Senator LEAHY. I received it in general. The statement of UPFDA from Mr. Stephenson will be made a part of the record.*

You are concerned about the unacceptable and unnecessary delays in pesticide registrations. You address, obviously, the data requirements. Would you like to summarize for the subcommittee your statement, the conclusions that you draw in there on pages 4 and 5 especially, where you have some conclusions. Would you summarize that for us for the record?

Mr. JAHN. Yes. Basically, let me identify the United Pesticide Formulators & Distributors Association; it is an association of companies which formulate and distribute primarily structural pest control products.

To summarize the testimony and statement that UPFDA presents, the members of the association would urge EPA, in accordance with section 3(c) (2), to immediately adopt and issue regulations and data requirement guidelines which have been missing from the process for some time, and caused delays. We also support the establishment of generic standards for technical pesticides. UPFDA supports the conditional registration of pesticides for products that have already been registered and are now in use, but for which data gaps now exist. We believe that subsequent applicants should be allowed to register pesticides conditionally while those data gaps are being filled.

We would also support the concept of deemphasizing efficacy data for certain minor-use pesticides where those uses are restricted to a small geographic area for a particular specific pest.

Senator LEAHY. Can you give us an example?

Mr. JAHN. I cannot give you a specific example of a specific pest at this point. There are several we can provide you in some subsequent communications. But there are many times where there is a crop that is having a problem with a specific pest in a particular geographic region. Sometimes producing the efficacy data is not economically justifiable for some of the very small manufacturers and formulators, on specific small pests.

We would also urge EPA to adopt a commonsense approach in its enforcement activities, particularly with regard to the requirements of section 12(a) (2) (g) that concern uses inconsistent with the label. In many cases a pest that is unnamed on the label is affected, and in many cases where an applicator would like to use a reduced dosage, that is actually a violation of that section, as EPA now interprets that. We feel that is not in the best interest of the environment, or the public.

We support enthusiastically NPCA, the National Pest Control Association's position on EPA's interpretation of secton 9. EPA has interpreted that provision to allow them to inspect pest control operators, having defined operators as distributors, where section 9 states that thev may inspect products held for sale or distribution. I believe NPCA will expand on that a little later.

We also ask that EPA put a more conscientious effort into emphasizing the risk and the benefit ratios, with particular emphasis on the benefits of pesticides in society, as opposed to apparently concentrating primarily on the risk. We also support very strongly with the National

*Mr. Stephenson's statement did not arrive in time for inclusion in the record.

Agricultural Chemical Association the establishment of a national cancer assessment policy.

Our members have different views on the issue of data compensation and trade secrets, though the association as an association does not have a position on this issue. However, we do support the efforts of this subcommittee in trying to seek a speedy resolution to the issues.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. I just want to ask one question before I turn it over to members of the subcommittee. You have heard the first witnesses, and you both represent small companies. Mr. JAHN. Yes.

Senator LEAHY. Do you find any area of disagreement with the preceding witnesses?

Mr. JAHN. No.

Senator LEAHY. Senator Allen?

Senator ALLEN. I understood you to say that you would like to see EPA promulgate guidelines for the registration of pesticides; is that correct?

Mr. JAHN. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. I am surprised that they have not come out with a voluminous set of guidelines. There are no guidelines?

Mr. JAHN. There are guidelines that have been issued. We are particularly concerned with guidelines that pertain to the data requirements that an applicant should be able to follow in submitting an application. Those guidelines have not been forthcoming.

Senator ALLEN. Guidelines as to existing data, use of existing data? Mr. JAHN. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. And they have not come up with guidelines on that aspect of the registration.

Mr. JAHN. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. They do not have any at all, or are they inadequate? Mr. JAHN. The guidelines pertaining to data requirement have not been issued.

Senator ALLEN. You spoke of wanting to see a commonsense approach by the EPA in its administration of the act, and we are here trying to formulate legislation. It might be pretty difficult to get them to use a commonsense approach. How would you suggest that we move in that area?

Mr. JAHN. I think, Senator, an expression of congressional intent would be sufficient and would be appropriate in that regard, that there are certain areas where the Agency appears to spend more time with technical violations, when in fact the substance of the law may be ignored, and the spirit of the law may be ignored.

Senator LEAHY. If the Senator would yield at this moment. I think one concern that I have is that we always assume commonsense on the part of governmental agencies, but I think we all agree that governmental agencies do not always follow this approach, no matter how well intentioned legislation might be.

Senator ALLEN. I think your assessment that it places more emphasis on the risk, rather than the benefits from the use of pesticides certainly is a valid criticism, or assessment. I think we certainly need to see if more emphasis cannot be put on the benefits because otherwise we are going to be unable to produce the food and fiber necessary for feeding and clothing our people, and feeding and clothing many people in the

free world. I think very definitely the benefit ratio needs to be cranked into the decisions to a greater extent than is now being done. I think you made some real good suggestions.

Senator LEAHY. I do, too. Senator Lugar?

Senator LUGAR. My understanding is that EPA will propose some general changes in procedure, including generic registration, reduce efficacy review and conditional registrations, which are apparently a point that you have made. Are you generally aware of their thinking on this, is this essentially what you are saying, or would you draw any differentiation between your use of those terms?

Mr. JAHN. Not at this point. We are in general accord with the objectives of EPA.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much.

There will be one change in our order of testimony. Dr. Janovich is shown as the next witness, and he will testify last.

So, our next witness will be John S. Barr, the chairman of the Technical Committee, National Cotton Council, from Oak Ridge, La. Mr. Barr, we will put your statement in the record in toto.* I would ask you initially, before I go to questions, you have heard the testimony, have you, of the first two witnesses?

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. BARR III, CHAIRMAN, TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JIM BROWN, PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER

Mr. BARR. Yes.

