX, 1984); TDA, "Final Pestlctda Regulations,"
(Austin, TX, Decambar 21, 1984t.
A deacriptlon o( these rules, which wand 40 CFR 158, Sub-
section K, may be found in James 0. Adaost "Pesticide Hsmos-
ment Guidelines. Subd Ivlslon K. Exposure Data Require-
d by Google
mental Reentcy Protactlon,* (HBahlngton> D. C> t BnvlEO(a«ntal
Protection Agencyf 1982), The lulaa th^aelves asy b«
founa in Federal Bag later. 50 (1985)1 159.
20. Hilton Kuaaall, 'Incantivaa to atrangthan cagulatlon of
peatlcideai the uaea of lagulatoty Kmtoat,' PMEP Ind natty
and EnvttoriBant. 7 Il»84)i 8-12.
21. Raqulatory Impact Analyala, p. 26.
d by Google
TABLE 1
A COHPARiaOK or rSDERAL AMD CALIFOIRIA
HBRTRl mTBRVALS
V**tlcld«
CltruB
Calttotniaa
APDlaa
Fadccal
B. Parathion*
30
4S
day.b
day.c
dayad
21 daya
21 daya
14 daya
41 bOBTB
AslDophOMMthyl
(Guthion) 31
day.
14 daya
31 daya
14 daya
24 honra
Ithion*
30
daya
14 daya
14 daya
-
24 honta
H. PiMthion*
-
31 daya
14 daya*
14 daya
41 benca
BPtI*
14
daya
14 daya
14 daya
14 daya
«4 honra
Caibopbanothi
(Tiithlon)
14
day.
14 daya
14 daya
14 daya
48 bona
Phoaalane
7
daya
7 daya
7 daya
-
24 bonra
MMton*
5
daya
7 daya
7 daya
-
4> honra
Bndrln
48 hoaia on all
ciopa
41 honra
IMtasystox-R
48 houca on all
ctopa
48 honta
Asodrln
48 houia on all
etopa
«S bouts
Bldcin
48 houES on all
cropa
48 honta
Chloto-
bcnsllata
14
daya
~
~
"
bona
Diasinon
5
daya
S daya
9 daya
~
non.
Di»«ci«n* 1«
(Phoaphaaldon)
daya
~
~
~
nona
Dl»«thoat«
4 <
daya
-
4 day.
—
nana
DioRatbion
(Danlav)
30
daya
Sf daya
31 days
—
BOM
Maiatbion
1 '
day
1 day
1 day
~
'nona
Mathtocarb
7 daya
~
~
bona
HathOByl 3
(Lannata, Hudiln
daya
)
3 daya
a daya
2 day.
nona
db,Google
TABLE 1 (contlnuad)
P««ttcld« Cltrn»
crmD». >ppi«« y»awi
0«lt«
iBldan
aulfuE
TBPP*
Torak
Suptacid**
4 dayi
1 day
1 day
4 daya
1 day
4 daya
1 day
7 daya
5 daya 5 daya
1 day 1 day
4 daya
75 daya
31 daya
4B hours
all CEOpa
4B houta on all eropa
48 houE* on all etopa
(a) A 34 hour aafaty Interval appllca aftar each application
of a toaieity catagory ana paaticid* in tba production of an
argicultural coBAOdity.
tb) ret all applicalton with apray Klatnraa eontalning 2 lbs
or laaa of actaal parathiea par 'lli falleaa, wltb t«t«a of ■
Iba at laaa actaal parathlon pat acraf and a total of Da Mat*
than II Iba pat acr« In tha ptavieaa 13 «ootba.
(c) Foe all applleatian with apray aiitntaa eontaining 2 lbs
or laaa at actual parathion poE 111 falloBBf witb sataa of aota
than t Iba actual paEatblan paE acta, OE moeo than II Iba pat
acta in tha ptavloaa 13 aontba.
(d) rat all applicationa with wtay aiitaraa eontaininy BOEa
than 2 Iba of actual paratbian pat 111 gallona.
d by Google
Table l (contiJiued)
{•) Tha aafcty intBival for **thly paiathlon on gtapca in
County Is G dayi. If •ncapfolatad Mcthyl patathlon •■
on grap*a, th« safety Interval shall ba 21 days In all count
{•) Mhan mora than ona pound par acre of actual patatl
■•thyl pacathion oe EPH is applied singly et In conbin
to any plant, a 14 day aafaty Intavval applies.
d by Google
£tS£
im
1.
t.m
2.
ClTll Actlou
»
3.
CrUlMl Action*
49
6. Waning
OtIwT Action
-91,5
-IT.J
10.9
9S.3
12. »<mll)t cf Kmo
-26.6
-M.T
foutco; EPA, "Enforc
t Actions lunltlnt fTOB fitant InapKtloBB," IfU, IMl
d by Google
iicAiHin or m ■moau. oonoa oooaciL or umck
ov m
nmua. mBcncioi, fwcicim, jud >oo«nciDi act
SDBCOMimt m KPunnaT opbruiobs, mskmcb < rouioi
«»ic(ii.tim or m
■0D8B OMimcB oa waiCDLSinB
Nr. ChcltMU) ■nd NudMia of the SubcoMiltteei
I am Lloyd ciin«. Cotton Pcoduc«r ttom L««e>«, Tosas and vtc*
Prasidant of th* lational Cotton Council. I appoat haia aa a
cencocnod Caraai and on bobalf of tha Council which rapreaonts
ptoducarsi gtnnaiBf aaad ciuabarBf warcbouaaaan, ■archantSr
cooperativeai and textile aanufacturaca froa tha Carolinaa to
Califoinia.
Iba cotton induatry stcongly supports a claan anvltonaant and aafa
uaa of cheaicala. Bowavar. «« aie gravaly concarnod about tha
continued availability of aaaantial pesticides that are currently
registered, and about the developaent and registration of new
pesticldaa that are aafeff acre affective and less axpanalva.
Na recognise the need for, and auppoiti reasonable ragulatlona foe
pesticides. Howevetf we ara concainad about iapoaltlon of
unnecessary rules that would aake aany essential pesticides
unavailable to faraars even though they are registered and in the
■arketplace.
d by Google
At th« Council's 19BS Annual Meeting, dclcqatci rapEescnting all
B«ven segaentB of the D. S. cotton Industry unanlKoualy adoptad
the following raaolution on pestlcideet
Continue supporting legislation and other BeasuEaa to
facilitate aound dcvelopMent and ua* of eaaantlal
agricultural chenlcalsi and. In particular!
• Urge continued registration of vital cotton pesticidaa
unless there is valid, scientific proof that their us«
prescnta an iMslnent hasard or that the riaka outtMigh
the benefltat
e Drge expeditloua clearance of critically needed new
peatlcidcs. and support efforts to develop procedures
for nore efficient negotiation of state emergency
ekemptiene of pesticide product uset
e Drge that buffer sonest BinlnuB dllutionSf and otber
pesticide application restrictions be laposed only
upon valid, scientific proof that they are neceaaary
to prevent a physical health hasard to huM«na or
aniulBt and,
• Support reforB of pesticide law to establish the cl««c
policy of national uniformity In the establiahMent of
I for pesticide residues In food.
d by Google
Hr. Chairman, we have not bad an opportunity to review any
■peclflc new PIPRA legislation that *ay have been Introduced, It
is our undetatanding that what becaae known as the 'Harper's Perry
Bill' in the last CongroBB has been reintroduced in the Senate as
S-309 and nay be reintroduced In the House. The Council testified
en this Bill as B.R. 381B before this Subcosualttee during the last
Congress on October 6, 19B3,
Basically! we support a siaple one- or two-year reauthoritatlon of
PIPRA. However, there are soae serious concerns we would Ilka to
discuss as concepts that should be considered If the Act la opened
for aaendKents.
Federal Preemption for Setting Tolnrjinr^H — He Strongly Support
Federal preemption for setting pesticide residue tolerances.
States should be prohibited fron setting tolerances. Agricultural
commodities and products must aove across state lines. Ne know
you can appreciate the mass confusion and problems encountered if
we have 50 different tolerances for the same pesticide on the same
comsiodity. States shouldn't even have authority to set the same
tolerances as the Pederal government because it would only add
■ore costs and regulatory burdens without providing any benefits.
VrAftKl and St«»» Pr»»mptlnn for Overall FIPRA Authority — Mhsn
the major overhaul of PIPRA was siade with the 1972 asendmentSi
Congress gave authority to regulate pesticide only to the Pederal
d by Google
and State goveinaentH. let, there have been nuaerous Incident!
where city and county govecnnenta have enbarked on efforts to
regulate peetlcldea at the local levels. Having different local
regulations will create unworkable situationB for taiaers and
other pesticide users. Congress should Bake it clear that state
pesticide regulatory authority does not extend to local
jurisdictions.
nan nf Reatrieted-Dap PpnUirlrtim — In 1972 Congress wisely
provided under PIFRA that restricted-use pesticides aay be applied
by a certified applicator or by a person under the direct
supervision of a certified applicator. Me understand that BPA and
possibly so*e others have suggested that FIPRA be aaended to
ellsiinate the provision that allows restricted-use pestlcidas to
be used 'under the direct supervision* of a certified applicator.
The justification given Is that under the present statutory
language, the Agency's ability to liait use to coapetcnt
applicators can {emphasis added! be easily thwarted.
Ho one has presented any factual evidence to show that there have
been problems under the present statutory language. We contand
that removing the phrase 'under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator' will create hardships on farners whether or
not it Is the farner hlsiself or soseona else such as a private
agricultural consultant hired by the fara*r who is the cartlfied
applicator that supervises the use.
d by Google
L«f:ll of Ba»»nH«m-Y Hhn.iltl Mnh Urn n C.rttmrtm *g«lp«<- P»«H.-<^«
— nndar Section 3 of PIPRAi Congteaa provided that l«ck of
essentiality should not be a ciitarla Cor denying laglatcatlon of
i t pesticide. That Is, just because a pesticide la already
registered for the aaae usei another peatlclde should not be
denied registration for that use. bpa la thwarting Congressional
intent by caylng that the 'lack of essentiality* provlalon In the
law does not apply to conditional reglatrattons. Practically all
new products ate being given conditional rather than Cull
registration-
He believe that Congress' intent also was that BPA would- not use
lack of essentiality as a erltsrls for cancslllng psatlcidssr yet
the Agency continues to do so in connection with Special Reviews
(foraerly referred to as Rebuttable Presuaption Against
Registration) .
Congresa should *ake its Intent in thla regard clear to BPA.
yf ^nanif icat ton jinii Dlnpftnai — tfhen BPA Buspends and later
cancels regiatration of a pestlcider the Agency Is required by law
to indeanify owneia of exlatlng stocks and to pay for diapoaal of
those stocks. We support keeping such statutory requlrenents.
However, we think that earners who have existing atocka on hand
should have the option of using thea Cor labeled uaea unlaaa it
can be shown that the dangera In allowing such use are too great
to risk allowing such an option.
d by Google
t»pnrfP.l Agrlrulfnr*! CnManiH I- J >■ — Q.S. CarBers ar* io tbc
worst financial shape since the great depceselon. It la bad
enough foi UB to have to conpete with foreign producera who
receive production and export incentives. For our own goveriment
to create incentives for foreign Ikports of coapeting coaBodities
into this country Is a slap In the face to U.S. agriculture. He
strongly favor requiring all imported agricultural coKModltiea and
processed products fron thoae coKModlties to aeet our residue
tolerance standards.
p»»ni-if:lHg RpHtdiiP Aftlon Lowlii — ' A recent decision by the D.B.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Coluabia raises doubt
about BPA's authority to set pesticide residue action levels, na
Court said that PDA had no authority to set action levels for
aflat oxin, a naturally occurring toxin > in corn and other
coaaodltles. It said that FDA is statutorily required to
establish tolerances through the foraal process.
He feel strongly that both FDA and BPA need authority to set
action levela. There are several situations where pesticide
tolerances are not appropriate and where the Agency has set neadad
action levels. PIFRA should be anended to sake clear that the
Agency has statutory authority to set pestlcids action levels.
Private Right nt AeHftn — He Strongly Oppose any aaeridaent to
insert a 'private rlght-of-action* provlaion in FIFRA. This would
d by Google
627
create ■ Pandora'a box. Any pcraon who £«lt aggilcvad by
■iippn«>i< (Miphaaia added) alsuae of a peatlclde could bring ault
against faraerB and lancbcia. Instead «[ enhancing pEOtectiona
under FIFRA, such a provialon will wicouEage law suits. Congress
ba« considered slBllai proposed aaendaenta before and had tbe
Misdoai to reject thea. The current raaadlas under PIPRA and other
statutes are adequate.
Public Standlno to Inltlaf Cane»lTi-lnn HearlnflS. Btc. — Ha
also strongly oppose any new provisions to give the public
standing to Initiate suspension or cancellation hearings. Our
reasons are sivllar to those we have stated for our opposition to
private right-of-actlon provisions.
BefliatratioB Cuid»Haea — Conaiderable progreas has been aade
by EPA In developing guidelines so that potential pesticide
registrants will know what the registration reqnlreaents are.
Yet, we continue to hear of nuaerous incidents of chealcal
coapanies conducting all the tests and obtaining the data called
for in the guidelines, and the Agency delaying registration by
adding additional requlreaents not covered in the guidelines. In
a few cases, it seeas that EPA doesn't know what It wants. A
specific esaaple is the case of aquatic or pond studies. The
Agency won't tell the potential registrant trttat type of pond study
Mill satisfy the requlreaents for registration.
d by Google
— PIPRA precapts pvatlcld* ezpo>vr«
•tandardB and r«9Ul«tione to BPA, 8«mm ■ntl-pesticld« gcoups h«««
advocatad tianafec of juriadlction lagardins paaticldaa in
workplaeaaf including far* workplacaBf fioa BPA to 08HA.
In the early 1970'b, a juriadlctional aqgabble batwaan BPA and
08HA aioae wltb regard to peaticida-treatad flald raantry
atandarda. The Council and otbcc fan gioupa endoraad tb« obvioaa
■tatutory autbority of BPA. He thought thla issue was settled for
good.
EPA baa recently euggested that PIPRA could be aaaadad ao that HA
actions do not pteeapt 08BA provided that OSHA's action* are not
incona latent.
Me strongly oppoee transferring any authority over the fara uaa of
peeticldas under PIPRA to OSHA froa BPA. Even if tbe actions by
both agencies are conaiatentf tba reault will be addltonal
unneaded regulatory burdens on faraera and Incraaaad overall
Paderal costs without upgrading tbe safety level of farBera and
Caraworkers.
PMticide Appiicjtinn fimnrtariiii — Tbe cuccent Padersl pesticide
application standards are adequate and workable. Me aupport thaa.
Me. of course, also support regulationa which promote safe
ai^llcation and use of pesticides. Along the saatt line, wa oppose
careless and Irreaponalble peatlcide use that could endanger tbe
d by Google
health and property of persons In and around paBtlclde-treatcd
fields.
We strongly oppose establlsbMcnt of unnecessary buffer tones,
unworkable notification requlraaentSi snd other spplicatlon
standards unless there is valid scientific proof that they are
necessary to prevent a physical health hasard to huaans or
i>*-m-lcldi' Hf-glatratlon FifB — Rather larqe faca sra astsbllshsd
for setting pesticide residue tolerances. Tbasa faaSf in a senssi
are registration fees sines tolarsnces are required for
regletratlon In *ost cases. Ha don't believe thst additional
regietratlon fees should be laposed on registrants. They would
result in higher pesticide costs that would be passed on to
faraers and ranchers who, historlcsllyi hsva not been able to pass
on such costs to consumers of farm and ranch products. Por ainoc
uses (uses with low aarket potentials) > inpoaltion of additional
fees for pesticide approval could actually ba a asjor fsctor In a
company's decision not to pursue registration.
^djudteatnrY HPiirlnqii and Spmeial H»vl »w« — EPA hSS let it be
known that the Agency would like for PIPRA to be asended to
ellainate adjudicatory hearings and to convert the current public
notice and coament period into informal rulenaklng. Because of
the serious consequences of the outcoae on fsrsers and ranchersi
we do not think the current 2-stage process — (1) public notice
d by Google
I (2) adjudicatory process — is too long. Neither
Is it unfair. We have seilous reservations about eJlainating
adjudicatory hearings.
Emergency Dse of P»atlgtd*H — Section IB OC PIFRA provides for
exenpting Federal and State agencies fron provisions of the act in
order to use pesticides under eaergency conditions, bfa fait that
the regulations promulgating Section IB needed to be revised.
We want to cosiMend the Agency for the new approach It took.
Rather than developing new regulations internally and then
proposing thea, a 21-BeBber Negotiating Coamlttee was establlshad
to write new regulations which the Agency was cosKltted to
propose. The aenbers of this Coanlttae represented far*
organizations and other user groups* environmental o rgan last ions (
the agricultural cheBlcals industryi state pesticide and health
agencies. DSDA. and EPA.
He would like to see £FA take such an approach on aore of the
■ajor peaticlde regulatory Issues.
Mr. Chairaan and Kenbers of the Subcoavitteei we appreciate having
this opportunity to express oui views on PIFRA legislation and
related pesticide regulatory Matters.
d by Google
STATEMENT OP
HAROLD H. COLLINS
BXSCUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AVIATION ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMHITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS.
RESBARCH AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 21, 1985
Mr. Chairpian;
My nain« Is Harold Collins and I an cnployed as
Executive Director of the National Agricultural Aviation
Association (NAAA).
Headquartered in Washington, DC, NAAA Is a federation
of state and regional associations throughout the United
States. Members of the association include individual
agricultural aviation businesses, agricultural pilots,
allied industries who supply the products and services used
by the operators, and international persons and/or
companies from 18 nations around the world.
Agricultural aviation in this country is comprised of
nearly 3,000 operating businesses which own and operate
approximately 10,000 aircraft, of which approxinately 900
are helicopters. The remainder are flxed-wlng aircraft.
Flying approximately 2,600,000 hours annually, applying
fertilizer, seed, and crop protection chemicals, the ag air
d by Google
fleet treats ISOrOOOrOOO acraa of land at least once each
y«ar. Considering repetitive applications to th* sane acre
of land, total annual treatment could approach 380iOOOiO00
acres. It has been estimated that aqrlclultural aviation
ia responsible for approximately 10% of thla nation's $134
billion food and fiber production. He are proud of the
(act that this work is accovpllshed with 90,000,000
gallons of aviation fuel per year, providing very efficient
energy utilization.
With regard to this hearing the NAAA has not had
sufficient time to communicate with its Board of Directors
snd Legislative Committee in order to adequately respond to
H.R, 2462. AS a consequence Hr. Chairman, we respectfully
request that the association be permitted to provide
additional comment In the future in a time frame consiatwit
with the subcommittee's needs.
Based on the testimony of Rep. Selberling yesterday I
would like to relate to the subcommittee that EPA did not
ban the aerial application of Lasso (alachlor). That was
entirely a Monsanto decision according to Hr. Steve
Shatsow, Director of EPA's Office of Pesicide Ptograns. t
personally advised Hr. Selberling on this matter ImBadlate-
ly following his testimony. Indeed, Honsanto has provided
the EPA with new data that nay return the aerial method
of application to the Lasso label.
d by Google
In addition to future canawnt MAA would lik* to offer
tli« following thoughts for conmittac consideration. '
Earlier this yaar MAAA participated in and was one ot
nunerouB sponaore of a pesticide waste disposal conference
in Denver. Colorado. Attendees included stater federal and
public entities vitally concerned with pestlcid* waste dis-
posal, NAAA'a observations as a result of that conference
are attached via copy from the association »agaslne.
