ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

in some form until some acceptable pesticide could be registered? I mean, you recognize it as a real problem, do you not, for our farmers? Mr. COSTLE. Well, it is a real problem, Senator. I hope that we, in fact, find a substitute. We will just have to address that situation when we get to it, I think.

Senator ALLEN. Well, you are not going to rule it out. I mean, obviously, you do not want to say, "well, if you do not perfect something, we will let you use the other", but you would not rule out that possibility, I would think.

Mr. COSTLE. No, I would not want to rule that out.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you.

Senator Lugar?

Senator LUGAR. I have no more qusetions.

Senator ALLEN. If you folks will wait a moment, then, for the chairman and see if he has any further questions.

As to the data and the compensation for the data, you would look with favor on a compromise as between the large manufacturers and the small manufacturers in this area, would you not?

Mr. COSTLE. Yes. I think one of the concerns I have had is the anticompetitive effects, because I think it is time that we are more aware and conscious in all of our regulatory activities of the extent of impact of our regulations on competition in industry.

What makes it so difficult now is that we have a public need to know, if regulatory decisions are to have credibility.

Senator ALLEN. I assume that the small manufacturers who have made use of the research of the large manufacturers would not agree on a compromise unless they felt that they could be competitive under such an agreement.

Mr. COSTLE. Well, I would assume so, too.

Senator ALLEN. So, assuming that it does protect their competitive position, you would have no objection to such a compromise, then? Mr. COSTLE. No, assuming, also, that that compromise addresses the public information necessity in this area, I think.

Senator ALLEN. It is not the thought of the Agency that we should move to a society without pesticides in agricultural production, is it? Mr. COSTLE. I think it would be impractical to have a society without pesticides. I think we need to do more in terms of trying to develop pesticides that, in fact, carry with them the minimal risks that we can have.

Senator ALLEN. In other words, you are interested in seeing pesticides developed that can do the job without, to use this phrase, without having an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment?

Mr. COSTLE. That is right.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Senator.

I have no further questions. I will be very interested in seeing the response to the larger question that I posed; also, any amplifications to questions that either member of the subcommittee have asked here today. All of us may want to submit further questions, having seen your response, and without objection, any member of the subcommittee will be able to submit a further question after seeing those responses. Thank you very much.

Mr. COSTLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having us here. We will respond promptly, and also are available at your pleasure to meet with you again, or to meet with the staff, and to work directly with the

staff.

Senator LEAHY. I would appreciate that. I am sure you realize there is somewhat a sense of urgency. The majority leader has made it clear, because of the energy message, that except for the appropriations bills and the energy message, unless bills are on the floor within a relatively short time I believe, by the end of this month-that they will not be considered in this session. And there is enough concern on FIFRA that we would like to see it moving.

Thank you.

Mr. COSTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LEAHY. Our next witness is Dr. James Nielson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research, and Education, USDA. Again, his statement will be placed in the record.*

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES NIELSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRE-
TARY FOR CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY ERRETT
DECK, COORDINATOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACTIVITIES
Senator LEAHY. I understand, also, that USDA agrees with most of
the amendments proposed by EPA, but do have a suggestion of a
further amendment dealing with minor use; is that correct?
Dr. NIELSON. Yes, sir, we do.

Senator LEAHY. You might concentrate on that, particularly, and anything else, of course, you wanted to add to it.

Dr. NIELSON. I could highlight the other items very briefly, if you wish.

Senator LEAHY. Feel free. Go ahead.

Dr. NIELSON. All right. I will do so very briefly. And I might say that I have with me Mr. Errett Deck, who is the Coordinator of the Environmental Quality Activities Office in the Department of Agriculture.

Senator LEAHY. Glad to have you both here.

Dr. NIELSON. We have studied the draft amendments carefully, and there are a number of items in it that we concur with. The Department supports the concept of conditional registration as a viable means of meeting the needs of agriculture without increasing the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

Secondly, we agree with the proposed additions to section 3 (c) (5) to provide the EPA Administrator with permissive discretion of data requirements pertaining to efficacy in order to enable the Administrator to devote resources to hazard evaluation as a top priority assignment.

Third, the Department supports the suggested amendment to section. 3(d)(1)(A) to permit the initial classification of restricted uses by regulation as an interim method, pending completion of the reregis*See p. 160 for the prepared statement of Dr. Nielson.

tration program. We believe that such timely classification will allow the certification program to proceed on schedule. On that basis we can support the amendments to section 4(b) and section 4 (c) (2) of the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 that would delete the deadline dates for completion of reregistration.

Also, the Department agreed with the proposed amendment to define use inconsistent with its label. In addition, we agree with the proposed amendment to add a new section 3 (c) (2) (B) to provide for a generic approach to reregistration.

Those are the major items in the draft amendment with which the Department of Agriculture concurs. The amendment that the Department of Agriculture would like to propose is in section 3(c) (2). It has to do with minor use pesticides about which the Department has considerable concern.

The suggested change would say:

The Administrator, in establishing standards for data requirements for the registration of pesticides with respect to minor uses, shall make such standards commensurate with the anticipated extent of use, pattern of use, and level and degree of potential exposure of man and the environment to the pesticide. In the development of these standards, the Administrator shall consider the economic factors of potential national volume of use, extent of distribution, and impact of the cost of meeting the requirements on the incentives for potential registrant(s) to undertake the development of the required data.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LEAHY. Could you elaborate just a bit on the second sentence in your proposed amendment: In the development of these standards, the Administrator shall consider the economic factors of potential national volume of use? What do you mean by that?

