It would seem from comments that have been made that the 3(c), 1(d) and section 10 problems, dealing with the data problems, are going to get an awful lot of addressing here within these hearings. There is no question that they are a real problem within the act.

However, I feel that you gentlemen need to look real strongly at this cancer policy because it would seem that the saccharin issue has brought some politics to bear that did not exist earlier; but the cancer issue is not going to go away. The fact that the Agency is using some 17 principles dealing with carcinogens, many of which have sound bases, argumentative on the other side. I would like to see you gentlemen address the national cancer policy issue quite strongly.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you. I think you have made some real fine suggestions.

Senator LEAHY. The national cancer policy, you want it developed through EPA, or FDA?

Mr. BARR. I would like to expound very strongly that it should be developed outside of the Agency.

Senator LEAHY. But they would be bound by it.

Mr. BARR Yes, sir. I see no problem with the same principles being developed in Food and Drug, EPA, and all of the other agencies because they are addressing basically the same issue.

and

Now, the Agency itself has come forward with some proposal, we commend them for their constructive thinking and changes to the law they feel should be made in order to make it more workable. I have already addressed our position on sections 3(c), 1(D) and 10, which we really would not like to get into in great detail because we are in a different position. Now, the other four provisions that they have proposed, we will support, we think they are quite applicable. Senator LEAHY. Senator Lugar?

Senator LUGAR. You underscored in your oral testimony a national cancer policy. What do you mean by that? I gather essentially that you are discussing criteria that ought to be used, and you are talking about many governmental policies. Will you describe in your own words what you mean by our “taking a hard look at the national cancer policy"?

Mr. BARR. Well, sir, I think you are familiar with the problem. Now, Delaney and I stand corrected on that if my memory does not serve me right-Delaney says, I believe, that this should not apply to pesticides is that not right, Jim?

Mr. BROWN. There is another clause in the act, the Delaney clause itself does not; but there is another amendment to the Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1958 that more or less exempts agricultural chemicals and pesticides on agricultural commodities.

Mr. BARR. But many of the principles that are in effect with the EPA right now, that they addressed, deal with the refusal to acknowledge a dose response, that there is no level at which any chemical is safe. And of course the principle of Delaney applies here, and you have an indication of carcinogens in laboratory animals, and it is assumed that cancer-causing agents would apply to human beings. And those levels along those lines are most important because most of your laboratory animals data is done for an extended period of time at extremely high dosage levels. Now, you run into this, I am sure, dealing

with diethylstilbesterol in cattle, and with the nitrite issue in bacon; it runs the whole gamut of the thing. Once they are pesticides they are considered to be suspected carcinogens. So, it bites the dust, eventually.

Senator LUGAR. So, when you are talking about this change in policy you are really discussing the Delaney amendment. In other words, you are asking for a rule of reason, or balancing. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I want to find where you come out on it.

Mr. BARR. It is my honest opinion that if Congress is going to address this issue properly it will require some change in Delaney, or at least some broad-scale interpretation.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. I remind everybody-including myself to speak up so that our reporter can get every word that we say.

I want to ask you one question. Looking of your testimony on page 3 you talk about EPA's announcement of toxaphene on RPAR, and the 20-minute video tape. I understand from EPA that the tape primarily describes the process of RPAR, and it is not a case against toxaphene. Have you actually seen the tape yourself?

Mr. BARR. I have not seen the tape.

Senator LEAHY. I have not, either, but I want to note that for the record that the EPA is simply showing the process, and it is not a case against it.

Mr. BARR. That being the case, we welcome an explanation.

Mr. BROWN. I have not seen it either, Mr. Chairman, but it is my understanding that it does both, it introduces the process and it also cites as an example the toxaphene. It was released at the same time as the announcement on toxaphene.

Senator LEAHY. If the other members of the subcommittee have no other questions, we thank you very much.

The next witness is William Buffaloe, president of the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials, Raleigh, N.C.

