whatever to come and testify. It is one thing with the major corporate farms but with the individual farms, maybe the car needs replacing and they would go to testify in Washington for 5 minutes.

I am sorry I interrupted you.

Ms. BARLOW. That was really my point. I am glad you are sympathetic with it.

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think I ought to say in defense of Iowa corn farmers and Indiana corn farmers, even if the cutworm is cutting down the corn this is not a good reason for disbanding corn as a product.

Ms. BARLOW. I love corn.

Senator LUGAR. I suspect we will have to try to solve the cutworm problem and, as a practical matter, I think you would agree. I tend to share the chairman's enthusiasm for the research aspects of this and asked Mr. Costle this morning as a part of section 20 for renewed vigor on the part of EPA itself in looking at research efforts that would lead to not only integrated pest control but all sorts of new ways a farm can commence more profitably with less use of pesticides.

This is probably an objective of your group and is certainly one I

share.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.]

APPENDIX

STATEMENT OF HON. DEWEY F. BARTLETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank you and the members of the Agricultural Committee for taking up the problems of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act so quickly after the passage of S. 275. I realize that the Committee determined to remove the section in S. 275 pertaining to funding of FIFRA and to take up the many problems of this act in separate hearings. It is imperative that Congress come to grips with the lengthening list of problems that are being expressed both by farmers and other individuals involved with the use of these various chemicals.

Since 1972 when the Environmental Protection Agency was given the authority over this area, there have been growing concerns and evidence that EPA cannot handle expeditiously the responsibility and that increasingly large amounts of tax dollars are going to be spent to give them the capability in the agricultural area. This is a capability that already exists in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The EPA is presently spending more than ten times what the U.S.D.A. spent and has asked for one-half again as much money in order to proceed.

These funds are being spent in a situation that finds neither registration nor classification completed. The EPA was specifically authorized by Congress to act in these two areas, but registration will not be completed for several more years, and a tentative list of restricted pesticides is only now going to be published.

In the meantime, EPA is removing existing chemicals from the market without complete scientific testing. This has resulted in the loss of food, wood and fiber to both our domestic and foreign markets.

EPA is not the only agency that has gotten itself twisted in its own regulatory language, but an example will serve to elucidate the problems that confront farmers in trying to deal with the implementation of FIFRA.

The Congressional intent of FIFRA is that of implementation in a "common sense" fashion. On September 21, 1976, the EPA published the following material in the Federal Register:

"The use of a registered pesticide to control a pest not named on the EPA accepted label would not generally pose different risks to man or the environment than would the use of such pesticide to control pests which are named on the label when used in a manner consistent with all other labelling instructions." Certainly this is a very reasonable statement; however, the following additional statement was included:

"The use of a registered pesticide to control pests not named on the label or labelling constitutes a violation of FIFRA Section 12(a)(2)(G) in that it is a use of a registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labelling." With this statement, the Environmental Protection Agency completely clouded the area, and they went on further to confuse the farmer by stating:

"In the exercise of its prosecutorial discretions, however, the agency will not initiate enforcement action * * *"

The explanation by EPA is that a pesticide registered for control of certain pests on a specific crop may be used against other pests if the pest is improbably, unanticipated, or infrequent in its occurrence. The use must be recommended in writing by an individual who is a knowledgeable expert. The recommendation must be submitted to the state control agency, and there must not be any other pesticide registered for use against the pest that is reasonably available in the

area.

This is only one confusing example, but it is an excellent reason to place the authority back in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department with the expertise in this field.

(98)

Based on the inability displayed by EPA, and the lack of expeditious action, I introduced S. 999. It is my hope that the Committee will strongly consider this legislation which simply returns the authority for the review of such chemicals to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my distinguished colleagues will consider the necessity for this amendment to FIFRA, and note that it is not an attempt to dilute the effectiveness of the protective provisions of the 1972 Act. This amendment is an attempt to insure reasonableness in the application.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that a listing of problems that have been brought to my attention by various groups involved with pesticides be included with my statement in this hearing record.

ADDENDUM-PROBLEMS WITH EPA'S APPLICATION OF FIFRA

ORGANIZATION AND PROBLEM

1. State Cooperative Extension Services.

A. More emphasis and manpower has been placed on cancellation and suspension, rather than on finding and utilizing effective safeguards.