Based on ideas generated at that conference > NAAA
would like this subcoDDittee to consider requiring that
pesticide waste disposal ba regulated exclusivaly under
Sec. 19 of the FIFRA rather than the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). He believe that private and
connerical pesticide applicators alike are unable to conply
with RCRA. If we use existing technology to create waste
disposal regulations under FIFRA that are practical and
attainsblet I believe the agricultural coimnunity would
welcone the opportunity to be able to comply with the law.
Hr. Chairnani it aaens to NAAA that nedical studies of
long tine pesticide users in the agricultural coanunlty
could provide strong evidence of health consequences
associated with pesticide exposure. Such a study could
even reduce the conjecture associated with laboratory
animal test data which we try to extrapolate into human
d by Google
terns. H* would c*rUinly and up knowing nor* than u* know
NAAA would Ilk* to augg«st that BPA conduct a
nationwide health study of pesticide users. He suggest
this because agricultural pesticide users as a gteup «»
voluntarily and repetitively exposed to pesticides st
levels greater than the general public. This do«« r«a|
relationship should provide valuable knowledge to the
■edical world.
In 1978 the NAAA funded an epideBiologlcsl study at ag
pilotSi their spouses and children. A copy of that atudy
is attached^ The association funded the study because the
BPA, USDA and PAA denied in writing any Interest in such a
study. Th« control group for the NAAA study was the
siblings of the eg pilotSi their spouses and children as
long as they had no Involvement with aerial applicationf
pesticides or faming. The results^ although not
statistically significant, indicated that the ag pilot
group was somewhat healthier. The survey concluded that
the absence of a difference Is Itnportant. A nearly
identical study of wheat growers In the D.S. produced
similar results. In this case however the better health eC
the wheat grower was statlatieally significant.
NAAA appreciates the work this comitte* has
accomplished on pesticide legislation over aany years. He
conmend and support your continued singulsr oversight on
these issues.
(ActachMDCa follow:)
d by Google
Editorial
idde uaen are technologi-
cally unable U fnlly comply
wilhRCRAallhiatima
2. InaCead of aMnmulating
waalei inoneiilcaadhanliDg
limil«l number of diipoaal
faatitiea, it might be more
•cnaible to develop portable.
economical, and durable dia-
^^^^^^Hnj^^^^H
poial lyitemi which aervice
^^^^B^^^^H
3. RCRA itaeif ia inhibitiDg
needed reiearch and innova-
tion. The financial and lecal
conaequencei for dilpoHi K-
roTB made in good faith are
^^^^"^^^^^^^^
■canng off the privat* in-
NMtly 400 people from indu^
4. Peatidde waataa generated
try. (Mte and federal government,
inthel950iandoplothaen-
univemuei, and the peMidde
National Workihop on Peatidde
genenled after RCRA. Per-
Wasiea I>igpo»l in Denver. Colo-
rado on January 28-29, IB85.
»a*t« lite enforcement ac
tiooi involving dollai penal-
•hop'i topic exceeded the plan-
lie. would be in order until
ning commitlee'a early eitimite
Mdence ha* a chance to ad
dreu the problem.
The worLshop did not lolve the
peiticide uaer'a waale diipoial
problem!, but it waa a beginning.
uniform. When two genera-
tiom eiperta where we ate, what
titiaecfwaateandonlyaneit
we need to accompliih, and the
regulated, aomething ii
problem! which need to be re-
wrong with the law.
aolved along the route of compU-
6. Qiipoial lechniquea pre-
ance with the Reaooret Con-
aenled al the workihop
•hould be given practicalfield
(RCRA). Wotkahop chairman.
trial! dunng the 19S5 grow-
Roy DetWHler of DuPonl i. to be
ing aeaion. Report! on the
re!iilt! of euch work ihould
pUnning and conducting the
meeting.
From thia aaaaciation'a point of
view, here are the major finding.
One-Stop
Shopping A
Way to Help
Pesticide
Waste
Generators
A highlight of th* werkahop
waa the one-atop-ahopping con-
cept introduced by O. R. Ebart, a
peatidde regulatory official from
Wi!con!m. Simply put, the agii-
cultural comm unity already haa a
lang-t«m, well-aCructured and ef-
faetive lyatem of communicatioo
a the Department of Agri-
laod gi
Water, J
able dupli
need! for
"™ork. ff^ll
ig agricuituisl
aLs>iS&.
db,Google
Spontaneous Abortions, Stillbirths, and Birth Defects
in Families of Agricultural Pilots
THf UeiQUfTOU5 NATUB ,..._.
gnicNl publk. In thr »w ol 2,2-di([^hlofophcny1]- Ahhough there have bnn nuiwrom invn^
tfuditt.** few fludin havp invoK^ rrpniducInT vffectl.
PtH^ible adyeru reproductive effect! rmiA be cufr
tiderrd m toxicology, and uch effect! are apparmriy
arpanglhow moftfearrd by the public. Unforlurutetr.
15 nwtaboKlet m man w» completed a decade reproductive fludi« in anirnvh do ruM octude the
he 19«0t.'°~" FiainplF o< such tuKepIibility il the cue of dibramv-
c phoiphofui arid carbamate peiKidn, they chemical, ethylene dibromtdeH hM ftho bevrt the ul^
ieen(h««ibjrctaf ex[eni'verewaichr"'^*Tiiew lect of ^nveHigation for Ht repmducttve loxidtir-* Tlw
db,Google
ub|«ct II VI ratjo. fei
thetr requH ^r iucf> a study wh rejected by the
United States Depiilment of Agticulluie, the Enviroo-
meiml Proieciion Agency, ind ihr Federal Aviation
tmployfnent ^
in Agnculluial Pilol and hi<
1 and slillbinh infomuiion pro-
of femalet hivt been uted since
d ihe higher tesponw raw u
inh detect dita were requested
ltura[ivijiion ex-
numbei
inginio
workday*!" the
tently.''
inn Tablf *. Chi squaf* analysis o(
3r the number o< live births. Com-
db,Google
ihc chlM (tram guniion B) ind ha/hct tgt nrhcn the
coodition ()n«ki)xd " The rnponden wu pnFvicM
wllha.tatiular IWci<3}po»iblr (MKBir-'-'-
Ihe following condition^ pleiie wtnf
db,Google
m Ihu «*ighi, twighl, ige, jnd
efFectf to be obierv«d K otherwlw no
ual« repanlng pHtkidr Imoiicationi.
If dr((*fenc«. W* wfrt wrpnwd lo di
n 1^ sibling group dkd nc
db,Google
pikX <)inili« ind Ihtir tiMing$' Itrnilin itgirding age,
Mfca imong Ihflr olfep«ing, The group sil« w»r»
imall and there it no cenaln baii« for ((including that
there is a complete abience of i pe«icide effect in the
it. Oianochkirxr pnMidt ti
db,Google
TKSTIMONT BT CONCRESSKAN CEC HBFTBL
MT 23. 1985
Hr. Chalraan and nenbers of the coiMlCtee, I ^ pleased to be
here today to testify od an aipect of the Federal Inaectlclde,
Fungicide, and Rodenclclde Act chat haa gone coo long without
■ufflcient actentioa. Specifically, I am here today to focus on
the international provisions of FTPKA, and to dlacuaa legislation
I Introduced, H.R. 1416, which addreaaes these provisions.
The safe use of pesticides in the U.S. and abroad is an Issue
of Increaalng concern to us all. Ue read regularly about
pesticide Dlahapa Some are In the fom of pesticides turning up
in groundwater coneumed by hunans or wildlife, aone Involve
villages In foreign countries being wiped out because people
■iGused a pesticide or did not dispose of It properly. It la
increasingly clear that our technology to develop new chemical
weApOrtS against pests has far outpaced out knowledge of their
longtera huaan and envlronaental effects.
The Environmental Protection Agency knows with soae precision
which pesticides are used In the United States. Pesticide labels
*re required to provide Information that shows what crops th«
pesticides can be used on, in what ^luantltles and under what
conditions. The systea is far froa perfect yet It does prowldc
government agencies with some guidance on what pesticide residues
should be looked for when Bonltorlng doaestlc food products.
Tet we have very little useful Information on pesticide use
abroad. The findings of routine testing on Imported foods stmrs
that many mote pesticide products are routinely used overseas,
including many previously cancelled or suspended In the D.8. Hs
alao know that these products are often used at greater
concentrations per acre with less care and precision These facts
all suggest that we should escrclse entra diligence In monitoring
imported foods. Tet we do far less with alaost no accurate
Information to guide us.
Strict control over pesticide residues on food products
serves two functions tt protects American consumers from unsafe
residues on food products; and It helps assure that our farmers do
not have to compete with overseas growers who are able to apply «
far more potent arsenal of chemical pest control agents. Without
the the protection offered by aggressive, comprehensive pesticide
residue testing we have a system that is unfair unwarranted, and
unwise. Farthermore as the leader of Che western world and as
the world's largest importer of food cosstoditlcs , we have an
ohligaclon to promote the safe use of pesticides.
d by Google
I h«ve draft«d legialatlon, B.R.U16, that addreaaes aoae of
these pesticide Inconslatcnclas. In all honesty though, I ^ not
satlaflad Chat the bill la draaatlc enough. Ideally ue ahould
ban the export of any pesticide that Is not registered for tiit in
thla country and we should ban the Inport of any food coaaodlty
that has beeo treated with a pesticide not registered hare. I
recognize, however, that chle would be politically unfeasible, and
that nany would accuse Congress of trying to create trade
barrlera. Certain pesticide aanufaccurerB have already indicated
that they would respond to auch a oandate by ainply aovlng their
operations abroad.
No provialon in H.R. 1416 would haaper Aaerlcan export of
pesticides cit vake It difficult for Averlcan companies to coapete
in the vorldwlde pesticide aarket. Rather, the thruet of the bill
is to Increase the content and transfer of Information to EPA
about pesticides which are exported fro* our country, their
ultimate destination and the food crops to which they will be
applied,
A Bodlfied notification process would be triggered for
pesticidea that are banned, pesticides that are available only for
restricted use in the V & becauae of acute aanmalian toxicity,
and pesticidea that have rtever been registered for use in our
country. The expanded notification procesa would requite
inporting nationa to acknowledge their -undecetanding of the
dangers of such pesticides and includes several new aeaaurea
designed to heighten auateneBd ID the importtng nation regarding
how to uae and dispose of these pesticide products. fl.R. 1416
would also direct our government agencies which are involved In
pesticide regulation to ahare information anong thcnaclves, and
would further authorize the EPA and other agencies to work on ■
cooperative baals with other nations who requeat assistance fcoa
the U.S. in evaluating pesticide safety iaauaa.
Theae provialona are designed to assure nore equal safety
atandards throughout the world a change that will in fact
directly benefit U.S. pesticide contpanies which are already well-
ahead of nost coapetitors In developing nationa. Adoption of the
provlsiona in H.R. 1416 would assure the world that Anacica ia a
good trading partner, and that wc do not view and treat the rest
of the world as a dunping ground.
H.R. 1416 is alao a step toward aaaurlng that we are not
undemining the safety precautions and costs imposed on American
farmers hy tolerating a peatlclde residue double-standard for food
produced here and abroad. Our farmers are required to us* safer,
often oore expensive pesticidea, and it is unfair that they aboald
have to compete on such an Inequitable basia, especially whan
legitimate human haalth concerns arc alao involved.
d by Google
Hr. Ch«inHn, u pestlelile aae around the world eontlnuM to
Increaae, ao do the dangers lavolved. Evidence sccuaulated over
the past few yeara docuoents the probleai and potential for
pesticide abuse abroad. Thar* have already been aeversl najor
disasters overseas involving pesticide nlsuse, and I hope we «Ct
on this natter so that our own elclsens can rest assured thet thcj
are not also paying a heavy price for inadequat* protection. If
we act now to codify the types of Inforaatlon and envlronnental
protection technology called for by this bill, «n night head off a
serious crisis In future years.
Thank you, Hr. Chalnan and nenbers of the conaittee, for
your attention to this natter.
d by Google
STATBHBNT OP NILAH P. TAGER,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
tmiTBD PRESB PRDIT AND VEGBTABLB A8S0CIATI0H
BEFORE TEE
SOBCOIIMITTBB ON DEPARIIIBHT OPERATIONS,
RESEARCH AHD FOREIGN AGRICnLTDRB,
COMMITTEE OH ACRICOLTDRB
DNITBD STATES BOOSE OP RBPRBSBNTATIVBS
Mr. ChaitBsn, I •■ Hilan P. Tager, Legisletiv* Ditectoc of
anlt«d Pccsh Ptuit and Vegetable Association (Dnltad). It is «
great honor for »• to appear before your coBVittee end to ebare
with you the thoughts of Unlted's Beabersblp.
The United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association is the
national trade association for the freab fruit and vegetable
Industry, representing 2,S00 aeBber coapanies and organisations
throughout the Dnitcd States and in 14 countries, ne Baaber-
abip is involved In all facets of the fresh produce industry.
including growing, packing, shipping, wholesaling, distributing,
retailing and transporting fresh fruit and vegetables to A»eci-
con consuaers. Dnited's BeabeEB handle over SO percent of all
fresh produce aarketed coBaercially in the Onitcd States.
d by Google
Our BaBbaiB take an sctlv* Interest in tb* Pcdacal Inaac-
tlcld«. runglcid*, and Rodvnticlde Act (PIFM) as uaera of t«d-
erally ragiatarad paaticldaa. as conaimaTs oC food prodocta--
^uacanteed safa by eetabllBhed tolaranccs. and as cltlsana
inteieatad In the protection oC our anviionBant fioa baiardoua
chealcalB. Wa agrea with the coaaant Ksaistant Adalnlstcatoi
John Moore aade before tbe cosMittee on April 18, whan be aald
the PIPRA was a fundanantally Bound envlronaantal atatute. We
believei however, tbe PIPRA la also a sound agricultural atat-
ute. With advancaB in agricultural sciences, BOdern agricultural
pesticides have helped Aaerlcan farMers produce tbe safest and
■oet wholeeone food in the world. Pood that ia abundant, avail-
able, affordable and appealing. Bowever, this Is not an easy
task. Faraers are confronted with a never ending battle agalnat
800,000 apeclea of insects, 100,000 plant diseases, 30,000 spe-
cies of weeds and 3,000 species of nematodes. It ie eatlaated
that we annually lose 30 i^rcent of our D.S. agricultural produc-
tion to this battle — a loss of over $35 billion of food and fiber
for a hungry world. In tbe face of challenge, our Beabera place
great trust In the Enviroruental Protection Agency to adalnlater
the PIPRA.
Recently, a 'cbeaophobia' toward pesticides In foods and a
■istruat in BPA has spread acroas the country. Tfala cheaophobla
bas been fueled by ignorance and Inflaaed by alaraing headlines.
One sucb headline appeared In the Hat Zflit TiWl and read,
'CbealcBl Tie to Cancer Hinted.' The atory described the 'ten-
tative concluaions* of a group atudy where 'so«e evidence* sug-
gested a chesical caused cancer in eale rats. Ae euapla
d by Google
involvad hair Bptay vbeic 'anlaala Inhaled hi^h levels of the
chaalcal for S hours a day, 5 days a week, for 2 years,' Row
there is not doubt that when eiBUsed, cheaicals can cause seri-
ous bealtb probleas foi himans and basardous enviroMMntal con-
cerns. However. 1st us keep this concern In perspective and work
together as farners, public interest groups and latraakeis. to
assure a sound PIPRA statute and an adequately funded and effec-
tive EPA to implement the responsibilities of the Act.
Mr. Chalraan, let me now specifically address H.R. 2402,
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Aaendaents
of 1965 which Congressman Roberts and you Introduced Hay 14.
Section 3 of B.R. 24SZ, deals with applicators under supervision.
Tt» PIPKA under Section 2(e) <4) defines 'under supervision of a
csrtlfied applicator* as:
Dnless otherwise prescribed by its labeling, a
pesticide shall be considered to be applied under
direct supervision of a certified applicator If it
1b applied by a cQBEeteDt pereon action under the
ioStlUCtioiie and cQDtlcl of a certified applicator
who is BV e liable, if .and _Htieii_iieeded' sven through
such certified applicator Is not physically present
at the tiae and place the pesticide is applied.
(Eaphasls added.)
The law acknowledges situations in which the certified
applicator is not 'on site.* However, current BPA regnlatlone
clearly Maintain the Adnlnlatrator's control over these situ-
ations, itie Adnlnlstrator'a control is in direct relationship
to the probability of an adverse effect of the pesticide on »an
or the envlronMent. Dndet 40 CPR 171. 6(a], EPA has defined the
availability of a certified applicator to those sopervisedi
d by Google
Tb* BTallBblllty of th« c«etlfi«d c^lleator Miat b*
dl[«ctly r«lBt«d to the hnard of th« situation. In
■any aituBtlona, whae* tha carttflad applicator la
not required to b« physically present, "direct
sapervlaion' shall include verifiable Inatraetlons
to the coapetent perfion ae foilowat (1) detailed
guidance for applying the pCBtlclde prope[ly> and
(2) provlaions tot contacting the ifertlfled appli-
cator in the event he Is needed. In othet eltua-
tiona and as required by the label the actual
physical presence of a certified applicator aay be
required when application la aade by a nencertifled
applicator.
Dnder the FintA AMndnenta of 1985, B.R. 2482, the NOeda
'by or under the direct anperrlsion of a certified applicator*
vould be deleted [c<w the riPRA, Section 3(e)(4), and substituted
with the words 'by a certified applicator or under such degree
of supervision by a certified applicator aa the Adainlatrator mmg
specify.* Purtberaore, Sections 3(d)(1)(A) and 3(d) (1) (C) (il)
would also be amended with the saae atoreaentloned language.
United aeBbers believe that esiatlng lav and raguUtlons
provided the needed protection to enaure the safety of faraerSi
far* workers and the enviroMeent and that this change is not
needed. However, Bawbera of our aaeociation ara currently
reviewing this propoaal and we will be happy to provide the
ceaaittee our lecoenendatlona when our report la coapleted.
Fortunately, serious accidental agricultural pesticide lajnrlos
throughout the Dnited States are few. Bowover, atqr accident
which has an adverae effect on agricnltural workers or the
environaent needs to be addraaaed and wa urge the Adalnlsteator
to use his current authority to take appropriate action.
d by Google
Sactions 11 and 13 oC H.R. 34S2 concciR indcwilty payaant*
to owners of pesticide products whose rtqistiatlens fasvs b««n
suspended and cancelled. Dnder the PlFltA, Section S, the Uain-
istratoT is authorised to take certain action to prohibit pro-
duction, sale, and use of pesticide products that cause dsngec
to hunan health or the enviconvent. Depending on the situation,
the Adninistrator may, to prevent an ismlnent hasard to buaan
health, suspend a pesticide registration InediUtiX' and at
the Eane time issue a notice of intent to cancel the reglatca-
tlon. A suBpension order ieaediately halts all sale or distri-
bution of the pesticide in both intrastate and interstate coa-
nerce. In these situations, fartners — intereeted only in pro-
ducing quality and safe food products — ace often awakened wltb
the caergency order that the federally registered far* pesticides
they legally purchased pose a hasard and auat be destroyed.
Section 15 of the current statute requires BPA to aake
indeanity payments to any person who suffers econoMic loss by
reason of suspension or cancellation of a pesticide registration
and who satisfies other statutory requlrenents. It Is iaportsnt
to note that conditions linit the federal financial exposure
while providing econoaic protection to the Injured party— (1)
the registration «UBt have been suspended to prevent an iMsi&ent
haiardi (2] the registration was then cancelled) (3) the person
owned the pesticide laaedlately before the suspansioni and (4)
the econoaic loss was by reason of the suspension or cancellation.
Finally, Section 19 of the PIFRA requires the AdHinistcator to
accept those hasardous cancelled pesticides at convenient loca-
tions for safe disposal.
d by Google
If all aciMtific maa l*g*l Hfcguards fall and tba AAiln-
Istiator naada to taka aaacganqr action to piotact biiBan baalth
and tba «i»icoiUMnt. wa aupport tba Adalnlstcatoi ' a authority to
iMaedlstaly auapand uaa of all huaidous paaticidaa. Howavac.
faiMera purcbaac tboac pcoducta knovlng that thay ara fcdacally
ra^lstatad and approved aa aafa at tba tlat of pntcbaae. m can
not accapt allBinatlon of tba indninlty payacnts or tar»lnation
of Saction 19. whlcb deals vlth tba aafa and piopar diapoaal ot
thoae haiardona peatlcldea. It la In tba public's Interest tbat
tba production, salei and use Of hacardous pesticides be laaadl-
ately baited and tbat these products be safely disposed In order
to protect tbe anvlronaant and public health, nie current stat-
ute belps provide this protection fay ellalnatlng tbe aconoalc
loss suffered by parsons In possession of these products. He
urge the covalttee to strike Sections 11 snd 13 of B.R. 24B3 and
■slntsin tba Indawilty payaenta and safe disposal prograa.
Flnallyf Rr. Cbaltaanf let aa coaaent or an area of grcst
concern to tba food Industry which we suggest needs to be
addraasad in your aaendaents. The Adalnlstrator of EPA bas
responsibility for registering pesticides, establishing condi-
tions for tbeir use and application and also tbe authority and
rtyppnUlMlity to astablisb tolarancaa for pesticides on raw
agricultural coaBoditias.
A tolerance is the asiiana residue level that a crop aay
contain at tbe tlac It leaves tba "fara gate' under tba aost
strenuous conditions of pesticide use; i.e., at tbe aaxlaua
amplication rate, tbe aasiaua nuaber ot applicatersi and aa
d by Google
clost to harvest as tbc labal psialta. Tlic tolaranca thai t»f-
icBCRta a level of icaiduc that provldaa conaoara wltli tha
■afast poeaiblc food producta.
Tbe «stabl ish»ant of a tolaranca foe a paiticulai paatlclda/
coamodlty la a acicntiflc and technical task that caquiree tbe
funding, staffing and facilities of the quality that E?A and tha
federal gorernnent posseaa. ConsuBers throughout tha United
States rely upon EPA to guarantee the safety of tav agiicultuial
products. Products safe to be sold in one Matkat or region of
the country should be safe throughout tbe country and llk«trise> -
raw agricultural products not safe in one area of tbe country
should not be safe for residents of other natkets. Nberever you
shop, wherever you travel in tbe Dnited States, you can be
aasuced that tbe fresh produce is safe for consuaptlon.
Clarifying langnage Is needed to continue to assure con-
sunere of unifora safe tolerancaa throughout the Dnited Statea>
. Section 24 of the PIPRA should be aaanded to prevent aultipla
pestle ide/cOMBOdity food tolerances In different areas of tbe
country — a poaalblllty that deatroya consusier confidence In gov-
ernaental regulatory food safety, hampers interstate coaaatca,
artificially Inflates food piicee. and frustratea and diarupta
agricultural Marketing practlcea. To avoid this regulatory
cbaoBi language needs to be adopted to Section 24 of PIFRA to
aaaura conauaera of safe, wholesome food under a national uniform
food tolerance.
Mr. Chairman, all of us — government, Indaatry, farming, and
public Interest groups — have a coamon responsibility to respect
and protect our environment and provide consumers healthy and
safe food. To this end, we pledge our cooperation.
d by Google
Pesticide
Producers
ASSOClStiOn over a oecaOe - swing tfw mausay
1200 17th Street. N.w. wasningtoa DC 30036 • asm 439-W05
riAv 21, i9es
iring ■« 1« rfr-, 6«orga nillar ol Tr«n« ChsH
J StatB*. For t
d by Google
rf*ly address thosa arsaa Hhlch ■
Listing oi Inarts In tha Ingrad
Ingr-adlantv In ■ preduct In
tkcturars. Tha tnclualon ot
■tua in aalilng an tnforaad
To Includa 1
1 glva ■lallar r
■ystaa could raqulrs that anyona applying « raatrletad
ba cartlflad. Tlila la nat practical on today'* faros itfitcn ara laraa
•pplias tna naeaaaary paatlcldaa to his cropa but also uaao tha
db,Google
iBtane* at otMr BMbara o* trw iMilty. Untfar tha p
ign, Bvary Horfclna — tT sf Otm Imta, «Mily <My M
■ production ot t
■ ■>-■ applying pmtl
EBTtiflcatlan iH wic
>• adsrlaabl* •od practical alnea
.daa aa tlwtr (irtiiary aourca of
■1 dual a BhBuld b* raqulraa
* o* PinW aay hava
anothar eouto
- tha raglatral
raglatratlon 14 Iw anould raly upon a placa of
Lnad and aodiflad to protact indlviduala
i data fruB tha paaalabla cancallatlon
■ctlona of tha Ibh for tn
■ncallad by trw Aoaney. tlanufi
tlapoaa of auapandad and cancallad paatlcla
db,Google
. tno iwra to b
product ts tha public. Hnan thwa ia tta
aonopoly, tha public muftmr* throuQh Infl
vav patant parlod. m Iwliavs that th«
I ■ raaaanably prtG*d
■ vl*t>la Cdmpatitlva
) anould ba mmmnilma t
contlnua tha rvglatratlon of a pamtlclda product. Currantlv
12) Ha twliav* that Congraaa aust one* and for all adara— tha
problaa of dafinlng -raaaonabla eoapanaatton- undar oactlBi 3<el 111
of FIFWA. War too long aa hava baiin qraplns in tlta dark trying to
allno tha aattlamant a* a faa eaaaa to dataralna tlia daflnltlcn ot
this cara. To data ■■ hava had thnaa <3> daelnlDna handad dDun by
althar tha Advlnlatrator or tha Arbitrators with nona of thaa tha
db,Google
t to 6actlan SIh
of rapachAglng a
■IH nipports uwKJMntm to SKtian 3<el (2) (D) o* FIFRA t
famulator from th* ■ubalmaion o* data tor tha ra^latratia
a prsduets. Tha currant t
a products tnay
ta naeaaaary for
n H* Hlah to tnank tha coMilttaa for thla eppartunity
3 riFWi and laoti
Iraaaad during tha paat tM day*. At ttita tlata
Lll ba 9lad to r
db,Google
Tha P>*t clda
Klatltm <Pf>Al 1
■burahip providBS •
Ktion 3<cl<ll<D> of
-.i%ioim and tr>*
»■ triBt a
FtPRa provides ti
to pay SOS irf I
•uff clant to ful V ragi
FIPRA and Hill raquira F
d by Google
a Tlw w^itratora naiad that PPfl KM galnad a awki
■a by PTS d
Itotaralnad by tha arbltratora tiaaad upon • (Mrt profit by PPG of CO.M
proflta. Mb ■lliwanca •»■ aMa fl tha daclaion for a drop in tha fiat
profit te balcM tha crojactad to.ba par pounO. If PPQ's nat pro! t
droppad to (O-SO par pnumt th«y «aulil than Iw paying fltauffar SOX o*
thair nat profits.
-aatiiHta triat tfl* l*«al «a«a for PPO In tht> aattar aould hava baar
•ppraxiaataly PSOOtOOO. Tha rwaringa laatad 20-23 daya and tha earn
Baaad upvi tha abov* flguraa and aatiaataa *or <ai«* contalnac
tha artiitratian dactPton, PPC'a nllial coata for data conpanaatior
and arbitration tmrm Pl,ei3,0M plaa w additional *7 007,501) i
royalty payaanta during tha firat f va yaara of aalaa. If PPS'a aj
ara to ba aWa, tha tntal coat to PK for data coapanaation Mould b
appronlaataly PIS 908,000 or 9.4 tloaa tha coat ot tha data Involva
Ap i:an ba aaan by tha abova capa. It ■«uld ba vpry difficult «
'alopaant of aavaral atllion dollii
roouiraaanta for raaaonaBIa -coapanaation n 972. TJiat tha Intant
that if a coapany raliad upon tha data aubalttad to tha Agancy by
db,Google
In aiMltlon to tM dimineantlv* In Uw prwmmnt syatM ot
datarnining datii cunvanmation, > rac^nt daetaton by the llnltad Statn
CourtB has brBught into qiwscion tha practlca of davalsping tha data
On April 23, 19B4 tha Unltad Stataa Court of Appaala for ttM
Fadaral Ctr-eult handad doMi a dacisl<:in r. Rocha <>roducts, Inc. va.
fiolar »hu-iucautic>l Co., Inc. ruljfi
■Kaaption atoppad
Euto toi r ty aarias and t
ndar «0 CPR 138. Iha prod
■parad and auDAlttad to
( tlao to davalof
itarnal RavanuB Codat. By applying tha t
a daflna itlUtln
d by Google
:*n raOuca Ita actual MD coata by aa aueh aa
, that an ortatnal data davalopar ahould
nsatlon- tar tha uaa at Ma data by a aacand
lat Buch TaaunUila coapanaatlon- ahauld ba
n >4>ien aneaapaas tha fslloHlng potntai
DATA CCHPCNSATIIM • CKACO * (HDP X ACD) ) /CL] 4AH8)
ubalttad In 1990 at a c
19QS - n 1989 > IZK 1993 - 20I
19U • 92 1990 - ISS 1994 - ZOX
1907 • ex 1991 - 17X 199S - ZOX
•S,730 <3X aln
1,300,000) I /IS] 1. 03>
1,900,000>1/1S]<.03I
11,300,00 * (.13
d by Google
H EBB UBl 3CIBB BE US U It
14^ 23,000
yMT psrloi) tha uconij
t Bhara b« 13.6«X and pa
7. Durlr
tlw wntira IS y
■ tnglfl ■□urea of supply.
d by Google
PESTICIDE PRODOCERS ASSOCIATION
F08ITI0H OS
FiraA 3(C1(2)(B1
In our oral c»ClH>n]r, m bTl«fl]r dlMuMtd th* tKt Cbat lb*
Paaclcld* Producer* AMoelatlon aal>aTahlp had a piobla with 3<C)(i>(B)
, of Che FIFIU law and falc cha aaad for a chratt.
Undai tba cuttanc pTorlaloaa of FinA, nn or mra ra|latrant*
■aT join toiachai to produca cha daca necessary lo support the coatlmiod
raslaiiacloD of a paotlclda product. The 1971 sill d»> not addtaaa nor
provide for cha ■andatocj eooparacloB of vsrioua regtscrants In tba produc-
tion of Chi* required data nor doe* It provide for aa equitable aatbod to
decaraln* the coat* hj tba** participant* a*aDclB[ad with the production of
lb* BaidieTehlp of the Featldd* Producer* A**ociatian nipport
an (MndBanc to HFItA alallBT to cha 3{C)(Z>(W awndMBt in Ot U03. tba
anandnant in BK S203 took loog hard dalibaiatiOB and provldaa for:
1. The Bandecorr foiBaClen of Industry cask fore** to
d*velop the data taquirad under a Section 3(C)<1}(B)
data call-in notice. Such taak force* to b* open to
any regiatrant effected by aatd data call-lB notice.
Tbl* part of Ibe *«»nd— nt vould free up T*»arch
fecllitlaa that vould otheivlae have done dupllcsciv*
teeclnt, would u*e le** auibour* ot afntcy tla* b*eaa*e
only on* eat of dec* vould be tavlavail and wouU enable
every re(i*CT*nt who d**ire*, to p*rticlp*te lo the pro-
duction and OHiieiahlp of laid data.
1. The ImDcdiace suipcnslon ot the retiatracica ot loy
ccglttceBi vhe rafuaaa to Join a taak force. After the
180 day usitlng period, the Acency will knov vhlch Icgle-
trant* b*ve eo^liad and Igaedlataly letter* ot 'Intcot to
Suepand" could be (ant out. tfau* ■aklng certain e»eryene la
in coBp Hence.
db,Google
FIFRA 3<C)(2)(»
July 11, 198S
3. Tin ■llociclon ol the co(C •(■ocltltd with tha im-
valopiMHC of S«cclcn 3CC)(!)(B) data (hould b< di-
vided uuDi cha pactlelpallni laglicrinii twaad on
ch« folloulngi
a> Tha first 231 of tha eatlaalad coiC for tha
davalopaanl of Iha data to ba dlvtdad aqoatl;
aBoni the partlclpaot* dth a ■a«l«u« Initial
centilbuIloD fioa any ona reilatraot of $100,000,
b) Tha balance of the co*( to be •bared baaed upon
tha urket (hue of each pitClclpant aa deter-
■Ined by an independent eudlcoT ot an anmial basle
duTln( Che llfetlaa of the teak force. Each mb-
bei of cba teak force ihall be eooaldered lo hna
no laa* th*a ■ 5t saikat shale for asj slvn Taac.
i. Data developed bj the Taak Force ahUl be aada avall^le
to aubaequenc reilelranca under tha provlalona of Section
3(C)(1)(D).
Thla aoabla* any conpany to sake use of the data and
Cheiefote uould oot bold anyoae froa pioduclng a pioduct
because they cannoc obteln the dete. Asain, en^etltlve-
ness Id the ■arkaiplaet would ba catelnad.
Thl* approach la ceasonable and vlll not keep ay retl'-
ITSnt ftCB pacclclpstlng faceauss of outlandish eosce. In
the past a fraata out, because of upfront coats, baa stopped
■ona retlsctants ficn participating and Ihtraby huciln| ccB-
petltion In an Industry vbera, bacsuae of laws and rafula-
tlons, reilalrascs already have an enCl-coBpelltl** environ-
nent. Thla Jolot venture Ceatlng vlll alao neat the aandalei
of the 1972 FIFRA to conaarve financial and testin| rasonrcsa.
Attached la a copy of 3(C)(Z)<» (roa the DacariiaT I*, IMl Bill,
tfhlch ess be uaed as a (uldi for vhst tha Pesticide Producers Asaocls-
leves Is s nsccsseiy snendoent Co FIFM.
d by Google
PESTICIDE PROODCERS XSSOCI*
POSITIOH OH
FOBMHUTORS DIDgTIOM
SECTIOK 3CC)<I)CI1)
ents CO Section 3CC)C2)(D) «h
< Ihi fomiliCoT
>. PPA mpport
t«gl8tt«nc» of
c.gl«t
■rkec onl). .f[<
Th(S* t«ti<trai
□dudnt *nd icglttiri
endDcnci to FlFUk hU
don of ■
roduclm MV pro-
le [h* p**Cield*
itiblithcd
uld Ualt Ch« nctd
clCe diti nacHsaiy
t udImi th* foniuli'-
Lon or uie paccem it n*u tai illtl
U* ill alrcidy linow that c
ull company hat today. Siull compuil*!
ists of ngulacion. They hav* najt
Lng outlay*. The pcatlcldi Industi
It Id today.
ibly th*
unabli
ha at aft
it*at ptoblca that tha
to bear the saaalve
haul la the cooipllaBee
!Baad capital and opera-
itulatad IndualTy In the
This la alio true of data pioduction and
today. A soall fotnulatoT nay have baivMD SO and
[hat he either oalieB or sell. Each label uy only
of his Incone, but all ate Inpoitant to th* avantui
Undar the present lav, [he fomlttoi 1* reipooslbli
"balow the line" data, the acute toiicolojy Iti
The otl of these data la between 510,
For an average of fifty (50) labelB, the cost vt
« peaticld* fomulatoT
M) labels for foraulatlon
inarat* ■ SBall portion
profit of his cOBpany.
toT uhat 1* called the
d by Google
FOEtMULATORS EXEMPTION
of che>* dao should b* vlch Eh* producer! of tbt i
d nac lie ulch Che foinulatoT.
Another a>p*cc of Fornilaiori Exenptloa we vould
L> (technicil t»>cltl<le*) exci
I Focmulm or on th* Utarute Souri
In ch(
ceglscrscion nuiAi
ind use libel. PI
2, The r«goli
lowing the formi:
3. The 1
froa Tmiliog
:ft CO EPA oa Che
:■ of Supply IcflMn-
y suggastFd that each end ua* label hava cba
ccT of the active iogradltnt indicated on the
this [yjie of legulatlon in Che pait and la
itlon would Chan foic* an antl-conpaclttva
a was DODa before. The forailatot could
■nat* source of iupply.
: foECeilng raatrainC of trad* b; not al-
.acor a choice of (uppliec* due Co lab*Il<i|.
:oDp*iltioD would Vnov his aourca of aupply.
db,Google
PESTICIDE PRODUCERS AESOCIATIOH
POSITION ON LISTING OF INBRTS
tb> listing I
■onthi >Dd r
■hoit pvrlod
Id b
not pccnlt cMi ch«
CoU. Uncil COKE C
Inliua iDfomacien. Tlw ■
ingad chalT tecailt.
Eated chac ua u*i* opposed to
•d libd. Vi bclUva that th*
ull toiBulalot and provide cob-
a and the opporcunll:? to dupllcat*
'i fomilaciOD d«v(lopBcnt In a
hat any analytical
e of the arc does
*ct axiaplt 1* Coca
spec If ic eiulalfi
It vary diffleul
piDch of Eonithl
th the aaae fon
■ which give BlBllai
I baaed on the b
Tou Bay be able
I group ua* UMd, but you nould find
ulaifler uaed. It ii the laat little
fonuliCtOB untqua and uolaii you
ch of BOHChlng, you would net comm
in fomilatlons. FoTnulacora often nlteh
availability during the fomulatlni
each pesticide producing establiah-
g opeisilon Just to handle the label
y basis. If net the terailaceT would have
the Inerts. This again would llnit
d by Google
JulT 12. 1985 PESTICIDE PB00UCER8 ASSOCIATION
POSITION OB RECI8TRATI0H FEES
Th* >ulil«C[ of EPA iopoilng iiglitcailon (nd Tcrttlitiaclon
tec* cantlnudly com** up and th* FMtlctda Producer* A**acl*tleB b«ll«v«*
thai It 1* OOH cla« Cot Cdnsraai to taka ttmt action rasarding thaaa fcaa
■Ing taneratad bj nmora.
aacleld* Fteducan AatoclKles 1* •■■Inac EFA charting
■laglatratloD fees or faea to change a label. Tb* Peati-
cb« BOat cegulacad Induatry la iha ttnltad Scataa. Balof
d iDdu*ti7, Che peaclclde Induitiy therefore la an «>penilw
to have a bualnaai. The average |Tea* aalaa of paattclde
$!,750,OOa and any regulation or law enacted ahouU taka In-
M and coat lo thli aaall bualnaaa.
id burdtn of a rtglatratlon fee for an and uae forvilatlon
clda InduBcry
>uld p
t nailer fltva (balou ih* S2,7SO,DOa a
taga) o
The PPA doea not bell
E of bualnasa by law oi
c that It la the latent of Csngteaa to put
lion Agaoclea to do to through resulxctan,
ae and the full co^ttee to take poaltlva
action agalniE reglatTailon faaa now and la the fuiura. Iha paatlcida In-
duatry paya Ita duaa ulth being auch a regulated induatry.
PFA uould ba nora than vllllng to help write any language
neceaaary ao that you can take positive action againat raglatratlOD fee*.
db,Google
PESTICIDE PHODUCE:
i ASSOCIATION
POSITION ON USE INCONSISTENT
WITH LABELING
r 2, 1380, Mr. Edvln L. Johnaon, Dcput
Adnlnls
ctatDC foe Eestlcida Piograiu, «
re a letter to the major tra
e
asjoclB
tlona advising than that, accoidl
g CO cheir (EP*) locerpretat
on.