Mr. Buffaloe, we welcome you to the committee. We have a statement from you which will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Buffaloe has recommended specific changes, complete with language, to be used in the law. It might be best if you gave us a specific overview-without going into the language of why you feel the way your statement indicates.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BUFFALOE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PESTICIDE CONTROL OFFICIALS

Mr. BUFFALOE. I guess first, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be good for me to indicate what we are, the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials. We do represent the agricultural, environmental and health departments, and universities, who are responsible at the State and territorial levels for regulating the production, labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides.

Our statement, by the way, has been reviewed by each of the States and territories, and from the response we received it appears there is unanimous agreement.

Senator LEAHY. I must point out at this point that I understand that from my own State of Vermont, and also take the prerogative to

93-197-77–

make available to every member of the subcommittee a letter which I expect to insert later in the record from the Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture, Ronald Allbee, of Vermont,* who has suggestions and statements which have been extremely helpful to me and my staff in preparing for these hearings. Certainly, if any member of the subcominittee has similar material, I will be glad to have it entered in the record.

I might also mention, Mr. Buffaloe, that I am aware of the work that you have done with the various States in trying to reach a consensus; and again, that work is extremely helpful to the subcommittee. We are glad that somebody went out to get a consensus for us because we do not have the facilities and time to do so. Please, continue.

Mr. BUFFALOE. If you would, rather than reading the actual wording changes we are recommending, I can go over the six points, as we have it, just indicating the purpose of these.**

The first one is in regard to the definition, or interpretation of section 12(a) (2) (G), use in a manner inconsistent with the labeling. Here we are saying that there is a critical need to clarify what constitutes a violation of this provision. Currently widespread confusion exists as to what flexibility is permitted in the use of pesticides; and this would set forth the areas of misuse that are minor variations, such as spoken to earlier would be permitted as necessary, to achieve efficient results, such as lower rates specified on labeling.

The second issue is State registration of pesticides. Here we are recommending that we go back to the day when States could register pesticides without the limitations and restrictions of EPA.

On current preemption of State authority to register pesticides for use within such State, that has created an unnecessary hardship on agriculture and other areas of pest control.

Under 24 (c) the regulations that they have now are very restrictive, and we understand that they are going to be even more restrictive when they are finalized.

Until FIFRA was amended the States exercised their authority to issue State registration. To my knowledge such registration has not resulted in a determination of unreasonable, adverse effects on man or his environment. Even within the last few years, the last 10 years, State registrations have succeeded even while the EPA system has broken down.

A third issue is an amendment to establish guidelines for determining unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. The purpose of that is to determine unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, and to determine risk. It would provide for more than adequate margins for safety and utilize margins historically applied by the Federal Government in the establishment of tolerances. The 2,000-fold margin of safety for carcinogens would remove the current EPA pesticide policies regarding carcinogens as basis for rebuttable presumption against registration, which are really far more severe than the Delaney amendment which triggered the recent saccharin problem.

The fourth issue is applicator certification as an alternative to any cancellation of any pesticide. Here we would ask that language be

*See p. 115 for the letter from Deputy Commissioner Allbee with attachments. **See p. 117 for the prepared statement of Mr. Buffaloe.

incorporated into the act to establish consideration of restricting a pesticide's use to trained applicators as an alternative to cancellation. The fifth issue is training and certification. Here we are asking to incorporate language into the act indicating that through continuing grants-in-aid and cost-sharing programs the training and certification programs will be funded federally, and that they are federally mandated.

And our last issue is enforcement interpretations pertaining to selling and distributing pesticides. The purpose of these amendments is to confirm that applicators-not just the structural pest people, but all commercial applicators and custom blenders are not in the business of selling pesticides when performing these services referred to. Senator LEAHY. By definition.

Mr. BUFFALOE. Right. The interpretations of EPA relative to these individuals have been contrary to their historical role, and this would clarify it.

Senator LEAHY. That is an extremely complete statement, and I appreciate the specificity of the statement.

Senator Allen?