Senator LEAHY. What is the Cotton Council's position on these issues we have been discussing?

Mr. BARR. In regard to the National Cotton Council, which is primarily a user, as opposed to a group that engages in manufacture or formulation of pesticides, we find it quite easy to have a position on this very complicated problem. Our position is very simply that we hope that you will maintain trade secrets and data compensation strongly enough so that companies will be encouraged to continue to formulate, produce, and register pesticides, and at the same time make them lenient enough to encourage enough competition in the trade, so that they will be reasonably priced to us.

[Laughter.]

Senator LEAHY. I can understand your feelings, and I suspect the membership can.

You said that you felt that EPA has been adversary to the registration of pesticides, and you recommend that the pesticide registration function be transferred to USDA, or another appropriate agency that responds to the needs of agriculture and other user groups. Do you want to elaborate on that at all?

Mr. BARR. Yes, sir. I think that is definitely the policy of our organization; it may be in reality a wee bit farfetched, but the reason for its adoption is very simply that the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the environment. At the same time the

*See p. 111 for the prepared statement of Mr. Barr.

authorization under FIFRA requires that they be engaged in the actual registration of toxic products.

Now, it would would seem that these two goals are somewhat incompatible. Certainly, during the past two administrations of EPA we, as users, have had great difficulty in trying to maintain the chemical tools that we need to carry on our business. You know, at one time we were able to make crops with hand labor. Hand labor is no longer available at any price, and therefore we require chemical tools to be able to keep the weeds out of the garden, so to speak. On the other hand we require insecticides to be able to keep our crops insect free, or keep the insects down below an economic infestation level.

In addition, in the old days in the cotton business, all the cotton was hand-harvested, the leaves did not get in the way. Now virtually all the cotton is harvested by machine, and we require some type of harvest-aid chemicals to make the plants shed the leaves in order that we can mechanically harvest the crop.

These are just nothing more than basic and real problems that we as farmers have, and we feel that, as it has functioned in the past, EPA has been adversary to these real problems.

Senator LEAHY. How do you feel about private applicator certification?

Mr. BARR. Private applicator certification has gone along pretty well, there have been no problems in my State, in my local area. Jim, do you know of any?

In addition we feel within the area of private certification that this has been one of the real oversights of the Environmental Protection Agency because within the concept of certification also goes another concept of restricted-use principle. This was authorized in the original FIFRA, it has yet to be put into practice. While it has not been put in practice we continue to lose individual tools or chemicals. You are all aware of the individual chemicals that have gone through the banning process, when it would seem to us to be conceivable to simply transfer a chemical into the restricted-use category and to see if we can use it responsibly under those contexts before we have an outright ban. Senator LEAHY. Senator Allen?

Senator ALLEN. What chemicals do cotton farmers now use most as pesticides? Those on the list, I know.

Mr. BARR. On the list of the 58 or so chemicals that are now being put up under the category of RPAR, the rebuttal presumption against registration, I think there are 15 of them that are extremely important to the cotton farmer. Among those-and I really hesitate to name them individually because I do not want to leave the impression that some are less important-but the fact that MSMA and DSMA are two of our real weed killers, and they are on the list, if we lose those two, then we will not have to worry about the insecticide because the weeds will get the crops before the insects will ever get there.

In addition, you are well aware, Mr. Allen, of our problem with the budworm and bollworm complex. Along those lines we find that EPN is on that list, also. Excluding the new experimentals, the EPN plus methyl situation is really the only thing we got a shot at in terms of looking at bollworm control. It would really hurt if we lost it.

Senator ALLEN. Well, once a pesticide is put on the rebuttable presumption against registration list, to what extent are you allowed to use that until a final determination is made?

Mr. BARR. Well, actually use privileges are maintained until the actual ban takes place.

Senator ALLEN. That just serves as a warning flag, then.

Mr. BARR. We are concerned about this process because the way it is being handled right now. Our understanding of the way it is handled is that it is an extension of the review of the reregistration data. Yet, just to give you an example, when the rebuttal presumption was issued against toxaphene last month, at the same time it was announced that EPA had prepared a 20-minute video type to declare all the evils of toxaphene prior to any rebuttal position.

Senator ALLEN. They already made up their mind.

Mr. BARR. So, it would seem that their mind is made up, or that there is at least a strong inclination in that direction. We are very concerned about that.

Senator ALLEN. Well, what specific changes would you recommend in the FIFRA law to give cotton farmers some relief?

Mr. BARR. We covered these, and I am just thumbing through here very quickly in order to get to the main point. They began really on page 6 of the testimony here. We believe that FIFRA needs to be amended, dealing with labeling flexibility, to provide more flexibility, to provide more flexibility in pesticide labeling—and we go into a little detail there. I will just summarize these, if I may, and you can ask specific details that we can get into.

Senator ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. BARR. We believe in the registration area, that there should be a specific time frame, rather than turning over specific data to EPA and letting them take till eternity; in essence, they just put it on the shelf.

We believe that there should be an additional mandate relative to benefit-risk, and previous speakers have addressed that factor this morning.

We believe that there should be a real definition for unreasonable adverse effects, which seems to be an all-encompassing word usage that EPA can put almost anything, and does put anything under.

We believe that there should be additional flexibility granted to States under section 24C provisions that would give them the capability of handling local needs without losing all the time that is necessary to go through the Washington process.

We address the pesticide policy statements that have come out and recommend here a definition that has actually come up through the State-Federal FIFRA Implementation Advisory Committee and that definition is quoted there.

Senator ALLEN. Yes, I see.

Mr. BARR. I have already discussed a little bit the rebuttal presumption problems. We addressed the separation of registration function, which goes back to the question that you asked me, dealing with USDA.

Senator ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Now, we also address the national cancer policy issue.