FiniA.
SecrloQ l2(aK»(G) providea that
use of a peaeiclde in a sann
t
Inconsi
stmt with its labal li a nlsusa
lolatlon that the ace of
Hfo™,
laling DC capackaglng an end »*•
reduce wMild ha defined as a
Prl6r to thla lattar froo Mt.
ohnson. It was a atandetd
practic
a uithin the peslKlda Induatry,
specially at Che snail fonu
ator
laval .
CO use end use produce* for fomulatlon or rapackaglni purpose
sine
•uiny of
the snail pastlelde producers dealt In vary United quantltia
of
■at.rl.
Is and could not afford Co purcha*
latte quantities of cechnle
1
(rad, m
acerlals to produce their product
. To ba denied Che ability
o uaa
and tjsa
products for fontulatlon ot repa
kaging purpoaea vlll several
handle.
p the ...au producer Ero. being a
la to eoopace la their regioi
lal
PPA is propoaing that Section
<..) be vended to r.«t a. f
llo«
SECT1-3N 2. DEFINITIONS
(ee) To use any caglscated pe
mc
vich Its labeling.
acerad paaclcida In a Bainar
in-
consiatant vlth It. labe
Ing" Han* to uae any reglac
red
pesticide in a unner no
pemltted by th* labeling:
Pro-
vided, that Che Cera aba
1 not loeluda (1) applying a
pestl
clde at any dossga, concentration, or franuaocy le>(
hen
that specified on the la
against any target peat
ellng. (2) applying a pestle
u)t apeclfled on the lab.llng
If
the application is to th
crop, anlul. or alte apecifled
on the labeling, unlett
he AdDlnlscracor has requlre<
that
Che labeling speclticall
state thac the pesticide Ba
ba
used only for ihe peiCs
pecifl.d on cha labeling aft
elda
against other pases woul
cause an unreasonable adver
e
db,Google
eff«c on tha cnolToniHnt , <3} enploylnf maj Bcthod
of ■pplleiclon noc prohibited hj tha laballug, (4)
Bluing ■ pcicicldi or pciilcldti Hltb ■ fcrtlll»c HhBi
(ucb Blxture U noc prohibited by the IibellDg, or (5)
ua« £ reglstertd peatlcldo tax B«njf«cturlan purpoaea
unlaaa auch uaa la prohlbltad ij_ the laballnt; FrDvldad
fuithac, that tha can alao ahall not Ineluda an; ua* of
a peatlcldc In confomnce ulch Sactlon S. IS, or 2i of
chli Act, or any uie of a pastlcld* in a naimai thac tha
Adnlnlatiator dattmlaas to ba conaiatant vlth cha purpoaaa
of IhlB Act: and provided futtbat, thai aftar Hatch 31, 1979,
tha [era ahall not Includa the ua* o( a peatleld* tax
agricultural or foreatry purpoaea at a dHutlon leas chaa
Ubal daaag* unlaai before or after thac data the talalstra-
tor laaucB a rapilatlm or advLaorj aplnlon conalatanE wttih
[he ecudy provided for Id Section 27Cb} of the Federal
Peaticide Act of 1978, which reflation ai advlsoiy opintoo
speclficaltjF requires the use et deflolca aaouBCe of dilution.
This change in Che current lau uould peraic the coBtlmad praetiea
of fomilatlng ot repackaging peatlcldea froa the and uaa producta and would
■llou ch« small rcglooal producer and oanufaccurar to contliua to be coopatl-
Clve In a nsrkat ftoB ufalch ha la rapidly being forced due [o excaaalva rags-
db,Google
r OF
REHMBTB N. HEIII8TEIII
ON BKHALf or ABBOTT LABCNUTMIBS,
CIBA-GEICV CORPOBJtTICNI,
E.I. du PONT d« NEHOOBS t COIffAinr,
dJUKO PRODOCTS COMPANY, FNC CORPORATION,
HONBANTO COMPANY, RBONB PODLRNC INC.,
ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY, STAOFPER CREHICAL COMPANY,
UHIROYAL, INC., 7ELBICOL CBEHICAL CORPONATIOH
AND lOECON CORPORATION
HEARING OH B.R. 3482
BEFORE TEE SDBCOHXITTEE ON
DEPARTHEm OPERATIONB, RESEARCH
AND FOREIGN AGRICDLTORE
COMMITTEE OH AGRICDLTtniE
BOtJSE OF ttEPRESENTATIVES
NAY 31, I9B5
This tastiaony prcsants th* vim» of ■•vcral co^panias wbo
■r« pT«s«ntly p«rti«» to «n action In th« 8upr«a« Coutt of ttw
Onltcd StatsB, Thow v, Pnlon Carbld* Agrleultucal Product* Co.,
No. 84-197, or who h«v« b«en partlas In r«l«t»d litigation. Tha
only laaua oa addtaaa la tha proviaion of B.R: 34B3 which Mould
anand FIFRA to provide for judicial reviaw of arbitration
decisions awarding coapanaation for tha uaa o( paatlcida laaaarch
data. Becauaa tha Suprana Court is axpactad to rasolva queationa
that have baan caiaad concarning tha constitutionality of FIFRA'a
arbitration syateo within the next faw weeka, wa auggaat that it
would not ba advlsabla for tha Subcowtittaa to adopt aaandnanta
to tha arbitration proviaion until after tha Supraaa Court haa
Actad .
d by Google
, m Tho— V, Onion Carbld* Aaflcultiifl Producta Co.. th«
Supr«iM Court will d*cld« wh*th*E riFM's arbltiatioii sirstaa for
rssolvinf coMpttnaation disputes is uneeastitutlonsl. Th*
cODBtitutlonsl ptoblsBB with th* arbitrstioa systaai arc siailar
to the problaaa that arose under the Baakruptcy Act because eC
the eoployiient of bankruptcy court judqea who were not appointed
pursuant to Article III of the Constitution.
The Supreae Court, in the ease of northern Pipeline
Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.. 450 U.S. 50 (19a2),
found that the Bankruptcy Act was unconstitutional because it
pernitted Monetary claina to be decided by bankruptcy court
judges who did not have the full protections accorded by Article
III. Very ipvortantly, the Supreae Court stated that the aere
appellate review oC bankruptcy judges' decisions by the federal
courts was not sufficient to cure the constitutional problea.
The entire adjudication, according to the Supreme Court, had to
be under the control oC a federal court judge.
If the Supreme Court were to reach the save reault in
Thomaa v. Union Carbide, the aaendnent in H.R. 2492 that provides
for judicial review oC arbitrations would not cure the constitu-
tional problem. He would still be left with an unconstitutional
arbitration system.
d by Google
Th«re ia *n additional problaa with the arbitration aystm
that Is not addcaaaad by i.R. 24S3. PIFM doaa not provide a
standard for dataraining how such eo^anaation to amrd, or what
Cactora should ba conaidarad in an award, roc asaaplvi fonME
EPA Ad«iniatrator Douglas CoBtl* tastlfiad bafier* tha Coasiittaa
on Agriculture that tha lack oC a compansat ion atandard raquirad
ragiatranta to sign a "blank chack* for tha uaa of data. Ha
pointad out that "an offer to pay raaaonabla coopanaation without
knowing what that Haana In tarMa of dollara and canta la
unpalatable troa « buslnasa point of view.' H.R. Rap, No. 663,
9Sth Cong., lat Sass. S9 (1977). As tha Adainistrator obaervad,
'It would thus be helpful to applicants if the Congrasa would
■ake nore explicit what factors it faela are pertinent in
determining reaaonable conpenaation.' ibid.
Because of the abaence of a cotapensation atandard> the
arbitrator doea not know how much to awardt ragiatranta do not
know how much conpenaation they will have to pay, or can expect
to receive, and there is a lack of continuity and consistency in
the implementation of the coeipensation provision.
In Thowaa v. Union Carbide Agricultural Producta Co. , tha
Supreme Court presently is considering whether the lack of a
compensation standard renders the arbitration systeffl unconstitu-
tional. It ao, it will be necessary for Congress to ad^t a
compensation standard in order to repair the statute. In that
d by Google
eventuality! * acre provision for judicial r«viaw of arbitration
awards <rould not cure the problea.
In suaaaryi it la vary poasibla that the aMandaant to the
arbitration ayateo proposed in B.R. 2483 will not be adequate to
addreaa the legal problens with the statute. Ne baliev* that it
would make uore sense for the SubcoMsittee to i^ralt the Bupreaa
Court to render its ruling before an anendaant is adopted. In
this manneri the Subconsnittee will be able to detaralne what if
any constitutional problens exist and how they can best be
addressed. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Onion Carbide case
is expected by the end of this term in July 1985.
II.
Nholly aside from the potential constitutional intirMities
of the arbitration provision, the Subconuittee should recognise
there ia widespread dissatisfaction with the entire systaa,
FIPRA's compensation and arbitration systen has been the
subject of litigation since its enactment in 1978. This system
was intended to fairly CMipensate cmnpaniea who perform innova-
tive research — which brings safer, more effective and less
expensive pesticides to the farmer and public — for the inequity
they suffer in bearing the Cull brunt of federal regulation.
Unfortunately, the compensation system has not fulfilled this
purpose. There has been but one arbitration since the system was
adopted in 1978. The system has been criticised because of its
d by Google
hlqb cost and lack of ptsdictability. Du« to th«s« pTobl«u> tha
coapcnsation systaa has been unaatia factory both to tha
Innovative coapanies who genarate raaaarch data, and to th« '■«-
too" cegiatranta who deaite to use the ceaaarch data to aupport
their own raqiatratlona. Aa one eowwantor stated during the 19S2
FIPRA Overaiqht Healings, 'The thing that wa all agree on
absolutely is that we have to phase out and get rid of
eoMpenaation.'* H.R. Rap. No. 97-566, 97th Cong., 3d Sees. 77
(19S3). The House of Representatives proposed to do Just that in
1982. It adopted a bill that phased out coapensation, and sub-
stituted in its place IS years of exclusive data rights.
Th« judicial review aawndnent in H.R. 2412 does not address
these underlying probleaa with the arbitration systea. Oatil tba
root causes of dissatisfaction with the coapansation and
arbitration schene are resolved, the congreasional purposes of
the syste* will continue to go unfulfilled and the potential Cor
further legal problens and litigation will continue to plague its
operation.
The only effect of the judicial review aaandaent in H.R.
2482 will be to increass the cost and delay involved in obtaining
a final conpensation award. For this reason, the aaendaent
should not be adopted. The SubcoMilttee should instead give
consideration to an alternative mechanlsB that will achieve
Congress' purposes in a nanner that is satisfactory to the
regulated conmunity.
d by Google
TESTIKONY OF RALPH EXCEL
PRESIDENT
CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES KAHUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE
SUBCOmiTTEE ON
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, RESEARCH & FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
COKHITTEE ON ACRICULTUBE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NAV 21 . 19eS
Ry najM la Ralph Engel; I a« president »r tha Chaalcal
Specialties Nanufacturara Association CCSIIA) locatad at tOOt
Connaetlcut Avanue, H. U., Washtngtan, 0. C. I am accospanlad
today by Uarren Stickle (Dl
CSIU has a aeabarai
■anuracture, forBulation
antlaicroblal products;
clean tng coBpcunds; pest
rlnlsties for housahotd,
slgniricant nuaber of
are. there
ore, subject
requlreBent
of the Federa
clde Act (F
FRA). as aBcndc
Specif
cally, CSNA rep
industry.
ncludlng dlalnf
garden pes
icldesi and «
hoM, Indu
trial and Ins
I wou
d like to take
Chalrsan,
or holding th*
FIFRA, and
to applaud th
concern abo
t this legiala
rector of Lesialatlva Affairs), CSHA,
p of nearly 400 flrss engaged in tha
distribution, and sale of aerosols;
va chesicals; detergents and
cldes; and waxes, pollshaa and floor
lonal and Industrial uaa, A
le products have pestleldal claias and
IPA Jurisdiction pursuant to tha
lectlclde. Fungicide and Rodcnti-
presents the non-agricultural pesticlda
ectants and sanitlsara; hoMe, latm and
Hide variety of othsr pastlcidas for
this opportunity to coaNsnd you, Hr.
se hearings on the reauthoriiation of
subconnlttee' a ciintlnued interest and
ton. We are here today to review sob*
db,Google
• areaa ralBed in H.R. 2<tfi2 and to addraaa. aa nail. aoM of
s with tha aslstlns statuta.
C8KA-8 REVIEW fit H.R. ?IIS2
Ua fully aupport tha concapt that EPA
should ba able to ahare data with Stat* goveriiBenta, but only if
tha state or atata asancias adopt 'aaeurlty pracautlona* for thla
The AdBlntatrator should require as a condition to the
disclosure of Inroraation under section 10 that the state or
state aeanelas receiving data adopt the necessery euthorlty and
procedures for tha protection of such Inforaation equivelant to
that provided undar FtFRA and ahould take such security precau-
tions end confidentiality protection respecting the inforsatlon
aa tha Adainlatrator should prescribe by regulation.
Ue 3laa balleve that the state ought to adopt, aa a •Inlku*.
Ident-icel civil penaltiea for disclosure by state esployees and
state contractors slsUar to the section lOtf) provisions for
federel esployees and in section 10(e) for federal contractors.
We do, however, oppose sharing confidential business deta
with foreign governeents, especially governasnts that do oaL have
a bilateral or sultllaterei defense treaty with the USA. do not
heve a bilaterel data sharing agree«ant with the USA, or do nBt,
provide for the protection of tha data equivalent to FIFSA.
We also believe thet the inclusion of provisions dealing
with foreign govarnaents could invite s sequential referral to
the House Foreign Affaira CoMMlttee. To avoid this probles, tha
1905 FIFRA aMendsenta should be crefted to prevent other cosslt-
d by Google
taea. basldaa th« Houa* Agrlcultura CoMittt**, from ««i-clBlna
thetr rights for a sequ«Dtlal rvfarral »r thaaa aaandBKnta.
21 Indaantrleatlnn gju), Q^^ppaa; i Wtianerar aa a rcault Of
an iaalaent haiard the EPA auapanda and/or later cancala tba
reglatretion of a peaticlda, the AsancT la required by FIFRA to
indewilfy ownera of ailatlns atocka that can no lonfar be aold or
uaad and to pay for the dlapoaal of thoaa •tocka. He atipport the
prevent atatute'a handllDS of the problee.
Such a propoaal, aa contained In H.R. 2ttS2, tratild have •
dlaproportlonsta Impact on aMall Manuf aeturara , Marketers, pro-
eaaaora, and dlatrlbutore. as well ea the baalc aantif aeturara or
suppliers. Severe dlalocetion could occur at each level.
In welshlne the rleks and benefits end the econoBic lapact
of regulatory declalona, the Asency oucht to take Into eonaldera-
tlon the eccnoalc dislocation that elcht occur aa e result of Its
decision. In eddltlon, the EPA ahould consider
ban a product or to iMMdlataly reaove the exlatins i
the sarketplace.
Alsoi there la an leportent aeesanel lepeet on the Bsrket-
place. For eeny hoae, lawn end garden products, aerketer* ead
distributors Msy atockplla supplies and IngredlaittB over the
suBser and winter for heavy spring usage. Consaquantly, th*
tiBlne of in agency action is critically iBPortent to everyesa.
Although we share the Agency's concern about the i«peet that
Indeenlf Icatlon eight have on Its operating budget, we would
recoetitend that: 1) the Agency establish a line ttea In Its
annual budget for potential indesnl fleet Ion easee. and let it
d by Google
•ccuBulat* Tuiula fro* year to yaari or 2) provlalona ba aada to
obtain tha funda tram sanaral ravanuaa. Under thasa options,
thera vould ba llttla advara* lapact on tha Aganer or the ownara
or axlatlnc stocka.
31 t:«nr-*ll^f|^9ii tfua la. P"'**- IHalaadlatf or Inaeeurata
QUI.: Tha EPA ifould Ilka to nora easily cancel a product rails-
tration wban tha Acancy dlacovara that a portion of tha data
supporting a reststratton la based on false, ■Isleading or inse-
cwrata data. The Acaoey, bowaver, already has sufficient esls-
tins authority to start a cancellation proceeding If the date,
for any reason, are not sufficient to support a dateralnetlon
that tha peatlclda Is aafa to us*.
CSHA In BO Hay eountananees the Intentional subvteslon of
felse or slsleadlng data and would sanction a quick response by
the Agency.
On tha other band, when the Agency datarslnes that data
aubalttad la Inaccurate and concludes thet It doea not Make a
significant tspact on the avarall data aubslttad for a registra-
tion, then tha Agency should seek to fill tha gaps with nsw
studies, rethar than la«adlataly beginning a caneallstlon pro-
eaadlng. In short, a reasoned Judgseat should prevail.
U) soaelai Bawlawi Since EPA considers tha present RPAR
process too long. It la saeklng authority to allMlnata the edjud-
leatory hearing, end to convert the current public notice end
coasent period Into Inforeel ruleMaking. Ue strongly disapprova
of alleinatlng the canoelletlon hearings.
We would Ilka to offer three coHBants on this process.
First, the adjudicatory hearing la an iKportant safaguerd In the
d by Google
adMlnlstrativ* procaaa. It provides a fair and aqultablc forua
In ordar to develop a aalld hearlns record.
Second, Bany or the tastalatlva chantfea aucce«t«d In K.R.
2'ie2 are presently baina iapleMcnted by tha Agency In the fora or
propoaad regulation (please aee Federal Bagl^tiT Vol SO, Mo. 59
(Kerch 27, I9as>, 12)95-12196. Thla notice concludes that "tha
Agency has developed procaduraa Intended to provide opportunity
for public partlctpallon In tha Special itevlew process.*
As a result or tha aattlCMant agraaMant between the parties
In XRDC end AFL-ClO *. EPA «t al . , Civil Action No. S3-1509, U.
3. District Court for tha District of Coluabla. and the P»ilTal
BanlatT notice aentionad above, the Agency la proposing to adopt
tha following steps: •) public notification of Agency decisions
'nlng Special Kavlewa; b> opportunities for public coB*ant
Issuance of a Special Ravtew, a proposed Specie!
Review decision, end a decision following pre-Speclal Itevlew not
to initiete a Special Review; c) procedures snployed in determin-
ing whether to isaue a Special Review notice: d> optional proce-
dures which the Agency «ay utilize to aipedlte the Speciel Review
process; el Baintenance of dockets for each pesticide la pi»-
Speclal Review or Speclel Review contelning written coBMuntca-
tlons and descriptions of Meetings with parsons or partiaa out-
side of Governaenti f> preparation and public distribution of
docket Indices: and g) general principles governing public pertt-
clpatlon In pesticide decision neklng end Meetings with persons
or pertles outside of Governaapt.
Since tha Agency haa proposed regulations governing Special
d by Google
R«vleii of Peatlcitfeff ■n4 ia ■till rveelvlM coMwnta, th*
l«Klslatlv« laoguag* In H.R. 2'iS2 la unmrrantad.
Third, ihe abo*«-*antlonad propoaed rafulationa advooati&i
tncraaaad public partlclpatlttn ara to accur duriat tba daclalon
Making proeaaa, and ara daaliaad to allow for full partlelpatloa
by all groupa tn that proeaaa. Onca thla regulatorii d*olaloii>
howover. haa baon aada bjr the Aganejr, tha raglatraata, aavtron-
nantatiata and othar partiaa advaraaljr affactad, can aaak Judi-
cial review undar FIFRA Saetlon 16(a). Other partiaa ahould uai.
be slven the opportunity to beeoaa Involved in tha adainlatrativa
pracsas onee the Aganey haa aade ita daoialon.