Dr. NIELSON. Well, many of the minor use pesticides are either very important to a crop that is produced only in a small area or region of the country, or on a particular pest that is a local problem. Many times the manufacturers really cannot afford to do all the labor and research necessary to get the pesticide registered.

Senator LEAHY. What you are saying, in effect, on this is that you are taking into consideration the fact that it will not have a significant national market.

Dr. NIELSON. Yes, as far as manufacturing is concerned.

Senator LEAHY. Fine. Thank you.

Senator Allen?

Senator ALLEN. I would just like to inquire about the input that you have when a pesticide or a basic ingredient is placed on the rebuttable presumption against registration list. How do you go about, then, having input into the EPA decision as to whether to have this chemical on the rebuttable presumption list? How do you go about making input on the list?

Dr. NIELSON. Mr. Allen, the Environmental Protection Agency makes the decision as to what compounds or chemicals would be put on the RPAR list. But, at that point, the procedures clearly permit, and the Department of Agriculture is organized to provide, input in regard to the impact of that particular compound. I can elaborate that in more detail, and Mr. Deck, too, but does that answer your question?

Senator ALLEN. You, then, evaluate their decision, giving the pros and cons that you have as to whether this chemical should be registered or not. Is that correct?

Dr. NIELSON. We provide information that they can use in making their decision from research data that are available from our inhouse research program in the Department of Agriculture, from the State agricultural experiment stations, and from the State extension services. We also take the initiative to organize data or to organize pesticide assessment teams. We received a supplemental appropriation for this program. I think we have the program reasonably well organized. I would ask Mr. Deck if he would like to comment further on this question.

Mr. DECK. When the candidate is announced, one of the first things we do is to assess the risk. We think it is very important to review, in addition to the data they have on the active ingredient, what is the exposure and what is the use experience. We try to evaluate whether or not the RPAR trigger has been met. We have 105 calendar days to complete our response.

The other aspect that we have is to assess the benefit, or, in other words, what the loss would be of the loss of that pesticide considering the alternatives. As you know, the number of products that will be affected by the list of candidates is very significant. We are very concerned about it.

Senator ALLEN. Would that indicate an assumption of a prejudgment by the Agency?

Mr. DECK. It may. In answer to your question that was addressed earlier, the example was given of a particular pesticide that was granted emergency use on pears. It might be of interest for you to know what happens in the field. A major processor has refused to accept pears if treated with that chemical, on the basis that it has been indicted by being on the RPAR list.

Senator ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. DECK. SO, I think when it comes to the practical field application, your question was a very pointed question.

Senator ALLEN. Well, is it pretty difficult to get off that list once you are on it?

Mr. DECK. Well, when it is announced, it is a fact of life. The only thing that can happen is that the final judgment of the Administrator is that it is registerable. Then, of course, that could remove part of the cloud.

Senator ALLEN. Do you feel that maintaining such an enemies list, so to speak, is advisable?

Senator LEAHY. Which list?

Mr. DECK. Well, I am only trying to relate to you what actually is happening. I mean, it is not for us to judge.

Senator ALLEN. Well, I guess that sort of answers that question. I have no further questions.

Dr. NIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that the Environmental Protection Agency is responsive to, and carefully considers the evidence that the Department of Agriculture submits to them for compounds that are on the RPAR list.

Senator LUGAR. No questions.

Senator LEAHY. Dr. Perry Adkisson testified yesterday, and I believe Dr. Lemin and Dr. Mahlstede will testify this morning, about the research aspects of pest control. One of the areas that the subcommittee is extremely interested in is the area of research into integrated pest management.

Can you tell what is being done by USDA in that area of research? What is being done in that? I find it is an intriguing area. Could you tell me what is being done there?

Dr. NIELSON. There is a great deal of research being done in the Department of Agriculture in the Agricultural Research Service, the Forest Service, and in the State agricultural experiment stations across the country on control of pests through various means. Not all of it, but a great deal of it, relates to integrated pest management, in which scientists from a number of disciplines, particularly entomology, plant pathology, and biochemistry, are looking at a systems approach to pest management which includes the use of chemical pesticides, biological controls, introducing predator insects to attack other insects, and crop and soil management practices that will lead to better control of insects, diseases, and other pests.

We are spending quite a bit of money in emphasizing this particular area; not integrated pest management exclusively, but much of our concern is there.

Senator LEAHY. Well, I would appreciate, periodically, if you have material on that that you think may be interesting if you would send it on over to me.

Dr. NIELSON. We have some things, and we would be pleased to send them.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Assuming the schedule holds, that we go out when we suspect to, in October-but some of the people who are much older and much wiser than I in the ways of the Senate tell me, in the words of the immortal parliamentarian, “do not hold your breath." We may not get out, but if we do, I would hope to have hearings on this in the fall.

Thank you. Are there any other questions?

Senator ALLEN. No.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. John Datt of the American Farm Bureau Federation. We are delighted to have you here with us today. Your statement will be made a part of the record.*

I appreciate the fact that in the statement, you spelled out very specifically, section by section, how you would make amendments, and I find that quite helpful.

In your adopted policy, though, you seem to suggest that we provide regulators, in effect, for our regulators. Does that create a problem? I mean, if we are not happy with our own regulators and provide regulators for them, what happens if we turn out not being happy with those regulators?

At what point can we call a halt here?

[blocks in formation]
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »