Senator ALLEN. I was interested in some of your statistics here, that you had 6 million pesticide applications, and personal injury claims due to pesticide for a 2-year period were 68, and the total cost of treatment for those was $4,410. What class of people were injured by the application of pesticide?

Mr. RUSSELL. These would be our service technicians, the people who made the applications for us.

Senator ALLEN. They would not be the homeowners, or building

operators.

Mr. RUSSELL. No, sir. I said in my statement, I think, none of our customers suffered any ill effects.

Senator ALLEN. It would be more or less a workman's compensation claim?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, there would be a skin rash, or something like that. I think our records show that though we paid $4,410, there were 68 accidents. We are not sure that all of them were justified, but we did make settlement.

Senator ALLEN. They must have been minor, then.

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. And there were no claims by customers, or the public generally.

Mr. RUSSELL. No, sir. There was no harm to people that we applied the pesticide for during that time.

Senator ALLEN. What pesticides that you have used in your business has the EPA banned, or put on the rebuttable presumption list? Mr. RUSSELL. Well, of course they banned DDT, and we made use of DDT. I do not really recall everything on the rebuttal list. Senator ALLEN. What are you using now.

Mr. RUSSELL. As one substitute we are using dursban. We are making greater use of pyethrin, which is botanical, and we use diazinon.

Senator ALLEN. Well, are these chemicals enabling you to render the same high type of effective service that you did in using the pesticides that are now banned?

Mr. RUSSELL. In general our cost has increased. We feel that our efficiency remains the same. You increase the number of applications if your pesticide is not as efficient. So, that is a labor cost, and therefore it increases the output costs.

Senator ALLEN. But the ultimate service to the customer, other than being more expensive, has not been of a lesser quality; is that right? Mr. RUSSELL. We hope not. We are trying to look way ahead in the future when they have taken them all away from us, and we are down to the fly swatter. We hope we will still be efficient.

Senator ALLEN. Any of the chemicals that you are now using, are they on the rebuttable presumption list?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir. I do not remember all of them specifically chlorodane will be suspended, and that is a big thing for us. They advocated lindane as a substitute, even though lindane is not federally registered for that procedure. So, it is on the rebuttable presumption list.

Senator ALLEN. Well, your company, then, has no interest in these matters of data compensation, you are interested in the ultimate product.

Mr. RUSSELL. Right.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much.
Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, sir.

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Russell, you pointed out that personal injury claims due to pesticide in the period 1975 and 1976 were 68, and the total cost of treatment $4,410. How many personal injury claims are outstanding right now?

Mr. RUSSELL. That we have outstanding?

Senator LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. RUSSELL. I really do not know, sir but I can tell you that they are very low. This study was very carefully done for us by our insurance department.

Senator LEAHY. I understand. Do you know how much is presently being claimed?

Mr. RUSSELL. No, sir, I do not.

Senator LEAHY. Or how much is being set aside to match claims?
Mr. RUSSELL. No, sir; I do not.

Senator LEAHY. I suppose your insurance department would have that figure readily available.

Mr. RUSSELL. I can certainly get it for you, yes, sir.

Senator LEAHY. If it is readily available, I would appreciate it for the record. Two things, one, the number of claims

Mr. RUSSELL. Outstanding, and the set-asides. Yes, sir, I will be happy to get it for you.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much.

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, sir.

[The following information was subsequently received by the committee:]

WARREN B. OXFORD,

ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., INC.,
Atlanta, Ga., June 28, 1977.

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Russell Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. OXFORD: As per my letter of June 22 to you, I have just received the information from our Insurance Department pertaining to personal injury claims:

Six (6) cases involving chemical poisoning from January 1, 1977 to May 31, 1977.

Total reserves-$7,953.00.

If additional information is needed, please let me know.

Sincerely,

R. M. RUSSELL,

Vice President, Training and Standards.

Senator LEAHY. For the information of those who are here, we will go until 11:15 this morning, at which time I have to be back over at the Senate. We will come back in at 1 o'clock and finish.

Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

Senator LEAHY. Our next witness will be Mr. Edgar Duskin, executive vice president, Southern Agricultural Chemicals Association, Dawson, Ga.

Go ahead, sir.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR DUSKIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION, DAWSON, GA.

Mr. DUSKIN. I believe you have had an opportunity to read my statement,* which is a reiteration of the points we made in previous testimony.

Senator LEAHY. Both here and in the House, right.

Mr. DUSKIN. Our two main points-and they have been touched on by previous witnesses today-are first, that we feel there is a definite need for a statement by Congress that again spells out, or points out to the regulatory Agency that Congress' intent regarding agricultural pesticides was that they are to be placed on the market and made available for use; and that research is to be encouraged for new ones, and perhaps safer ones, rather than the approach being just to eliminate as many as possible from the market.

Second, we strongly support the idea that we must have a national cancer assessment policy.

Senator LEAHY. In that regard, tell us for the record how the national cancer policy should be established; who should do it?

Mr. DUSKIN. It would be difficult to say precisely who, the National Academy of Sciences could be involved.

Senator LEAHY. How about EPA or FDA?

Mr. DUSKIN. We would not recommend that a regulatory agency establish a cancer assessment policy.

Senator LEAHY. But you feel that one could be established and should be established, which they should be bound by in making their determinations?

Mr. DUSKIN. I think the fundamental principle is that at some point we all have to recognize that what we are dealing with is risks to some degree; there is no such thing as no risk.

Senator LEAHY. I understand.

Mr. DUSKIN. That is true in almost anything. Therefore we are dealing with, really, what is the degree of acceptable risk of the various substances involved in the uses to which it is put.

Senator LEAHY. What is your feeling on data compensation?

Mr. DUSKIN. We strongly support the compromise position. We also contributed last night in discussions with our board members to Mr. Bell.

Senator LEAHY. The telephone lines were busy, from Washington. Mr. DUSKIN. Our association goes between the Pesticide Formulators Association and the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. Probably 10 percent of our members are also members of the Formulators Association; and about 20 percent of our members are members of NACA; the rest are independent formulators who for one. reason or another are not members of either, but who are affected directly by these actions.

Senator LEAHY. And you said you are in between.

*See p. 122 for the prepared statement of Mr. Duskin.

Mr. DUSKIN. We are with them 100 percent on the compromise position, and we had some small part in assisting them to reach it. Senator LEAHY. The position that Mr. Alikonis stated.

Mr. DUSKIN. Yes, and the one we understand the NACA will also present. We have participated and have been aware of the negotiations that have been going on.

Senator LEAHY. What about the position on trade secrets?

Mr. DUSKIN. We would follow that right along; our membership supports it right down the line. That is the only way we feel it can adequately work, and that the public interest is also adequately protected.

Senator LEAHY. Do you feel there were areas where your membership had to reach a compromise?

Mr. DUSKIN. Very definitely, it represents an honest compromise between two very divergent views.

Senator LEAHY. What are some of the things you gave up?

Mr. DUSKIN. Well, the small manufacturer felt that he gave up perhaps one right, that the Government would require he gets the data to register, although the arbitration position is a way of working it without having the EPA problem. We really do not feel that EPA has made a wholehearted effort ever to really implement the section; I think they are opposed to it in the first place, the idea of it. I think they will be, hopefully, just as happy as we will to get that element outside.

Senator LEAHY. What are some of the gains you see made by the compromise?

Mr. DUSKIN. No. 1, we feel that it will "unhang" this registration process. There are several gateways as you move along in the registration process. A law suit could have been filed, and legitimately so. Right now they have actually stopped the registration process. These are not the only things involved in the registration process that we have troubles with, but that one right now is the largest single gateway. There are still other problems down the road that also must be solved.

Senator LEAHY. It is certainly a major advantage to see that resolved.

Mr. DUSKIN. It has to be resolved, or the rest is not going to work. Senator LEAHY. Senator Allen?

Senator ALLEN. I gather that you feel EPA is seeking to eliminate the use of pesticides, rather than to find a way so that the innocent pesticides can be used to advantage of agricultural production.

Mr. DUSKIN. The experience of the industry would certainly indicate that, sir.

Senator ALLEN. And you feel that the mission of the EPA should be to recognize the importance, and even the necessity of using pesticides, and to conduct their operations in such a way as to permit crops to be grown, pesticides to be applied in such a way as to minimize the risk to the public generally and to those using the pesticides, but to take into account more the benefits that accrue from pesticides.

Mr. DUSKIN. Yes. The problem is, it is easier scientifically to establish risk, particularly when you are setting your own criteria as to what is the trigger for a risk. If you set the criteria right, you can make almost anything a risk. It is extremely difficult to come up with a counter

ing benefit that says that this particular product should be on the market.

Yet, that is the position that we and the agricultural industry are going to have to do. The States are all working on this. We want to be able to show the benefits, but I am not at all sure these benefits could be quantified adequately in black and white.

Then you get to my next point on the RPAR process which, though I am sure its intent was to create a device to bring out more facts about this, what is happening today is that you get a prejudicial press that in effect publishes all the risks and lays them out, and in effect frightens the public.

Senator LEAHY. And none of the benefits.

Mr. DUSKIN. With none of the benefits, or none of the real uses that it is put to, or the economic importance of this or that particular pesticide.

A farm bureau representative yesterday, who made a study on it, at a meeting I attended pointed out about three particular pieces of data in the toxaphene RPAR that were either exaggerated, or at least the wording about it was inflammatory. Now, we do not think that is laying the facts on the table in a clear honest sense. I take this only as a case in point to bring out the fact that our feeling is that the RPAR process, to put it simply, should not be allowed.

Senator ALLEN. There is no provision for that.

Mr. DUSKIN. It is not in the law. There are adequate procedures to gather all the essential data, and we certainly want to provide it in any way possible, to meet the data requirements for registration. But that process, we think, is going to lead to nothing but trouble.

Senator ALLEN. Once they put a pesticide on this list, it is hard, once they reach such a determination that it ought to go on the rebuttable presumption against registration list, to get it off it; is that not true?

Mr. DUSKIN. Yes, and particularly when they are the ones that establish the trigger criteria for putting it on. If you can set criteria, you can put anything on.

Senator ALLEN. So, that is in effect a determination without proof. Mr. DUSKIN. These are indications, they say; and they want us to come up with the other side. But when you put it in the press in the beginning, I really do not think that is protecting the public interest, inflaming the public without total factual information on the whole thing.

Now, I do not say that the studies they have made are incorrect, I do not mean that in any sense of the word. But I do not think that is the whole story, and I think one side is being presented without the other side being presented fairly at the same time.

Senator ALLEN. Well, this would discourage further production of pesticides, and would certainly discourage the farmer in the use of that pesticide.

Mr. DUSKIN. Well, I would certainly have a question if I were planning what I was going to buy for next year, whether I am a distributor, manufacturer, or otherwise, if I have a product that is on that list, whether I can rebut it, or not. It would certainly affect my decision whether I bought it, or whether I made it right down the line. The