S) iBTf! Under FIFRA aa preaantly written, an inert
Ingredient la any eoaponant of a paaticide other than tha aotive
ingredient added to be aotive en a apeclfic peat or peata. Under
current lav, peatlcldea are generally required to be labeled vlth
only their active Ingredienta. He aupport the preaeat statutory
provietone for active ingredienta and do net believe that FIPRA
should be aeended to include apeciric Inerta on the label.
Under the provlalona of H.R. 2102, FIFRA would be aaanded to
require the Hating of Inerta on the lebet , If the inert la
detarMlned by EPA to be of toalcologlcal concern. EPA la given
the flexibility and dieoretion to detaraine whleh inerta need to
be Hated baaed on their toilcologlcal propartlea.
Ue have several concerne with this propoaal;
Plrat, we believe that nany inerta and interaadtataa oould
be regulated under aeetions <■ and 5 of the Toxic Subetaneae
Control Act (TSCA), rather than undar PIPRA beeauaa they are not
pesticides, and In Many cases, tha potential peatlcldal use la
d by Google
' a a««ll fraction or It* total uaa. Tha EPA haa tba awtharltr
requaat toxlcolMlcal data If tba Agancr Taala It naada tt.
addition, uodar ••etien i|<e) of TSCA, thar* ta la plac* an
itlnt ajratoB for 'fair and aqultabl* ralaburaaMant" for taat
lata aubaitted on a eha*ICBt aubBtanc*. Under FIFRA, thara la no
igread upon foraula for ralnburaaaent of 'tferanslTa' data raquaa-
>«d by tha Adainlatrater.
Second, dlaeloawra of inert inaradlanta on tha lattal
lariogaly coaproalaaa the conridentlellty of tha final product.
Cenawaer producta for the ho»e, lawn end cerden ore tflractlv
If ran ted.
In Bany casea, tba easential dirferancaa betaken one eon-
(■ar product, and another ia tha Inert ingredient. The uae of a
particular aurfacCant, for eiawle, Mar detaralne tba perforaMnca
the product, and give tha product e coMpetltive advantage In
■arkatplaca. Dlacloaure of the na«a of the Inert on the
abal vould. In fact, alart the coapetltlon to the her difference
the product foraulatlon.
The preaent Ibh onlr requires that tha total percentage of
irts be pieced on tha label and does not require the dlacloaure
if apeciflc Inarta. tlhen the Concreaa originally enacted PIFM,
orraetly atlpulated tbet Inerta needed to be treated cenfl-
dantlally and Mont cartalnlr did not require that they be npeel-
Icelly naaed on a label.
Third, although the aNendaient to aactlon 2<n) daala only
laballns provlslona for inerta, It also ralaee a fundaaantal
concern ebout testing of Inerta. What Inforeatlon does the
d by Google
AdBlnlBtrator n«*d M dataraina if a <*h«sard« ailats? Ww aheuld
provide the raquaaiad d«t«, taat atudlaa «r InrorNatloB — tha
l>a«tc aanufacturara or tha ■arkatera or dlatrlbutora of th»
riniahed products? ifho ahoutd par Tor auoh date, test studlea or
Inroraatlon, and how vpuld it be apportioned? Wiat atatutery
lanBuaKB needa to be craatad to put In place en approprtata
systa* for eoaponaatloa for date? In aMenca, Beny qoastloKe
•bout testlne and coHpanaatlon ere raiaed by thla languaca tn
H.R. 2>lS2a but none ere anamred.
Fourth, ir tha AdalDiatrator he> aose eonaern ebout • poton-
tlalljr troublaooBB Inert, hla deteralnatlon to require lebel
Ideotiricstlon should be based on data deaonetratint thet the
Inert h«s en unreesonsble edTorse effect on aen end the anvlron-
■ent. An edkinistrator's request for date on a particular Inort
abould b* proMptad by avldanca alsiller to tbet which Is required
by tho Graaslejr- Allen aaendsant to the canoelletlon procaaa. This
aacnd»ent requires that there should be 'a validated test or
other algnirlcant evidence raising prudent concerns of unreason-
able adverse risk to ssn or the environNent.'
Fifth, tr tha Adalnistrator reels he haa a concern ever e
potentially troublasoBS inert, he has the ezletlnc euthertty to
request that inforaatlon be placed on the label. In at least
three cases, the Administrator raquastad that products contalnlns
cblororiuorocarbons (CPCs) ba ao identified oo tha label, that
cnrteln producta containing petrolaus distlllstes carry a wernlng
on the label, and that all products containing scdlus nitrate
stabilisers be identified on the label. In essence, tha Adalals-
trator has the authority to act quickly if he sees an aaergency.
d by Google
or if IM r*«la that • trvublcsoM* Inart poaas •■ onraaaoaabla
riak tv Man and tba anvlronaant. Caaa«4wantl]r, thara ta aa
apparant naad ta raartta tha atatuta.
Sixth, tha ikcanoy la praaaatly burtfanad with aavaral htfh
prtvrltr projaeta, iiMludintt t) on-colac raglatratlon; 2> ra-
railatratioB pracraai 31 laballnc protfraa, and otbara. Each of
thaaa procraaa raquiraa alcairteaat raaowrcaa. To caaprahaa-
alvaly ravlaw tnarta alth a llaltad budfat and raducad ataff
would add nav burdaoa to tha Acanor'a alraady baavr acaada.
Kathar than atarttni thia naw procraa, tba Atfaner alaht eandaet a
atudy to raaolve aanjr or tha unanawared quaatiana and daal with
aueh cantravarsial araaa aa confldanttalitir and ceapanaatlon tar
data aa it partaina to tha taatinc of inarta.
Altbouth wa hava aarlous problaaa with any nuabar of tha
provialona of K.R. 24Q2, wa waleoaa an opportuntty to work with
aaabara of tha aubcoaalttae raaardtng thla propoaad lealalatlon
in tha hopa that wa can raaolva aoaa of our diff ieultlaa.
II. CSMA'g REVIEW QP Tig PIPRA STATUTE
Wa ara aqually eonearnad, howavar, that tha praoaat and
potaotlal la«ialatl«a dlaeuaaiona hava not addraaaad aavaral
othar praaalnc problaaa with PIFRA. Va would Ilka to taka a faa
■oaanta to touch on aoae of our concarna.
I . S£Ua. Polltleal guhdlvl^lppip Undar Saetlon 241 (■ I. He
would Ilka to focua on whathar or not political aubdlvialona of a
atata. auch aa ■ county or townahip, ahould ba abla to aaarelac
the aaae peatlclda Juriadiction aa a stata.
d by Google
Id passini tha 1972 •■•ndBBiita to th* Pcdaral Inaaotlcld*,
PwncicldB and Radantlclda Act, Concrcaa irantad llkltad pastlctda
resulatory authority to tha atatss. Tha lacialatlva hlatory
Indloataa that tn aMandlne PIPRA, Congraaa Intandad to ahara Its
authority with tha atataa. but not with local Jurladictlona.
If tha iBDCuaga of a atatatori provlaioit ia opan to eonnic-
tln« intarpretatloaa, tha Intent of Concraa* In paaainc it will
dataraina how that proTlaion la to ba conatrued and appllad. Tha
laslalatlva hlatery or tha 1972 FIFRA CMndBanta conriraa Con-
graaa* intent.
Section 2i|(a) was addad to PIFRA br tha Podaral environaan-
tai Paatlcida Control Aot or 1972, Pvbllo Law 92-SI6 <FEPCA). In
passing PEPCA, Congraas nada claar that It waa astandlng llattad
ragulatory authority to tha stataa, but not to local Jurlsdic-
tlona. In Harch of 1972. tha Sanata Agrleultura Coaatttaa conal-
darad tha bill paasad by tha Housa of RaprasaatatlTas. On Jun«
7, 1972, tha Sanata Coulttaa reported out tba bill. Regarding
tha praaaptlon of local tovarnaant regulation of peattetdaa, the
accoBpanying report atataa ISanste Report No. 92-830, 92d Cong.,
2d Seaa. >:
The Senate Agriculture CoMilttaa considered
the deetaion or the House CoMlttee to
deprive political subdivisions of Statea and
other local authorltlea of any authority or
Jurladlctlon over pesticides and concurs with
the daelslon of the Houae of Representatives.
Clearly, tha fifty States and the Fedaral
Covarnaant provide aufficlant Jurlsdiettona
d by Google
to prop«rlT raKulat* paatlcldaa. Haraevar,
fan, ir aof, local authorltlaa wtiathar towna,
count laa, vtllagaa, or aunlelpalltlaB hara
tha r Inane lal wharawithal to provida
nacaaaary eapart raffulation coaparabla witb
that proTldad bj tha State and Fadaral
OovernMBiita . On thia baata and on the baala
that paratttlns auoh ragulatton would b« an
aitraae burden on intaratate coa*erca> It la
tha intant that Section 2i|, by not providing
any authority to political aubdivlaiona and
other local authorltiaa or or In tha Statca,
ehould be understood as depriving such local
authorities and political subdivisions or any
and all Jurisdiction and authority over
pastieidaa and the regulation of pestlcldaa.
3 U.S. Cede Cong. 4 Ad. Ham, p. MOOS (1972).
The suMMry or tha Sabata coMMittaa report bears rapaatlagi
■it la the Intent of Section la ... Cto deprive) local
authorities and political aubdlvistona of any and all
Jurisdiction and authority over peatlcidea and the ragulatton of
tf any aora Insight Into Congressianal Intent la needed. It
la provided by vhat occured thereafter, whan tha Senate CoHMrca
Coaaittea offered an aMadNent to tha bill apeclficatly to allow
local Jurisdictions to regulate paatlcldes. Tha Senate rejected
that aaendMent by e vote of 71-0. 11Q Cong. Rec. 32251, 32263
d by Google
Durlna the i9B0a, there have been atteapts by various poli-
tical subdivlaione oc thirteen atates, auch ae cittea and town-
ships, to set Involved In the procevs or regulating the sals or
uae of pesticides or raqueatlni caneratlan of data. Local Jurla-
dlctlona are enacting reatrictlona that create eonaldcrable hard-
ships for farners, foreatera, and hoBaownara.
Hot only do local reflulatlona place burdana on paatlelda
users, but local reaulationa are unnecaaaary In ileht of the
extensive systea of stats and federal rasulation. Additionally,
local Jurisdictions sre not equipped to Bska the sclsntiTic
decisions Deeded to reiulate pesticide use properly.
To solve the growinc problak of locel pesticide refulation.
an saendaent la proposed to Section 2m%> of FIFRA, vhich (rants
Halted pesticide reguletory authority to the states. With the
aaendsent, that Section would reed: "A Stste, but no pol Itlcal
■ubdlvtalon a£, i^ State. May ragulata the aala and use of any
federally registered pesticide ....■
He bel leve that tha statute ought to reflect the
Congresslonsl intent that political subdlvlalons below the atata
level should not ragulete the sale or uae of peatlcldea.
2. Distinction Between Anrleul tural ud, Monaarl cultural
Peatieldea. Congresa added a neu requireeent to FIFRA in I97S to
the effect thet regulations prescribed by the Adalnistrator to
csrry out the Act nuat taka into account the difference In
concept end usage batwsan various classes of pesticides snd
dirrarancea in at>vlron«antal rlak. and tha appropriate data for
avaluatlna such risk, between agricultural and nonagrl cultural
pesticides. This sMandaent extended the provision In the
db,Google
eilatlna lav which required the AdMlnletrator to take into
account the dlfferencea In concept and usage bettfeeo Tarlova
cla«*«* or paatleldas. br aandatlnB the Adatnletretor to apply
•uch dlatlnctlon In preacriblnc and eTaluatlng deta Tor
nonagrl cultural pesticides.
The Acencr has not. In fact, rat fullr lapleaanted this
Goncresslonal directive. Ue respectfull; urge this aubcowalttee
to provide specific language directing the EPA to ssparete out
and utillEe current adslnlatratlve atarr to apaclflcallr
adMlnlatar an; regulations and guidelines which pertain to the
nonsgrl cultural portion or the pasticlds industrr.
Ue specif IcslljF recossend two changes In thla area:
2U(dl could be added to Section 2H to
itates take Into consideration the dlfferancea
ind nonagrlcultural pestlcidaa.
;ating any regulations , policies, or protocols
a or use or petlcldes within a State, the
account the dirrarence In concept sad usage
T pastlcldes and the differences In
' appropriate data for eveluBtlng such
nd nonagrlcultural pestlcldas.
I 3(f) la needed to deal with data In
ration.
for data eubslttad In support of •
.he State should take Into account tha
isaga betveen agricultural and
sandate that
between agrlcul
pertaining to
State shall tak<
between vai
[ between egri
irlcultura:
support of a atata reg:
Federal reglstratii
difference In concept and
nonagrlcultural pesticides.
d by Google
unless
t« was
prohibited
Included In
Ided to
speciry that
3. To »■■ An» K«»t«tT«d Paatlcld. In ■ Mannar lneon«l«f nt.
With LiA iflfBHiMr A D«H aectton 2<«aifS) could b« addad to
peralt use of one paatlclda In the formulation or another
reclstorad end-uaa product or to alloH repacklne or a reeiaterad
product into another end-uae produc
apecifleally by the labeling (alBilai
H.R. 5203. 97th Concrsaa ) .
Another nen section 2(ee)(6> should ba i
a alsuse stat«»ent ta not required on the label of all peaticldea
as is required by regulatton. Household disinreetants and sanl-
tlsers that are required to uae the atnteaent "It is ■ vlolatlan
of federal lew to uae this product in a Banner Inconsistent with
Its lebellng* Make such stateBents unbelievable. The users will
siaply refuse to believe they nay be prosecuted If they do bobB'
thine other then that listed on tba label.
Under section 2(ee), there should be an exeaptlon for those
"•pplylnc a household clesnlnc product contalnlns s dlalnfectant
or aanitlser active Ingredient, In houaahold or institutional
cleaning uses.*
U, Section 10. Prof et Inn of Trtiff ■';qg^e^■a uA. Othar
infnr—ttnn- Ue vould like to Bpaclrically reconmend three
potential chansee in section 10.
a> EQIA Proeedurea. Under FOIA procedures, the EPA
routinely releaaes the label of s product and Internal EPA aa«os
on the review of dsta subaltted es soon aa reslstratlon is
granted. The EPA does not recognixe that such notiricatlon to a
coepatitor before sales begin cen be a disclosure of highly
confidential' aarketlng inforaation, i.e., that a coapanv intends
d by Google
bti enter a spaciflc Market with a specirie product. The tine lag
between realstratlon and aalea can be qulta lengthr.
Disclosures of any InforMatlon on the Intent to Market a
pesticide should coBBence at the start of sales, unteas aucli
disclosure la specifically necessary to protoct asalDst a
suspected unreasonable risk to health or the envlronBcnt-
b) Hotlf Icatjlgn U^uL liirornatlon Hequeated. Although the
AdKlnlstrator atiell notify the subaltter of his Intent to
disclose trade secrets under Section 10(dl(3)> dlscloaura of
other data and InforBatton Is not covered under FIFRA. k
aubattter should have the right to be advised that its data has
bean requested and that the agency plana to release it.
e I & HuL Section (f ) Coneernlng Dlacloaura to States and
£lals. Age ne lea. This aaendBent would allow disclosure of tnfor-
aation to states or state agencies if the state or state agencies
adopt 'sacurlty precautions* for this Inforaation. Information
otherwise protected froe discjoaure to the public, under Bubaec-
tlon (b> or this section. Bay be disclosed to states or state
asencles or state employees for registration at the state level,
and under auch conditions as the Adnlnlstrator eay by regulation
specify. The Adslnlstrstor shall require as a condition to the
discloaure of inror>atlon under thia subsection that the atata or
state agencies receiving It adopt the nacessary authority and
procedures for the protection of such InforBation equivalent to
that provided under this Act and shall take such security praeau-
tions respecting the InforBetloo as the AdBlnistrator shall by
regulntion prescribe .
db,Google
W« support tiM EPA errorts to mlvo «ddr«aa thia l»port«nt
5. Saetlon 3,. ^pBlatrattcn of Poatlcldoo. We Would like
to couent very brlefl]> on aoae potential chanses to aectlon 3.
a ) Ce«elopment of FIPRA Rjatatrattan Qt^ Culdaliiiea. CSHA
has In the peat akpraaaed aerloua concern over the daralopaant
and liwl*>antation or guldellnaa Hhlch ara Intended by Concraaa
to oat forth the kinds of data which would be raqurled to support
a recistratlon.
The Concreaslonal intent behind Section 3(c)l2l of FIFRA is
to apeclfy generally the klnda of basic data or InfarNatlon
which Hay be required to support a raglstration, but at tit* aaaa
tiM perMlt latitude and flaKlbtllty on the part of sclantlsta In
dayelopioK their data.
Durins the 97th Concrass, CSHA worked with EPA, Be«bsra of
Confresa , and other Interested parties to achieve aoHS
leBtslattve chanffes to FIfRA, Sactlon 3, to correct the
(utdeiinas problaaa. Laglalatlva languag* providing for
publication of rievlble fuldallnes and aodt float Ions in the
Fedaral Beat a tar and for subMlaslon of public coMHant for asency
Buldanca was sdoptsd by tha Houaa whan It passed H.R. 5203 en
August II , I9«2.
While the EPA has saved a long way in addrssalng this
probles, we still believe that the FIFRA statute should sppro-
prtately address this issue, BO aa to reflect Congraaslona]
b) Sect ten 3fell3>. Tt*e fgr frCtrtpg Ulth Raaoeet m
ApDllcation. Thia section ahould be amended to include a tlaa
d by Google
psriod in which an application should be ravlawed and approved,
or. reviewed and a deterBination aade as to any shortcoalnBs. A
90-day period Is suggaated in which the EPA Must notify the
reslBtrant of approval or 30 days to notify the registrant of a
deficiency of the application.
c> Section 3(d)(1 )IC). Restructuring bL Claaslf Icatlon
Svntes Fpr ■Restricted Uae." This classif Ication should b« "as
deteralned by the Adainistrator' rather than autoaattc if cartain
arbitrary scores on eye irritation, etc. , ara found.
Adainlstrator'B deterMi nation should be baaed on hazards which
cannot be adequately dealt with by labeling (warning*, ate. I.
6. Section 7(d I , (^f^f identlal Reeorda and Inrfiritlliai
This section covers keeping records subaitted under Section 7lci
confidential . EPA. despite having such data in tta fllaa
(updated annualiy], periodically seeas to separately requeat auch
data for other purpoaaa because it does not have the data cata-
logued in a way that allows it to retrieve thaa. For esaapla. If
It wants to know how aany products are using sodlua hypochlorite
In what aaounts, it asks the registrants to duplicate data
already in EPA's files. Section 7(d) should be aaended to fore*
EPA to use these data in its files for these purposes lostaad of
asking raglatranta to continually duplicate thea.
III. GSBALS. CQKCERHS ABQUI QXtJEfi POTEMTIAL UEBL AMEMDIIEIITa
Mnally, we understand that a revised version of U.K. 3816
(9Bth Congraas), and perhaps other aaandaenta. ara likely to be
introduced In the near future.
db,Google
Ue requBBt that additional hearlnss b« held to evaalne these
aMendaenta In aaae depth before thejr are considered by tha sub-
eoBBlttee. This policy would be consistent with the long-
•tandlns tradition of the subeoasittee.
COMCLUSlOII
H« would lllia to generally aasoclste ouraelves with the
testlaony offered by other aeabers of the PIFRA Coalition. This
broad-based coalition of orgaolsation* reprasentine urban and
rural pesticide user groups, aaricultural user araupa, farn
■roups. and comnodity producers as well as manufacturers
reflects aany different eoncerna about FIFRA, (Please see
attached Hat of the FIFRA Conlltlan nenberahip.l
In additlOhF ue uould like to coaaend this subcommittee and
the full House Asriculture Committee for its lons-standine com
■itaent to reasonable and rational FIFRA lesiatatlon.