Senator ALLEN. Mr. Buffaloe, I would like to say that I have heard from the commissioner of agriculture for the State of Alabama, Mr. McMillan Lane, commending your testimony to me, and stating that his department had some input into the recommendations that are being made by you. I, too, along with the chairman, appreciate the recommendations that you are making. I think they will be helpful to the committee if we consider the recommendations that you have made, and the suggested language. I commend you on your fine testimony and believe it will be of great help to the committee. Thank you. Mr. BUFFALOE. We appreciate the opportunity to be here. If we can be helpful to you or your staff, we certainly will be happy to do so. Senator LEAHY. Thank you, we will not hesitate to call on you. I appreciate the help you have given us. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Robert Russell, the vice president for training and standards, Rollins Orkin & Co., of Atlanta, Ga.

Mr. Russell's statement will be in the record. I think the concern he expressed is summed up very much in the first statement where he says he speaks for the benefits of pesticides, their future contributions may rest with this committee and the Congress.

I would ask you, Mr. Russell, if you would like to summarize for us the conclusions you reached in your statement.* I expect that both Senator Allen and I will have some questions.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT RUSSELL, VICE PRESIDENT FOR TRAINING AND STANDARDS, ROLLINS-ORKIN & CO., ATLANTA, GA,

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have the same concerns as some of my predecessors do. I feel that somewhere in the Agency they are apparently going in the direction of doing away with pesticides. They are more rigidly controlled, I think, than what is demanded under FIFRA. We would like the certification process tried, too, before a pesticide is canceled, or suspended. I have

*See p. 121 for the prepared statement of Mr. Russell.

a great deal of reservation about the RPAR process. I think for us to prove that a pesticide we have been using safely for 30 years needs a certain amount of data before we can continue to use it, gives us great cause for concern. So, we generally are concerned about the loss of pesticides.

Specifically, there are two points that we have concern about. One is, they tell me now I am a seller of pesticide. I have been in business for a long time, and I have never had a retail license to sell pesticide, and all of a sudden EPA tells me that I am a seller of pesticide. They do this so that they can do several things which are not within their framework. We would like to see that corrected by the Congress, by the committee. Also, we would like to see the 12(a) (2) (G) section corrected. It is very rigidly enforced, and we feel that it is unfair to a

user.

I think EPA feels the same way. They have advanced language regarding this section, and that language seems fair.

But we feel that the Congress and the committee are going to have to be the agents to bring these things about. Because back in 1975, we had hearings before a congressional committee, and there were certain criticisms advanced about EPA not meeting the legal deadlines. And Mr. Train came out with 10 points, things that he was going to do. The hearings ceased, and the attention passed, and these things seemed to subside. Now we are having hearings again. And all of a sudden they are decreasing their demands for efficacy data. They are proceeding with classification that is 5 years late. And they are stating that they will permit conditional registration of the 35,000 pesticides outstanding. I think they have 89 registered now for their October 21 deadline.

So, I think that it needs the attention of this committee and the Congress to assure that EPA's attitudinal direction which they have on pesticides is recognized.

Senator LEAHY. Senator Allen?

Senator ALLEN. Your comments here about the EPA listing you applicators as distributors and sellers, rather than users, who would be the user where your company applied the pesticide?

Mr. RUSSELL. We are the user.

Senator ALLEN. I know you are, but you said the EPA classed you as sellers and distributors.

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. That is what you said here, rather than "user." Mr. RUSSELL. Well, we are both to them. We have to be certified as a user, and yet they also say that we are a distributor and a seller. Senator ALLEN. Well, do you also sell pesticides, or do you only apply those that you have in stock?

Mr. RUSSELL. We apply those that we buy for the purpose of rendering a service.

Senator ALLEN. The only sales you make are the applications of the pesticide that you have.

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. You have no department that sells pesticides without the accompanying application; is that correct?

Mr. RUSSELL. In the main that is true of all of our industry. There may be some that sell at the retail price, but they are in the minority.