B. State certification of pesticide applicators has been delayed and is in a precarious situation because of EPA's delay and indecision on classification. 2. National Pest Control Association, Inc.

A. Members are denied application of their practical experience for competence because they are held accountable for exact compliance with the precise wording of old and outdated labels. The public is denied the benefit of pesticides that are in no way harmful.

B. Because of EPA's shortages of manpower that are technically skilled, EPA has removed pesticide products from the market rather than restrict their use to certified applicators.

C. EPA's continued cancellation of pesticides has caused the applicators to discontinue training and certification of those found competent to make restricted use of pesticides.

3. National Agricultural Chemicals Association.

A. The EPA has determined that no test data on a chemical is confidential. B. Slow development and tardy promulgation of pertinent regulations.

C. Promulgation of unclear and confusing regulations requiring delays while the registrant and the agency struggle with their interpretations.

D. Incomplete communications between registrant and the agency, with the loss in EPA of transmittal letters from the registrant or delayed requests in responses to the registrant.

E. The loss or misplacement of documents and data submitted to EPA for registration.

F. Continual organizational or reorganizational problems and personnel changes fostering poor, inadequate or inexperienced management of the already complex registration process.

G. Lack of clear policy or the presence of conflicting policy on data requirements deters timely decisions on data in hand, and forces arbitrary requests for more or new data, which may not be necessary, and comes without forewarning to the registrant.

H. The employment of personnel not qualified by training and experience to be knowledgeable in the field in which they are making decisions. Job descriptions should require fundamental knowledge of agriculture, its conduct and pursuits, as well as pesticide research.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB PACKWOOD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

I commend the Committee for considering amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. FIFRA's implementation has led to a serious shortage of safe, dependable chemicals available for control of agricultural pests. Our inability to obtain agricultural chemicals is causing increased production costs, reduced product quality, management problems and general frustration in the agricultural community. The ultimate loser will be the American consumer who will face higher prices, poorer quality, and possibly a shortage of food stuffs.

Congress' intent with the passage of FIFRA in 1972 was to protect the public and the environment from the effects of dangerous chemicals and bad applications of agricultural chemicals. Yet with the Environmental Protection Agency's implementation, we have seen an over-reaction to those good intentions in the form of over-zealous interpretations of what constitutes "adverse effects on the environment", inflexibility in determination of what is inconsistent with labeling, usurpation of local authority and a lack of common sense. The implementation and regulations have been with more regard to semantics than safety.

The Committee has recognized this by conducting these hearings. I would summarize briefly three suggestions that could make FIFRA more workable. (1) More specific determination should be made of what constitutes "adverse effects on the environment". EPA's "Carcinogenic Principles" are even more severe than the Delaney amendment, which triggered the recent saccharin problem. The cost of gathering data required by EPA for registration of new chemicals or re-registrations (RPAR) of existing chemicals is prohibitive in all cases except those few chemicals which can be applied on many crops or those which are applied to major commodities such as wheat, corn and soybeans. FIFRA is leading to a gradual abandonment of the production of chemicals to control pests on crops grown less frequently. This problem is especially critical in the Northwest where a large amount of specialty crops are grown. The cost to register or for RPAR is so great that it becomes uneconomic to produce specialty crop pest controls. While specific chemicals can still be sold while under the RPAR process, the extreme length of the review process combined with the cost, and no guarantee the chemical will be registered often causes the manufacturer to stop production.

(2) The interpretation of what constitutes a use "in a manner inconsistent with labeling" is a good example of typical big government inflexibility. There is a critical need to amend Section 12 (a)(2) (g) of FIFRA to clarify what constitutes a violation of the Act. Using EPA's strictest interpretation, should the chemical's application kill an insect not intended for elimination (an insect not mentioned on the pesticide label), the applicator is subject to a fine and jail sentence. An example: Methoxachlor is registered for use to control flies on livestock, yet is not registered for pest control on vetch. While the livestock animal may eventually find its way to the consumer's mouth, the vetch will be used only as a cover, seed or hay crop.

(3) Lastly, we should try not to allow the Federal government to usurp work that the states can do well for themselves. The states are more accessible to the public and in general have a better grasp of local problems. This fact has an even greater impact in the Northwest with our large number of specialty crops. My own State of Oregon has shown an excellent grasp of how to protect the environment and consumer from dangerous chemicals as well as providing reasonableness in chemical use prior to FIFRA and now under FIFRA's Section 24. Section 24 is the brightest spot of the entire Act. Without the degree of reasonableness this section granted the states, it is possible that Oregon specialty agriculture would face economic devastation.

EPA should be urged not to tighten its grasp on the State under Section 24, and the Congress should take whatever steps are necessary to assure it does not.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Committee for consideration of this extremely important issue, and look for an end legislative product that provides safety for the environment and public and not over-zealous semantical interpretation of good legislative intentions.

I have included for the Committee's review more comprehensive explanations of the problem by several County Extension Agents in Oregon.

FARMER CONCERNS RELATING TO PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY POLICY

The banning of some "workhorse" type chemicals has increased production costs, reduced product quality and created management problems. The banned chemicals are: DDT, Aldrin, dieldrin, Chlordane. Chemicals likely to go are: Mirex, strobane, BHC. Chemicals not to be re-registered: Galecron, Fundal (because of cost to re-register).

Because of the above, we currently have no or poor controls for: Vetch weevil; clover root borer; strawberry root weevil; shot hole borer; and peach and prune root borer.

We note that none of the target audience is in on the decisionmaking relative to what chemicals should be banned.

The trend is toward zero tolerances for chemicals in food products. Can our economy really stand that? EPA protects by attacking. Their goal is a risk-free society without regard to freedoms, welfare or economic stability.

EPA says a substitute chemical need not be as effective as the banned product. They need to realize that it is impossible to get an increased price out of the lower quality and quantity of product produced to maintain farm earning power. They are really saying it is OK to reduce farmer income and put inferior products on the market for consumers.

Is mouse data really applicable to humans? Will chemical traces in human diets be as damaging as massive dosages to mice? Levels of chemical used in testing are unrealistic-even salt and sugar couldn't stand up under such dosages and testing methods used.

The rebuttable presumption against registration puts the total responsibility on the defender. All the agency or plaintiff has to do is say "I think" ́a chemical is hazardous.

Chemical companies find it impossible to register or re-register many chemicals because of cost and time required. Especially on minor crops such as most grown in Washington County. It is reported to take $6 to $10 million and up to 10 years to prove and register a product.

We do not believe Congress ever intended the pesticide safety law to be administered in the manner it is currently being administered. The whole process should be reviewed immediately and new laws enacted if need be.

Changes in EPA that would seem appropriate at this time include the following:

1. Amend statute known as the Delaney Amendment to permit usage of an "insignificant level" of chemical present in a product rather than require a zero tolerance.

2. Relax regulations on what constitutes a violation of the label.

Example: A chemical registered for cucumber beetle control on beans cannot be used for Lygus bug control on beans because of specific data on that insect hasn't been developed and spelled out on the label. As long as dosage complied with label for cucumber beetle, we think it should be legal to use for any bug.

3. Group ornamentals so that a chemical could be used on a number of plant materials. Now it is specific that registration is for crop by crop, individually. These are non-food items so no additional risk is involved.

4. Criteria for RPAR is too strict. Realistic exposures (as per label) should be used and not massive doses for basing decisions for banning or relegating to restricted list.

Further study would no doubt uncover other need for change but these few will suffice to demonstrate the kinds of problems we are concerned with.

It is our hope we can maintain an "open line" with Congressional representatives to feed in our concerns as they occur and that we can rightfully expect that some appropriate action will be initiated.

LLOYD BARON,

Washington County Extension Service,
Hillsboro, Oreg.

GLENN WALTERS NURSERY, INC.,
Hillsboro, Oreg., February 22, 1977.

DEAR MR. BARON: For your information, I would like to convey my experience to you regarding the use of Aldrin and Chloradane dust in our Rhododendron and Azalea propagation benches for the control of root weevil.

We have been using Aldrin and Chloradane for the past twenty years in our rooting medium in the greenhouse benches with excellent control.

The propagation year of 1976-77 which began May 1, 1976 we were unable to obtain either of the two mentioned products. Because of this, our propagation medium was prepared without it this past season.

On December 12, 1976 we started to pull out the rooted Rododendron cuttings and to our astonishment found an infestation of root weevil. All noticeable damaged plants were destroyed at that time, however our concern is that this pest is now in our propagation benches and is in an extremely hazardous position to spread into the balance of our greenhouses and farm growing grounds.