•re safe and effective for their Intended uaea and that they do
the concerns we h^ve noted In our full text today Impose an
unnecessary aconnnlc burden upon our Industry and uil] deprive
eonsuaers of safe and effective pesticides needed to control
peata which disrupt our economy and reduce the quality of our
livaa. CSHA Is committed to uork with thla subcommittee to help
raaolve theae laportant c
db,Google
ID of Nuncryiwn
1250 Eye Strctt. PM, Suite SOO
Nasnington, 0. C. ;003e
JMin $«UgiJ
(aW) 7B9-Z900
Imrictn Pglpmwd Aiioclitlan
1619 NifMchgwtti Avcnut. m
IKshlngton, D. C. lOOSC
(JO; 265-W70
JtaHrlcan Sicd Trade «s«ocUtton
1030 15th Street, m. Sufte 964
Hiitilngton, D. C. 20005
D«vld Lutxrt
(20?) 223-*Oeo
Anerlun Soybcin AiiDclitlon
600 Mtryland Kvenut, SU. Suite SIO
IMlMitgton. 0. C. 20024
John bin
(202) 554-7304
taerlcin Wood Preserven Iiutltutc
1945 Gallon Road, Rooa 405
, n 22180
Ult ^t^*nk
(703) 893-4005
lUthlngtin,
(202) *63-i
410 N.
] Industrial Equ1|
60S1I
n of the U:
20062
International Apple inttltuti
P.O. 8oi 1137
HcLMn, VA 22102
Deri 0»rr
(703) 442-8850
Intornattonal Sanitary Supply Aiioclatlo*
5330 N. Elltton Avenue
Chtcsgo, IL 60630
Chlcijo. It
(312) 3^1-1470
ir1da Sugar Cane League
. 20005
anttcape Aiioclatl
M Villey 0r1v*
Retton, VA 22091
(703) <76-85S0
Aviation AsioclitlM
lUtional AgricuUui
115 0 Str«*t. SE
Winington, 0. C. 2O0O1
Harold N. CoIKm
(202) 54fi-5722
Nattwial Agricultural Chciilcali A»MClttlo*
1155 15th Street, NU. Suit* 514
Uashlngton, D. C. 20005
Luther Shav
(20!) 296-1S8S
National Arborlit Asioclatlon
3537 Stratford Road
Mantagh, NV 11793
Itobert Fell!
(516) 221-306?
National Association of Hmt Gna
415 2nit Str«et, NE, Suit* 300
I, D. C. 2O0O2
Uaihlngton, I
HarglF UllllaB
(202) 547-7800
(202) 347-0228
1015 15th Street, NW. SuiU ZOI
Wiihlngton, D. C. 2000S
HI chat) Kali
(202) 371- 1450
d by Google
National Couon Council of fncrlm
1030 15tti Street. KW. Suite 700
Utshtngton. D. C. 2IXKIS
ItVeme Still
(M!) a33-?943
Hatlaul Council of Agricultural Eivloyen
1(35 H Street. NV. Suite 43S
Hisnington, 0. C. 20005
Pot Ouinn
(20f) 63B-S6S0
Mltional Council of Finer CootwratlvM
ISOO Massachusetts Avenut, NW, Suit* 604
Waihington. 0. C. 20034
20?
659-1525
National Fertilizer
nZ3 N. Industrial
MB kanzell
(305) 691-2B70
Solul
"■"■"
Natloi
ml food Proce
4n> York Avsnu
'. NK,
AisDcIa
, Suit*
t Products Aiioclatloii
, D. C. 20036
c Policy Foundation
ISll K
Wasnington, D. C. 2000S
Stev* Seiter
(!02l
1270 ChaKktta Street, NC
Sales. OR 97301
David Oieti
(BOO) 438-7773
Profeiilona
c/o HolU El
4E1Z Kellogg Averue
Cinclflnati. OH 4S226
Joe Holti
(S13) 871-3992
Han«9«wnt Society
National GolF Association
200 CastleiMOd Drlne
Nortli Pain Beach. FL 22408
National Pest Control *s'
BlOO Oak Street
Dunn toring. VA 22027
National Peach Council
P.O. Bo> 108S
Martinsburg. in 25401
Marietta. G« 30067
(40t) 977-S222
Rio Grimle Valley Sugar Cine Grtmers C
its t£th itreet. M, SuiU SOI
Washingtorr. D. C. 20006
Horace D, Godfrey
(iBZ) 7B5-407D
Society of American Kood Preserven. [i
1401 HDion Boulevardi Suit* 205
Arlington. VA 22209
ural Chaatnl Auoclitlon
d by Google
d fmh Fruit I V*9eubla Hiioclitlon
I. UKhlngton Strtit, 4U) floor
ndrii, VK if3M
Center for CcMinl*] Harlcultura
1601 Duke Street
Aleiuilrla, VA ZZ314
1703) 836-8700
Ch«a>lcal Speclaltlei Hanuf«Etur«n Aiioclatfan, Inc
1001 Comwctlcut Dvenue. NU, Suft* UZO
Hashington, D. C. a»36
R«lph Ei>9el
Mrren Stickle
Itaz) e7;-sno
d by Google
Agricultural Chemicals and
Groundwater Quality in Iowa
u kiM an] m* Com Bad hn
n. BaMMn 1980 wtf 1976, V
■nMtnWiip bWiuMn cn«nic« M-tMIIni ■pphcaHon
Owing Hit ttm time, Ihe primary concam ralalad to nta and tna imoin al NQi^ Koiad In pia nl
cnamical* and Mier wai on ma "non- pniNe tflat twnM MiO/ai tha aniaunl cl NO^ loM
Nonpont Bouca piotMrnt Invehv Die In oraai to pimde a bacKgRMncI kK thii diacussien.
adiment, nutrients, and other cnemicals a toa topical aamfi>mt ol trw mUKt an thcnm
pestcidai) into suitaca noletg iiom me grapncally In Dgutn i thimsri 3 Hguin 1 and 2
Only ncanOy tia> attention been lumed to Qrtxfid-
vMat GmunawBiM' I* a mator component ol our J ^O"'
8007
700
I-
uty flas been ccnducting a>
about 10 laal d^MH. SaN typa W^tta^ CLi
3 yaara o( Baabwww (from Oaat at il, ISTI),
Omoe Haicerg ii ciuM. G«4og>»i stuOn. uiiiB CooperaliM Extension Servico
Oeoiogica Survw lew Ciiy Thn papw n a lummaiy o* fl kw^ *tt«t« UnlUM«ltw
d by Google
1S00
1400
/
1300
/
1 ;ss
M^ss
/
2 300
y
100
"
100 200 xo «a
1,0.
I
r
"I
-I
300 MO 500
M flgun 2. mm Joaa^ 1flr«
«naiM ol NO,-N m« accumuUtM n m* mi md Now V
tM VTMMK ttwl may b* kat m bM Otmrngi ««•( only abcut 15 percsni i
(giauidvNMi] mciMMi « ■ <]h«cI vk) nwily lirear wilh ma com. umi SO I
imittn orth N-tonUiw applicaian nut MXM aboul iM Anomw 20 to 30 |
SO n FVA. ««■ loM m lunofl Mtti
gM«Bm loua Many puWiinM ituom wnM
This occun tMcajM m* vtmutk ol N afMabM <t m luoo**' >'vl anansii N linilgT iwcoKfy Icr eon a
•■CM* ol at* tmOwK Mmg lawn up VK) unhiaS by >n rw rarg* o( ucui 35 Mfcani Racenc ituDm
iha axn cnci For tumpw. ligu't * ariOHii in* 'N- using isoiopicaiiy ucaWd tmiiizan aoo tumtsi im
MUrc* IhMi' tar 17 yarn at conbnuoui com Inxn large mtiouiIs at laiMzat-N may ba Maenad Da<o*
tlia norVfMtWn lOM tluOy Thasa daia arc cor- Urn •aa lona Mtoia ma com is avan capabw ly
iMiad tnxn pMs, wiin no N-taniluar appiiea and am uting il Sucn Usias rusa Been ~buil-<n io N-
Tia d ma parcantaga d tarWaaf-M ParWin ~
d by Google
in ma grxjcxJ*Btoi oAtagsd itxxil M to 14 rna/l ,,._, ,_, __, ____ Mtt , i,.,, .„
(ynoA W -^ii Ounna the I950a uD thiouoh W» ■'■•I "" ■■wigi ■**, cancan
^196B In i98t-82.«n»nlGS began dWaleO lltQk^i^ nillL^M^irM^
utormo. me NO, concenualBn nengaO lOmgfi ^ ^""■" '""" " ^
(9 NO,-N], ana 45mo/i (10 NO,-N]
over 50 welia taino>ea m BurxxindinB ctwn
durng 1975 ana 1963 >no» tne satna lala
thn iKTia (fame Fnxn the late 1960a until aiound
altneNO, aime
d by Google
f'nQh rUM ct infiltfBlion Tha guiMy at dnrtung yfl
sinfctwM. Too i^sn ir ffie p«t. v« twt» onnbutK) kxa itnin mat shUKM (MM (iMt Dur
ma nster quality prablamt m nonnaauam lo/rn to iMao m pailiciilw) nnitM aWiWaC con
snikhoies. nacant, Oalailaa uudni in«' tnal n- nitraM. In lonia tlknial (autar lanino*.
trates, pesbckMa, bacuna, and mapandaa Hon it nnoinng iha nnrWai bul caaticiaaa an M
Mdimant and ofoanin ai* me oRxViOviSiat comami- infttranng to (w<e panoting in) ma gnuiDaalv
nonhaaala'n iom. Alao, trwu urfaca-iccliaa chancato an (Knad n
Thasa itudiaa alw tfvw itnt: <1) "<• nmianxi into itia oFninchMta' Becaiaa ntiaraDan n ma
to gRuvTiWer itw largan mans onnopal ccmponan el ncnarga. tna tmni; ol
■■ largeit mau ol waional lacnarga panoot VK) nol to m
Daiailad momtonrg dunng rainlfkli njnin everts at tie^ticidM in Ions m occumng m _
Big Spnng tfom tnai the higti lurtac* water aMo mat itiav panw in gnundwoa* ya
aedimen and paalicidei, mom aa a 'Ujq' trrouBti tJU. In noiatad innafKes, tfom aoUt or t«nan>iB
Iha gioundwiMr *v*leni, dttcnaigrig Irom ma acodanii atiaf oaatiCKMi or hignar concanranna
mil mey amaied. Thasa atanii alu •mioduca
Dactana ant potentially pamoaenie Dtganwna into TatM i MvMt ma peatH^oet mat na
me gioundtMiet dalecled m gioundwiief and tha m
I* quintiialna memodi pimide aabmalaa pans per tiMn). Oty or
wit c* trw Mie>. Bbcxit 9S percant al \tu ralral* To Oata. hoxnw. tt» anUysai has Daan only to
Id SO to S5 percent of Ola mm lolubia
ut tpom 15 to 50 percent of norttiaaBMni loiaa. 1Vt14l (ham H
. aqular coniaimnalnn. AMo, mAUaoon n itie la-
cnatga mectianam convnon tu all agulefi, wliich
TNs n an mtennva mi-cicp an
db,Google
pansun Min ctnar lagkmal cMU ana Mfw \tKil
mxliea tugom tnai tnne iosm> ai* pnxiab'y
typic* Pw tone uvMr curr»ni m«™oom«nl
pnctkH.
(< the uMla and ipnngi lampiBd in kani, Batond ma anviionmanial impact, tn* Fnagnitud* '
Maiock, ana Muvial ullingi (in tna Utter me »-loum an ol aconomlc corcem a mM. Wi
■o catagofles only MiKralion lecnaroe occura) tiata cop* (com) aie not uNliing 50 to 70 parcen el V
eWeianey am aeenenfc gain. At noted.
and aoulioanlnl Mhnaaon
bediock-nigri indralion oonditiona. Tlw tft*ctl yati cnantcali pnibetty nat not dinclty
aieoena'ally01-1 Ougil cnan^cal inefficiencies an apparan
a. AMO: ai noted in aoma a*
pealKidei may ni
( Chwnlcil LoMM In Wl*ir> ihew an legitimeia concamt toe public naaim on
slry. the long tern. H maee grauYtinalef, dnnking mste
quality pnXMrm continue or Inciaeae. Ai tn* pm
la be made Rx tw i^impien waief years ol This, hiMnw, mw almpi) be a lunctton of lime,
mcmiisnng. me anxxjil ot NO,-N Qiscnatged wiin Over tine, il eucTi ohemieali peraiH in gioundwatai,
grounOwaiBr and surface unlet from ina B4g Spnng itiey wli Qa Iransnirited lo deeper aquitan.
baain lOaled aboul 1.a and za miMan poundi
during a naaH«nnM and wal yMi, i«ap«ctn«ly TTx The paaUciO* eoneenWiioni. Htiicn pi* bMng
•quali about 50 and 7S n Nf A tor me Uno^ann nw- poutinaly delected, are tar b*law UKic IViW* and
eiopMO ana ol ttw Daain. Theaa loaaea are generaty vnll below leMM naught lo contnbuM to
equmleni to about 33 M 55 percent ol tne Sfarao* long term, cnionlc piDblema sucn ai cancer.
amount ol lartHizer-N appted during ttie pieceding NoMMar, there ai* many uncertainties imoNM witn
VMiB (table 2). As wm ih* *Kp»rini«r«« laim - ■
atudiaa, Hiii don not unply Itiai aH ol ihi* r«0,-N a
demed diieaty hom tna lettillierN. Hommt. me
n lewanh lug*
nut-n leases we compuwd. CMmt gesis l^al lugn^nitrale dnnking aiMer may coninEHile
90 discnaigad mtn me malei and to other long-ienn heath problemi in children and
icaiion canrm be e*<imai*d. I^cnv adutg. On* nceni epKMfnolagicat iludy luggeali
5T-6S6 0-88 a
d by Google
nwuM '>Dni ihs (xvung ratsvch dMCribad in Bm
npon vM oVw panMW mmrcti at kum Slaa
Uninnity «• pnwdinB ■ iMMOan of IM pmblwn
baMMH UM tppUcMJonol efumleili ana snund-
atquility 111* tod Map 1* to Uc* tor aolutlont. A
(Mimga Ukxring ninogan ippUcalion ta eonlinu-
out cam. Jaur. Envinan. Oi«f.,7:2Sft2fl2.
■nwrg. G R . B. E. Hoyw. E. A. BMM III, vid
R. D UOra. 1963. HyOtcgMogy, oMtr qu«My.
Clayton County, Mmb. M. Gaol Suiv., Opan-AW
flapl. S3-3.
~ ~ . R O LiCra. E. A BatM III, and B E
agrlcuniral nwiaoamant. Wa muM coupW our
MnOarO concami br aol conaan«ttan tM •urfaci
Id imtouOtaaiy Oanai ctwiical ar
flaport TT-Om « ni torn Otpl. SM Ccnwv..
Couaga al Agricutua. kSM Siaa Unmamty.
JoHanV. D. 19T4, r ■ ■ ■■
w Sum Unnanny Am*!.
naOTinayar. ant Bamanl E. Hoyar 19M.
1. Gfouriomtai quality ana Hydfooaoloiry (<
□awonlan-cartxxiata aqurtan m ficyd and MileMI
dMiDat. Iowa. la. GaM Surv, Cpan-Hiaflapt-
d by Google
701
SYNTHETIC ORGUIIC COHPOtmD
SMtPLIHG SORVET OF
FOBLIC mTSR 90PFLIK3
Richard D. Kelley
Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management
April ]98S
db,Google
db,Google
Th* Dflpartmcnt of WaUr, Air and Waata MaMfam^Rt mmhwtod ■ Mni[dlnit mnwj
of publle <Mnldiig mtor MVpUw for t)w pnrpos* of dttarmlnlnf Ow pwanaa of
eommonly deteetad pnthatle orfuile floropoisidi (SOC'i) and eommcnly uaad paatl-
etdaa. A total of 111 wella frara SS pntdle watar w^lea wara samplad batwaan
Hay, 19>4, and March, IHS, Sam^aa eoEatttad from IIT wan* wara analyEad for
tiM t»— wea of SOC'a and analyaaa fcr paatlddaa wara meda on MmEdea from 70
walli. Public watar avvpUaa manltorad In tMa aurvay wara adaetad boeauae of tha
Mgh profaabOlty that ana or mva of tho oontamlnanta woold ba praaMit. Fifty-
••van (ST) wrilt aarving SS n^apllaa wara fbwid to hava ana cr mepa oontamlnanta
pfasant In low oanoontratlana. Tha hwbidda, Atrarina, waa tha moat eommonly
dataetad contaminant.
rAi.-i aarvoy was ftindad by tba U.S. gpylrnti—ntaJ PztrfctioD Aftacg irltlt atfdi-
tlonal support tor anaiyaaa piorldad bi/ tha Ualvmralti/ Vvvionie Latoratory.
TeehnlcMl sappere Has prorldad bg tha lam Gaological 5urvay.
db,Google
In 1BT9, tha U.S. Bminnniwital Protoetton Ag«w; (EPA) aonduetad a natlonwMi
RtonltorinK proffntm fcr the dateetlaa of frnthatio «rginla oonpomdi (SOC'b). Mm
• raault of thk nMnlterlnf affort, a ruiBbar of puUlo mtar avpUaa iMra IdantUM
a* balnf oonUtnlnatad with SOC'i) aoma of thaaa atVpUea wm In tow*, k
19I1/IM3, the EPA Raglan VH affaln mcnitopad *ii*ii« water aivpUaa In an aCtet
to tdantlfy thoaa rjftMna aenUmlMtad tj SOC'a. 1T« IMl/lttl OMnHarfnc Mi
not eonduotad in Iowa, howavar, aa tha Stata dM not hwra a *iBldag wtim .
pracrajn at that time, bi ISM, with the State afaln oparattni a Middiv wattr
prafram, tha EPA found tt poaalNa to aivpcrt a aampUnf pnwj for tha Mtmotkm
of SOC'a In ifrlnkinK water MVPUei In Iowa.
Baaad w the findings of the towa Oaoloflaal Survay in raaaarah c
the previoui ttree yean in northaaat and north-oentral Iowa, the D«9«tm«M ot
Water, Air and Waata Manafamait raquaeted that tha analytloal paramatHa Im av-
panded to Ineluda oomnMnly uaad peattddaa. Originally, tha eampHng wm ta ha*»
cowed a riz week pvlod. HowetMr, the W> waa not bt a poaltlan to anatyia th*
Urge numbv of Nm^fla in *ueh a ahort period of time, and thua, tha aampUnc was
axtandad omr ■ loigar period.
Sam^ng began bi Ha; of 1S<4 and eontinuad through Hareh of IMS. Bar^ tai tha
course of the aurvejr. It was daddad that radiaek aaroplaa would be oeOmetmS from
any nvply where the initial sampla Indicated the prasanea of a eontarainaiit In that
stn>'y'* source of water. IVhen si^ipllas ware raeheeked, semplee were oollaatad
from the wells orlglrally moiitcrad, additicnal a * *
the si^ply's flnlsh»d water.
d by Google
METHODOLOOT.
The reEional staff of tlw Department of Water, Air and Waste Management sampled
12S wells providing water to SS public water supplies across the State of Iowa
(Figure 1). The sampling locations were selected t^ the staff of the Departmoit's
regional offices. Sites were diosen on the basis of their proximity to industrial
areas, hazardous waste rites, spills or abandoned dumpa; the detection of SOC's in
previous sampling programs; or, elevated levels of nitrate. Elevated nitrite level*
are believed to be a good indicator ot the ground water's susceptibility to the
leaching of agricultural chemicals. Thus, locations with elevated nitrates would be
likely locations tor the detection of pesticide movement into ground water.
Sample collection containers were distributed to the regional offices by the
University Hygienic Laboratory (UHL) intermittently to control the flow ot samples
for analysis. Upon receipt of the collection containers, samples were collected
from the raw wtiter source at or near the well head and returned to UHL.
Samples were analyzed for 31 aynthetio crganie compounita and. In aome cases, 34
pesticides. The SOC parameters were chosen because they were previously identi-
fied by the EPA as those chemicals moat commonly detected in ground water. The
pesticide parameters represented thoae compounds which are commonly used In the
state and have characteristics conducive to their appearance in ground water or that
had been detected In ground water in the courae of other studies. The University
Hygienic Laboratory Is certified by the EPA and followed accepted standard
analytical procedures in conducting the analyses of the samples.
When contaminants were detected in the samples at quantifiable levels, containers
for the collection of reeheek samples were forwarded to the regional office.
Hecheck samples were then collected and returned to the lab for analysis.
Analytical results were reported directly to the Department of Water, Air and
Waste Management. The Department of Water, Air and Waste Management notified
the supplier of water of the anslytical results and, when necessarv, the significance
of the levEl of a contaminant. In some cases, additional follow-up field activities
were initiated.
The results of the sampling survey were assessed *rlth reipeet to the frequency of
occurrence of various contaminants, the range of concentrations and the geologic
setting within which the contaminant occurred. The Iowa Geological Survey
provided information on the wells monitored with regard to the well's depth, casing
information and the geologic formation from which water was obtained.
d by Google
Pigurt 1
8AMPUMG LOCATIOM
d by Google
RBSCLTS AMD DBCOSSIOM
A. Qaocrapliie/Oeolagle Dtatrtbutlon of Sun^ CoIl«etlon. One lundred and
twenty-elglit (I2B) weOs from SB public water si^tpUe* were Included In the
monitoring. The distribution of the 58 supplies is thoirn In Figure 1. Sampling wu
for the most part equally distributed across the state with a noticeable absence of
monitored supplies in south-central Iowa. Most of south-central Iowa ia served by
rural water systems, the largest of which relies ipon surface water for Its source.
The majority of the remaining public water supplies of the r«gton obtain their water
from either surface si4>plies or deep aquifer systems. Given the criteria for selec-
tion of systems to monitor, the regional staff felt that very few acceptable sites
existed In south-central bwa.
A review of the geologic information on the wells sampled showed that the majority
were shallow alluvial wells, although deeper pleistocene sands and gravels, buried
channels and bedrock formationa also served as sources of water for some of the
si^>plies. The wells can be placed Into one of four eategories. These four
cHtegoriea represoit the generalized description of the geologic setting within which
the wells are located. Table I shows the number of wells within each category
that were monitored for SOC's and (or pesticides, and the percent of the total
number of wells esch represents.
Of the 12B weos that were monitored, 12T were sam^ed for the presence of SOC's
and TO were sampled for pesticides. Sixty-one (81) of the 12B weUs were
completed into alluvial groundwater systems. Twenty (10) of the wells were
finished to deep alluvial, pleistocene sand and gravel or a mix of these two. Five
of the wells were completed in bedrock aquifers but were either not eased or tiw
casing was open to the overlying alluvial system. Forty-one (41) wells were
completed and cased into the bedrock and Information was not available on one
weU. The 46 bedrock wells represented two Cambrian wells; seven Ordovloian,
three of which were open to the overlying alluvium; IS Silurian, two of which were
open to the overlying alluvium; II Devonian; six Mississlpplan; and three Dakota
wells. Figure 2 shows the distribution of well types and reflects the typical
dlstributlor of wells across the State.
Alluvial
Open Bedrock
67-ESe O— M—
d by Google
db,Google
B. DIftrttMitian of Cantaminwita. One or more.SOC's and/or pestieidw w«re
detected at some quantifiable level In ST wells serving 33 supplies. These S3
siqtplies were distributed fairly evenly seroos the State with the exception of north-
central Iowa (Figure 3). Tlw absence of contaminants In the supplies monitored in
this region appears to be related to the fact that di out of eight supplies
monitored In the region used wells finished Into the bedrock. However, a review of
the geologic setting of the ST wells does not show a dear relationship between the
geologic setting and the overall occurrence of a contaminant laittl individual groups
of contaminants are considered, bidlvidual grouf» of contaminants are ifiscussed
later in this report.
The most commonly detected contaminant was the herbicide Atrazine appearing in
24 wens from 14 si^ipUes. The next most commonly detected contaminant was
chloroform which was found in measurable levels In 11 wells serving 10 supplies.
Tetraehloroethene, dibromoehlorom ethane and the herbicide Bladei appeared in six
si^ipUes, and bromoform, bromodlctdoro methane and triehloroethme each were found
in five S(4>plles. Each of these will be discussed further below.
Sixteen (16) of the 31 organics for which analyses were made were detected in at
least cne si^ly at some measurable level. Six of the 34 pesticides analyzed for
were detected at a measurable level in at least one st^ply. Although collection and
analyses of recheck samples has mt been completed yet, 11 of the 14 reehecia
collected to date have confirmed the presence of contaminants either In the source
or in the finished water.
C. Trihalomethanas. Trlhalom ethanes (THMs) are members of a group of organic
chemicals that form when organic compounds, primarily humie and fulvle acl<ta,
eoTTiblne with chlorine, bromine and/or Iodine. Synthetic or man-made organics
usually will not combine with chlorine, bromttte or Iodine to form THMs, and raw
water seldom contains THMs In significant concentrations.
Trihalomethanes are important In that at least one, dtloroform, is a potential
human carcinogen. The U.S. EPA also considers three other THMs to be potential
carcinogens. Public water supplies serving at least 10,000 people are required to
monitor (or four THMs. Analysis for these same four trihalomethanes (chloroform,
bromoform, bcrmodiehloromethane , dibromo^loro methane) was Included in ttds
survey.
The trihalomethanes, as a group, were the moat commonly occurring contaminants,
being detected at measiratde levels in 18 supplies. At the same time, however,
their appearance Is the most difficult to explain. One would not expect THMs to
be found In raw water samples; however, in 13 wells of 11 supplies, they were
found. Recheck sampling found THMs in the finished water of 11 supplies, seven
of which had no THMs present in their wells. At the same time, seven of the
supplies which had THMs in measurable quantities in their wells had
THMs in their finished water. AU but five of the IS supplies In which THMs «
d by Google
Figure 3
CONTAMINATED SITES
d by Google
Found tied at least one other organic and /or pesticide present In measursUe
concentratiom. There was clearly no relationship between the geologic formatton
From which a well obtained water and the appearance of THMs.
Concentratfona in the finished water at total trihaloni ethanes (TTHMi) ranged from
1 ug/I to 108 ug/1, with one-half the values below IS ug/1. The maximum
contaminant level for TTHMs is 100 ug/1 but Is only applied to public water supplies
with a population of at least 10,000. Therefore, generally the concentrations found
would not seem to pose a threat to Iviman health by themselves. However, as has
been noted, 13 of the !8 sillies had some other organle compound present in
measurable concentrations. The Implications to human health from exposure to low
concentrations of numerous compounds over extended periods of time is unknown.
Individually, chloroform was the most commonly occurring THM, being detected in
measurable concentrations In 10 supplies. Dibromochloromethane was detected in
six iiq>plies and, bromoform and bromodichoromethane were each detected in five
supplies. The range of concentrations for each THM ii shown in Table 2.
Chlorotorm flrow>forw Bromoi icblorometbaae Dibromocbloraaetltaiie
D. Other Common Synthetic Organic Compoumk, Twelve (12) otiier commonly
detected synthetic organic compounds were found in 2S wells serving IT supplies.
Four other compounds were detected below measurable concentrations In three
additional si^yplies. Of the IT supplies with measurable concentrations in their raw
water source, seven had two contaminants, three had three contaminants, and one
had four contaminants detected. Ko supply had more than four contaminants from
this group present.
Four of the contaminants from this group ; benzene , styrene , toluene and
ethylbenzene are aromatic compounds commonly associated with petroleum products.
Their presoiee stron^y suggest the ^Ul or leakage of petroleum products In the
vicinity. Aromatles were detected in the wells of six supplies end, toluene and
benzene in the finished water of one supply each (Table 3). One well contained
benzene in a concentration of 540 ug/1; the next hightest concentration was 4 ug/1.
The well is located near a spill and has been taken off line.
d by Google
reported In one well; the next higtwst concentration wu IS lig/l. Table 4 show*
the numt>er of wells and supplies trom ntiich low concentrations of orftanics «r«re
detected.
The compounds represented In this group are aU crganles one would generally
associate with a sptU cr a waste dbposal dte. Clearly, shallow ground-water
systems are more susceptible to pollutants from these types of sources and the
geologic information en the wells indicates that the vast majority ot wells with
problems are flnished Into alluvial formations (Tables S end 4).
In three nvpUes, the
high enough to be of some
eases, the well has been tak
monitor for the contaminant
However, as with THMs, the
of the contaminant in the source water was
teem with respect to human health. In all three
off line (or eloeed} and the supply is continuing to
Concentrations in the finished water are Edl low.
Sti/rene Tolnaae Khylb^oima
f of Ulavlal mils
Lou Value (as/H
Blgb Valae (ag/l)
d by Google
SM
::?!
°
°
ill
«
,
„
^
;
2
M«S
1 ,4
,
o
d\
"
"
"
"
°
«
h
Si
"
°
■"
**
~
*
ill
-
-
>.
.
;
;
III
o
<>
3?«
'
ill
„
^
^
„
5
a
••5S
5
".
s
1
tl
'1'
:
1
1
1
II
"1
1
s
5
f
«3
«SS
SI
5
S
ll
!!^
:1
«
S
1
db,Google
B. P«MfeldM. Twent1r-«lg^t of the TO weDs monitored for pesticides were found ta
have B measurable concentration. The 18 welli reprcMnt Ifl suppUei. Of the 14
pesticides analysed, only Atrsiine, Bladex, Lasso, Dual, Sencor, and Dyfonat*
were fourMl. Of these rii pesticides, Dyfonste Is the only Insecticide, the rast are
herbicides.
Table 5 summarizes the pesticide Information nrlth respect to the frequency of
occurrence and range of concentrations. The high concentrations In parenthesia are
values associated vrlth one unique sItuBtian. The city involved has now doeed the
wells which produced these values. However, the water taken fnm these walls
does represent the water quality of the alluvial aquifer at that location.
rxBU 5
Angary of ftegiwae; aisl Range of CoDgantratioos
Jofaraatioa for Varteua M*ticlda«
Atraslna Biadex laaaa Dual SaiEor ^rotii ta
[UK .1 .1
Slgb 3.0(13.0) 1.4
Atrazlne was the most commonly detected pesticide being found in 14 wells in 14
suppLes. BladcK was the second moat commonly detected pesticide foimd in seven
wells In six supplies. Lasso and Dyfonate were each detected in three supplies.
Only Atrazine was found In the finished water of any sivplies and it was present in
five of them.
There is a clear relationship between the depth of the weU and the appearance of
pesticides. Nineteen (19) of the wells with Atrazlne were alluvial and the other
five were bedrock. However, three of the five tiedroek wells were open to the
surface (i.e., the wells were not cased, the casing was perforated, the well was
located in a karat setting or the overlying alluvium was screened). Further, 14 of
the alluvial wells were less than SO feet deep.
d by Google
Oeologjcal Survey (IQ3) hai ahovm that the most eommonlv UMd twrbleidea are
occurring In ground water. Further, the work conducted by the 109 mg^Mt that
the largest percentage of the pesticide concentration Ig twing delivered to tlie
ground water through infntratiofi . The pestlcldea detected In thia survey are
iiJentlcal to those found in other studies and the concentrations are all within the
range of values found In other studies (Table S). Concentrations resulting from
tptUs would be expected to be much M^r.
Jgtjya rngretflent rraJe Mae Concantration n
fferfiicides
Alaehlor
Metolacblor
Metrltmiln
Iiaaeticldet
luso
JUraiine, /kCra,
Blader
mai
SsncDT, Leione
From the IGS studies in northeastern Iowa, 70 to 80 percent of the wells and
springs sampled In kant, ihallow-beilroelc, and alluvia] settings (In the latter two
categories, only infiltration recharge occurs) have shown detectable concentrations
of some pesticides over the course of a year. The percentage of wells sampled
containing pesticides In this survey Is somewhat less than the percentage found by
IGS (Table T). The discrepancy Is not great considering that the sampling of wells
in this survey represents one or two samples per well which may or may not have
been collected at the appropriate time for the detection of pesticides. The
monitoring conducted In this survey does suggest, however, that Atrazine is likely
to be present throughout the year (Table 8). The work of IGS also tends to
support this finding.
While concentrations appear to increase in mid-summer, the sample size is too
small to determine conctudvety. Overall, the ccHtcentrations are low and below any
known acute or chronic toxicity. The highest combined concentration from any one
well was 4.19 ug/1. However, it should be pobted out that very little is known
d by Google
about tie ehronie toxieity of the majority of postloldei. Far Ism !■
the health Imfriieatlons of ehronie ■ - -
their metaboUtei.
% of mia smplma la CImm
open aedrock
Bmdrack
4t.»
33.3
75.0
11.5
NOMJ) ia Whleb faMtleiOm a
B rahlte matmr SBjvlv
FSB mm mm lur JUH JUL MK sbp acr nor bbc
d by Google
COHCLOnOH
One huiKfred tw«nty-eight (128) wells Mrvlng sa suppllas were mofiltored ttt 31
SOC'a, and TO of the wolU were monltoMd for 14 peaticides over ■ one year perf-
od. The rites were selected on the belief that eontimlnants were likely to be
present in the wells. Contaminants were detected In 57 of the wells (44. n&)
serving 33 piAlle water supplies (Sfl.m).
A review of the geologic diU on the wells sampled indicates that 81 (4T.m) were
alluvial wells. Thirty-one (31) of the alluvial wells (SO.M) were found to have at
least cne contaminant present in a measurable concentration. Twenty (SO) weUs
(IS. 8%) were finiihed to the pllestocene or deep alluvial formations. Eight (40. IRS)
of the pllestocene wells were found to be contaminated. In the ease of the nve
wells (3.9%) flnbhed to the betfrock but open to the surface because of a lack of
easing or perforated casing, all Hve were found to have one or more contaminants
present. Forty-one (41) weHs (32. (M) were finished and cased to deep beA-oek
formations. Thirteen (13) of the bedrock wells (31, W) were found to be
contaminated. The survey suggests that shaUow ground-water systems are more
likely to be ewttamineted and that no ground -water system b safe from
halomethanes (THMs) were foind in 13 weUs (10. Z6 of wells monftored) and the
finished water of tl supplies. In total, IS supplies (31. UK of those sillies
monitored) were found to have THMs In either their weUs or their finished water.
One simply exceeded the 100 ug/1 standard for total trilMlomethanes In the finished
water. However, the standard applies only to dtles with a populaticn greater than
10,000. IVlhalomethanes may be expected to form In the finished water of any
stpply, but are not expected to be found In raw water. However, 13 wells did
have measurable concentrations of THMs; yet, seven of the si^iplles served by these
wells had no THMs detected in the finished water. The survey dearly shows that -
THMs are present In ground-water although no explanation can be offovd for their
The second major group of contaminants was composed of 1! commonly detected
synthetic organic compounds. Tlie presence of these contaminants suggest a waste
disposal or spQl site may be Impacting the ground water. Pour of the compounds
were aromatics commonly asaoclated with petroleum products. This group of
contaminants was detected In 25 wells (19,7%) of 17 supplies (29.3%). No single
compound from this group affected a large number of sqiplles. Tetrachloroethene
was the most commonly detected organic of the group, being found in eight wells
of six supplies (10.9%). Most of the wells In which <vie or more of the organics
from this group were found were shallow. The survey indicated that a small but
limited number of supplies prlmarDy drawing water from shallow alluvial systems are
being contaminated.
db,Google
the most eommonly detected contaminant found In the lurvey. ACrasinB waa
detected in measurable coneentratiou in U weQa (34.!%) of 14 atvpliM (39. M.
The five other pesticides detected were Bladex. Laso, Dual, Senear, and tlw
insecticide Dyfcnate. Research conducted by the Iowa Oeologfcai Survey over ttw
past four years hat shown that most of the pesticide concentrations In ground water
are derived through intntratlcn. Further, they have shown that the source of the
oontaminants is nonpoint In nature arriving In the ground water as a result of
widespread application to overlying fields. The results of this survey tend to
si^pcrt the findings of IGS In terms of the widespread nature of the problem, the
concentration and dlitrlbutian of pesticides in ground water over time aid the
apparent systematic deterioration of shallow ground-watar systems resulting from
inflltraticn of commonly used pesticides.
All concentrations observed In the survey were below any level cutiwitly thought to
poee an Immediate threat to Itiman health and all sif>pllest from which positive
samples were collected, have been advised to continue to monitor. In aev«a]
cases, the Department of Water, Air and Waste Management has initiated additional
field work to attempt to Identify and resolve the problem. WhUe eoneentratlons of
contaminants detected in ground water are below known acute and chronic toxic
levels, there is a legitimate concern for public health. There is a g«nera! lack of
intormatlon regarding the health effects related to human exposure for many of the
contaminants found in this survey.
At the present time relatively unprotected aquifers are being affected by the
contaminants found in this survey. However, if such chemicals persist in ground
water they will likely be transmitted to deeper, generally more protected, aquifers
and thus expose larger populations over longer periods of time. Therefore, it is
Important that activities be undertaken to Identify and eliminate the sources of the
contamination and ensure the adequate detection of contaminants In the future.
d by Google
RBCOMMBRDATIO^
I tha extent and signifies
1 should be undertaken to identify the source of THMs In
4) Supplies using ground irater ftawn from relatlvaty unprotected formations, or
found to have contaminants present aa a result of thb survey, should monitor
regularly for those contaminants commonly detected in groisM) water.
5) Ongoing and proposod research to assess environmentally sound and sate
agricultural chemical use should be encouraged.
db,Google
Wtteiloo 0»»fa
ei^in SaoTffl' Pacific Corp. (Ft. Bodga)
John Decre D'2baijue ffocks IDuiKiqviB} Trigga Haimi f actor inj fBalMOOdf
Kaalaa salabury Ltbotatory (CltazlaM Cltfif
Plainfleld Morleu) Ciintmia Co. fUdaa)
traverly Chtilat Cleg *
Janesviile Wabstmr City *
Akron At Initio
Sarly (tarns
Beapaza Waatalda
Sp^ieec Omlmm
Pisrson llAfletoB
Srttlg Hiamxjit Vallmv
George Coaaell Bluffs
Jtaek Rapids * Slmaianaoali
Oimrtge City Bailaa
Soath Sioux WA
5ioux Ciev
Gllwore City
amthan Tracking (Baftale)
Kiddle Aiwiu
Celimbaa Junction
Chemplex (Clinton)
awfteve Chemical Co. (Clinton)
Red Jacket Pomp (IMvanport)
Clxvron Oxmlcal (Tt. (todisooj
LeClalre
■m) •
d by Google
Msncnn caaoamt smar anumcia, pjajtama
alpha-BBC (A Benzene Herachlorlde)
beta-BBC fB Benxene BexachlorideJ
delta-BBC (Benzene Bexactiloildej
gaima-BBC (Lindane)
CftJordane
DOT (TDE)
Dichlarodlphenyltxlcblai
(I fSBOBJ
Sndaaulfan I (TMolan 1}
Sndosulfan IZ [Thiodan II)
SnSaaulfaii sulTate
Bndrin (Br^rexj
Bndrln aldehi/de
Beptachlor
Beptachloi fpoxida
Taia^mne ( poli/chloracan
IXjfoBate (Fonotoa)
Counter (Tmrbufoai
laiaban (cblozpgritoa)
rhlaet fphoiate)
MoCap ISthoprop)
Atcattne (Atrax)
Bladex (Ojaaatlaa)
Laaao fAIacloif
neflan (Trlflaralla)
Senear (Ketribuxin)
Dual (Metolaehlat)
PrtKl r PmndlaKthalln)
Mtlben (Chloranben)
Baarel (Dieanha)
2,4-D
Stlvex
snnHBTZc OKMnc coKPoam stutt juiujtzcu, pJuuKsmts
acri/lonltrile
bis(cbl oTomethy I) at her
beoaoform
bcomod ichl oconet bane
di bromocbl arontethane
dichlorodiflu oronethane
l,l-dlt:hloroethjine
l,2-dicbloroet)iane
1,1-dichloToettiene
1 , 2-dIchloropn3pane
1 , 3-dlc!il oropropi/1 eoe
ethylbenxene
aathtjl broMilde
methyl chloride
aetbglene chloride
1,1,2, 2-tetTachloroethane
tetracbl otoetheae
1,1- trans diebloroethene
l,l,l-txlc:hl oroet luns
1,1,2-tzlchloroethaiie
ti lehloioetbene
viayl chloride
db,Google
Citg
Contaalaane
rw tlaiMh
raw finish
rnK tialBh
rw
tinlMh
Atlantic
X
X
X
X
OeeoraJi
1
X
X
X
X
X
JabB Oeere
X
X
Baily
T
X
X
X
alOridga
T
X
X
C«rge
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gllmoiu City
X
X
X
X
X
Sarian
X
X
LaClain
X
J»«rne
J
T
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vail SI)
«
X
X
X
«u™tl»
X
X
X
spacer
)r
X
X
X
(favMly
X
X
WeMslde •
X
X
X
X
Janeas'IlA
X
X
fl«per.
X
* well off-lint
d by Google
city
ContMMinaBt
rJ^fSLi
Khslbamaat
Tolama
cm, tiitlah
st<,ttm
im, finish
V,110V
X
X
Muicatinm
X
Oaaga
X
Wemaide •
X
nmralg
X
PolX C±t9
X
-+-»-
#H!r|
db,Google
1
1!
-
-
-
■
.
1 :
i
-
-
"
■
-
■
■
■
iii
■
-
■
ji;
-
■
■
■
j|i
-
-
■
-
! !
-
1
-
-
-
',
;
=
1
>
1
li
!
}
1
u
1
i
1
i
I
if
1
1
1
si
db,Google
tv
,^'Sa
rj"^!,
■IMI. ««
'
'
•tl.«ic
I
1
»
»
«*.««
1
>WJV
I
I
I
z
UOIf.
I
I
I
1
'
I
«»
J
nntl«
.
X
Or-^Sit,
1
'
'
'
a«»
•
5rw«
JT
.™-lir
fc.p«.
1
*
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
d by Google
ne iM acaeulg toxle at rarjr hifb aoaBmatxmttoiM. Oam
I taath haa bmn uttzUmtti to ao upoann of 20,000
BcpMDz* CO &I9A c(sic«atratlc(ia «■!! J«ad eo naaaaa,
cte, uaeoiwcioiisiMss, conmlaiona or pialyalM, lealm
tovlcltv ia ymaarall^ aaaeelatad w' ' ' ~ '
I fumtaea tlire^ieejlopaalM, t»a-
kopmiia, m/mloeytic aaamia «Dd laakamla, ~'
oeexipatlaaal axpoaara to fi«na«na la 10 pta
rant Jitacfltura doaa ast pzoriia a cl
latlatmhlp in cAroaic aipoauca of >"-T"t to isDHa*. Mta
on tlH toxic attmcta ot Ingaatioa ara not ccaipJ>ta.
Jiccaptabla Short-Teza Brpeauxa Laval -
Hecaptabla Xaog-Tarm Sxpeaaza Larel -
- 130 ttg/1
- 70 ag/l
Jcuta Bipoaura:
TOWEHB
All ot tha Information arallable aa acuta Au
taJiniiB ni^TSSt that it ba» a narcotic affect. Tba major
■acateJieea of toJuana ara ralattvaly irancooua. Tn fact,
oaa of tbaaa matabolltaa, baaaolc acid, Jiaa btaa afprevad
aa aa antlMleroblal food additive lit concaittratlona up to
1,000 ppB.
chronic BSpoaun: Reporta o
indicataa tiMt a
around 200 ppa.
inhalation. Dat
nr expoatire to toluana angvaat tint oon-
100 ppa Aave ao affaet apaa luaana. aitj
a affocta of narcoaia ara Arident at
tpaauTB la yeofrallg associataf vlth
on tAa toxic affects of lasaatloa ara not
Jlceeptable Sbert-Term Bcposura Lerel -
Axaptabla lonT-rarnr Sxpoaure Leval -
Cancer RlsA Assesaiiwnt -
- 11, 500 ag/1
340 ug/l
d by Google
coBfmi lant : TrnucaiORoanais
Jtcutw Btpcwura: A alnjlB axpoaura at 300 ffm In mma Im* btto mhont to af-
fect Uw c«ntra] tmrroaa mjttam. Similar atfaetM In luains
wara not aaan In eoncaatiatltaiM ot iOO mb. nia oral. U>5o
la dosa and latAlta la 4,000 mg/kg aoS S,000 agfttg, raapac-
Chronic Bcpeaaiei Cbioole axpeaaxa atailaa hara baan eoaloctad on rata, rab-
blta, jgjnili pi9a and moakasa at vaitoaa coaeaDtratloaa
(100-1,500 pim) ovar varloua partoda of Uas fll-3S0 dai/s}.
Ho wiTaraa aftacta wara obaarrai at IOO Btm, Bamrar, a
lack of iata on aita^cDlcity ud cartslnogaaiclt^ praranta
aas aoaetdaat aatlmataa of tJi* «£r«ct« 0f chronic oral
axpoaura.
Mceaptalila Sftort-TarB Biponira Laval — 2,300 vg/l
tecaptabla laag-Tant apoaura Laval — — — — x ag/l
19/1 Sxaaaa cancar* of I in
- 35 W'
J.S 1d6
ContaMlaant! ntXCBUOOBTOSlB
Acute Brpoaure
eridaiit M axtraaali/ high rataa ol axpoaara.
Chronic Expoaurf! I^iny tarm expoaura to ti ichlaromthan^ has baaa shown to
have eaxelnoganle atteeta on aniaal pofuJaCiona. Tiichlo-
roattene haa baan daacBatratad to ba mitagaalc la mleroor-
ganiaaia and cauaed cranaforjucion la aultarad maimaliaa
catla.
Acceptable stort-Taria atpoaura Laval 200 ag/1
/Itxeptable Long-Term Sxposare Level 4.S ii?/J
cancer Rlak Aaaeaamaat tfsne
db,Google
ContamlMnti l.l.l-THICSWttOtmaB
Blgti Ooaaga at i , J , i-rrleMoroMhuM will eaaa* itojttwavian
or tlta aaatxml rmzrioaa syttaa, lof Of wmmal daxtaric^,
coord iDBt loo and frteaptlea. IDhal'tioa !• tJM atjor rout
= Bcpoouivi rAw i« BO dMta CO «ii99a<t aoy aArarv* hHith ttrtctm ft
laag Mm •apomtra. Toittor, tbar* la ao •ridane* to ang
Taac that l,l,l-Tiiebloro»tliaam ia earelaoymile, Baiiwrmt
tbara im aoam data to soppolt tba taratOTanlclttf of tlm
~, albalt 1
Acceptable Short-Tarm Srposurs Lerel --■-- JOCh-SOO oj/1
Jleeeptabla Leog-Taim Bxpoauie Itaral ,6ol ag/1
Cancer Ulak Aaaeaament Hods
contaminant! MgTBIIXHa CSWRIDB
..ihTuca Brpoaure; Theze aia no knovn eltaets apea luaui AoaltJi fro> axpoaui-a
to metJtgleae chtoeide at aoncentzatlora betveaa S0~100 ppm.
Prlmarii exposure la tliroagh InAiJation. Riarafara, CAa ra-
co^mnded accapatlanal expoaare Jarei la 75 ffa. aanvmr,
the oral LD^O values tar varicna onlaais are .9S - 2.3
Chronic Sxpeeurei
Ho Iceeptable Sxpoeare Levela are a7allable.
So Career Risk Aaaeaameat la available.
db,Google
Contaminant: CXKBON TBTRKBLtXIDB
Xcute Srposure: Carbon TBtiachlor Ida waa one:* 'luaif at a tfJt— nf toi book-
■forxa. Thoaaaada ot patlaata Aars baan givan alnjla doaas
of 1.5-lS ml mtboat adreras haaltb efPacta. One nse has
Iieen reportad aa brrinq aatalg In^artad 40 ml of ttie cheml~
cal. Boinver, a amall aduJt p^ulatlan baa died after re-
celvlag eoBcaateaeioaa of l.S mg/I, and dooea ot .It-. 93 ml
bora baen rmportrnd to ba fatal to cliildrmi. Aleohoi con-
aamptlon onZuucaa toxicity.
Cliroiiic Brposurs; 9b lon^-tara toxieit? data i> araltabta for caxben tetra-
ehlerlda. Bamirat, anlaai caieineganlcit!/ otudies producad
poaitira raanita and tha cbamlcal i> conaidered to lie a
auapacted luaao eaiclMigaii.
Jleeaptabla Short-Tarm Kxpoaaza Lavul 200 ag/l
Xcceptable Leag-Taim Bxpoeaim Loral 3D ag/l
<n/l Pteaaa Caneera of 1 in
1.3-DKEWfOtTBMIB
Brpoaura to 1,3-SicIiIoroetIiaae at both acute and cAronlc
lasala raaalta in Uvar auS Udnaif dyaAuction accompanied
bg circulatory dana^e. Suaan iji^eation of 1 ,3~alchloroa-
thane Aas t«en dociuwnted. Msat of tbc case reports dsa-
crSbB fatal conaeguancaa . Sovaver, ns aatiafactorif dose
response data is avallabia prvaanClu.
Ha Acceptable Bcposur* Levels are aira liable.
a^/1 Bxeeaa Caiteera o
Cancer risk Asaeaaaent 70 iO*
db,Google
1 , 1 , ?-TDFCBI(»»BmiWB
^tcut* Btposurei Mb toxle affacta hare been oluervaif in Auwuta. U>^'» la
Ceat anljHJa hava Iwwi <7«i(7uJjit*d at .5S-.J5-3.73 ftir nea,
ales and raUiea, reajMctiveiy.
chronic Stpoaure.- M> avaiiaUa ifaea.
no Axaptable Bxpoaim tevmla are afallahla.
Ho Cancer filaJt Jlaaasanont la oralJaUe.
Contajainane : PBSTICIDBS
Nat rarprialrtyly, perttctdea geneialli) sxhlklt relatlv»Ig ion
acute eoxiciCy eJiarjc eer lat iej . ffoimrer, Cte carcloDjrenlcltf
ot elwae coHiKunda are oreen o£ giaatei eoacaro. la tbe
past, the Katlonal Jicadams at Sciencaa haa aatabllabed naco-
sented acceptable dally Intafta (ilDI) values foz ■ nambar ot
peatleldBS. The ADJ vmIub waa based apoa chroDie taeainf
BtadlBB with conslderationa balog aads for data tor a lack
of) an matagsnlcltg, teratogBnicltg and iDtormatloa on aeji
and strain, nie accsjitaMe dally IntaJCe value reflects the
no observed etfecta level IttOBLJ Cffer aoae tactot eg uocar*
tainty or safety factor. The aatst^ factor raprasents tfta
Icrel of contldBTce that tna determlaed to be Justified od
the haala ot animal and Auaan toxicity data.
standard Safaty ractors for Ttoxlcoloylcal affects
Bffect Safety Factor*
rodent or doy studies
cAoIinesterase inAlbitlon based aa hunan KOBL 10
general toxicity based on chronic studies 100
cbolloeaterase inhibition based on subcbronic studies 300
teratogenic effects at least 100
general toxicity based on subcbronlc studies 2,000
d by Google
If tA* iMtt tnaicat^a m HOBL of 35 mg/kv/dMi) uHf ■ Mf€tg
factor of 1,000 vas u«wf, tba accaptabln laral would te
15/1,000 or .025 ■?/*?. rals Valua Ij tAon usatf to aataA-
ilsA a nineatad le<rul ox cancantnttoa of the pollataot la
drinking mtai. 7a calinlatiag the valua tea Szinklni
vat»r. It raa nnimmai tbKt tbm wraiaga might oC a tumaa
HMM 70 kg) the avaiaga daily laeaJu of mtar fat that luaun
waa tvo litaraf and that 30« of C&ose tvo Utazs me takan
1b dlraeeitf u drlnUag waUr. Tb»refara, from the aiampla
ahor*, atm coald dmzin tlte maximal iaral oa the pollataitt
alleuabla in driaUng meer to Jm eonaiderad aafa to &• .7
■g/I f2S/l,(»0 " .025 X TO g 0.4 - .7 ■ff/j;,
ritt foiiwiii; la a
'■ four raaalnln?
tiiair aaaoclatad KOa.
BASIS FOR XXgPTJtaiX
iNTtKS cjuajuaiotis
Dm samuFT im the hosl
Mrmxtm - Rat taracolon, aOBL ■ 100 ag/kg 3-raar dog faading,
- Hagatlvm mtttgmtialtg (I atndvJ Cora atuviaaanCaryi*
rto otter Pivotal data ara ooe mobl • ISO tfm
adOgnata (COKX iiijuitiiMiiriii g.l es
regulate this chenlcaX:
- J-reai dog feeding, nOBL - 150 ppn
rum
- 3-Genetation rat reproduetion, _
WOBt - 100 WW (ItPT) usiJV Cfte SOW
form iae Ion 1
db,Google
MUSJS TOR HCCBFTAaa
nrrnKB cALCOuinaiis
Djax aamxs ana m Host
latolacblor - 6-aoath dog foedlxg, S-maath •log tending
MEL • 100 mm WSL • WO pt^ wntJk
(Daal) - 3-Teaz supplementMrg (ZBT) oaco.
In rate! weaJt oncogen, i.e. Ilror
- 2-reai etiroalc la rat (repeat
sCudyJ: mak oBcagan - Itrmz
eunors, HOBL • 30 ppn (testlcalai
- J'Tear oncogi-n In moasa negattra
■at 3,000 ppn Hlgftest Osse Tatted
(BCr) It^uatrtal alo-reat, vall-
datei)
- }-ysneratlon r«t reproduction -
300 ppm
- Teratology rat HOBL - 360 mj/Mg
ISDT)
- Tezatolojg rabbit HOBL - 360 mj/Xg
- Mutagenlcltgi negative (2 tests)
- Poaltlm akin sunsltlser
- 2-Teax oncogen lo maaei negative
at 3,000 ppm (SUT)
Ct/anazlnB - Teratology in Fisber rat: a po- 2~Tear rat temdtng,
I Bladex) tent al v.i- teratogen. (HOSL tor Core sapplemeatary!
atady not !)« detarnlned; HOBL ■ 13 ppm
nlO ag/kg far alcroaphthalia/
tioMl studifc, the HOEL ma\i be
lower than 1 mg/kg (LSfT) tor lirer
inJuceit hernia J
- Terarologu in SD rat; neijatJff'e at
30 mg/kg (BUT), (hxrever, mo not
- Teratology la rabbiti negative at
J raj/ki} SDT , NDBL " I ag/kg/day
- 2-year oncogen in mice; negative
at 1,000 ppm fBDT)
db,Google
camxim djo'a aaimjar wp tbs hosl
WXJlinigjn - XiUiC tmXMtoloni HOB, • IS mj/leg J-t«ai 'lag lasding
(EDT) lat Coze clAaaifiBd.-
(Saoeor) - Kafqtaisitgi arngmtiyt (tbimm KIEL ■ UO n>
t*«eaj. ill cAe otter Plvottl
data mre mt a>BE cUaBtfivS
- 2-raar dog feoding SOSL - 100 nm
- 3-Jaar rat te^alng/ oncogen , augt-
tiB» far oaocogmcity! HOML ■ 300
Pf
- 3~Jaaz woaam oasogaa, na^atiir* m
3,100 ppm SOT
- 3-Csn. tf product ion, K>SL ■ 300
- Rat tmiatologg, WOBL > 100 mg/kg
In -tiiB ctat at alaeblta Luso Cte grxateat concern i> t
carcimgenlcitg ot tim peitictia, The SPA bis made Oia
follcKlng aasessment of -the rist of in-reased cvkwc m «
leanit of Ingestion af bsso In the dclnkln; mtsri
fppb;
Lifetine CaiKer Sis*
" «8 "■"I
" «i "■"
O.iS
I0«
iO? to Hl<
2.S
los
10« toioS
15.0
»<
loS tolO<
xriei) data its unara liable
StJ>9UaDi«M
1 , 1-dtebloroetbaaa
Dgtonata
db,Google
la the couraa of conditcClag ths original aaMpllng, coiman ayneAatlc orgaaics
ware Oatected In sappiiaa danatrBam of tlm LaSauntg vaits 41«paMl >it« In
Cbailea Citi]. In it •tfort to matabliatt whether or not the LaJtoooeif «lt*
couid Ae a paeatble ssurca of tJie eeataalaaata , additional Mpaatml aoaitoriiv
vaa ctjndacted at aevaial locations (townatrsaB ot Cbaxlea City. jUI mlla
autplea in this apaeial aoaleorlas mra kirtra to ba taklag mtar frem the
Cedar Valley aquifer.
db,Google
6) Drlaklng Vaear aaS Wealth. Hatleoal Jkiadami at Sclancaa, 1977.
Ballbarg, G.B., Bov«r, S.B., Battla, B.A., lit, ami Libra, H.D.i Bi^dro-
geelem, Hatar Qaalttw. aed Land (tonjga— nt 1b tft» Jig Spelot Baaln,
Claiitoa County, Zona! lema Oeelogleal surraii, Opma-rilm Report S3-3,
1983 .
Ballbmc^, a.R., Soyer, B.B., Libra, R.D., Bettle, S.A., XJZ, <nf
Kesameger, O.G.: tMltieoal wqiOMJ CronnautT Quality Data From tA«_
Kam-Carbaaata Ugaltera of Hortlmamt Zarat Zetta Oaoleqleal Sarrtu,
Opeit-rile Peport 13-1, 1993.
Ballherg, a.B., Libra, K.A., Bettla, a, A., Ill, a^ Baser, B.B.i ggdro-
gaoJogie aal Water QuaJity Zn^ettigmtloaa is the Bill Bgrla^ Baaln.
Ciii/toa CouaCB, Zaia, 1983 Water-Teari ZaKa Geological Sarveg, Opea-File
Report 84-4, 1984.
Ballbezg, a.R., Libra, R.
Koyer, B.S.: Teaparal Cb
Mortheaatern laiai Zaia Oeolofleal Surra<i, Opeo-File Import B*-l, 1984.
Floi/d jixf Mitchell Coantiea, Zaiai Zona Geological Sarveg, Opea-Flle
db,Google
db,Google
db,Google
db,Google
Lias DDt 33a StD
I
STANFORD UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
STANFORD. CALIFORNIA 94305-6004
I
^^oogle
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11