Mr. CARPENTER. And we will address ourselves generally to support of the bill with this understanding, that we point out to you that any undue restriction on the registration and use of agricultural pesticides will undoubtedly be reflected in increased farm production costs which I am sure you are cognizant of.

I will skip the rest of it and go down to the specifics and if it will be recorded in the record, we will go into the specifics as it relates to the bill.

It is a privilege to have Mr. Spradling with me, who is director of our research and who is much better information on the specific subjects. I will read them in layman's terms and if there is any question, I am sure he will answer them.

We suggest in the definition of the ingredients statement contained on page 10 that option (i) under point 2 should be deleted. Very simply, if a product is suspected of poisoning, we feel it is essential that a physician or veterinarian be able to determine immediately, from a label, the name and the percentage of each active ingredient in the product in order to properly prescribe treatment. This should apply to products in both general and restricted classifications. I believe that has been mentioned before.

No. 2, a provision on page 19, line 7 through 11, prevents data submitted by an applicant to substantiate claims for registration from also being considered in support of any other application. Admittedly, agricultural chemical manufacturers invest huge sums in research. The fact still remains that much of the data, particularly in the area of effectiveness, is derived from land grant colleges which are publically financed.

Chemical manufacturers today are provided patent protection for some 17 years. However, the secrecy provision in the bill as written, in effect, extends the exclusive right to produce and market beyond any patent coverage and thus subverts patent laws. We strongly urge the removal of this provision as it can only result in higher costs to farmers. If this recommendation is accepted, page 19, lines 23, 25, and 35, will require modest rewording.

No. 3, on page 20, lines 6 and 7, we suggest the reference to time for review of data say "within 6 months" rather than as expediciously as possible," in line 12, let the word "promptly" be replaced by "within 60 days."

Mr. Spradling advised me some problems have arisen in the past and there is a need to stipulate time limits rather than leaving them. vague and open to administrative interpretation.

No. 4, the provision on page 23, lines 1 through 10, gives the administration broad powers.

Mr. Chairman, I realize this is a problem but certain compounds: Aldrin, DDT, 2,4,5,-T, Toxaphene and others have been on the market for many years.

They have been tested and tried not only for their effectiveness but also for the effect of their application on the environment. We would hope that this committee with the help of EPA could spell out the intent of this legislation with respect to classification for use of those pesticides which have been thoroughly tried and tested in actual field use over a long period of time. If you don't do that, at least the committee can give the legislative intent on this matter so that we would have directions to go by, we would feel more comfortable.

Senator ALLEN. I think that is a good suggestion.

Mr. CARPENTER. No. 5, further on page 23, line 14, we suggest that the bill clarify the limits of dermal and inhalation toxicity. Methods for assigning numerical values for toxicity are well known and establishing them as a part of this law would place this determination on a scientifically defensible and more stable basis.

Again, on page 30, line 2, we recommend that the word "expeditiously" be replaced by "within 90 days." Agriculture, as you know, is a seasonal business, and advanced planning is essential to a profitable operation.

Also, on page 30, lines 18 through 20 infer that, even though judicial review is under way, the proposed suspension order shall be in force. We realize this sentence does not specifically say that, but the inference is there. Surely, in such instances, the Administrator should not be limited in his determination as to whether it is wise to stay or continue the suspension order. We believe it preferable that this sentence be deleted.

We strongly support provisions on page 31 which permit and encourage use of the National Academy of Science.

Provisions on page 35, beginning with line 20, permit the taking of samples. Even if this resulted only in a portion of the contents of a package being taken, the result is a broken container and an unmarketable product. We believe it only fair to provide within this section for payment to cover the loss to the owner of the product sampled.

Indemnity payments are provided for on page 50, lines 1 and 2, for losses by reason of suspension or cancellation of the registration. We believe just compensation should also be provided where loss is incurred due to change in classification.

We are puzzled by the specific instruction given on page 55, line 23 through 25, to give priority to biologically integrated alternatives for pest control. We recognize that this language may have special appeal to some, but it really is meaningless. If the intent is to limit choice of research by emphasizing methods of biological pest control, then we question whether this is in the best interest of the public There is ample proof that biological methods are not necessarily free of hazard to any greater extent than are chemical methods. We suggest that the Administrator not be limited in the pursuit of practical, safe, and economical means of pest control.

We are pleased to note the addition on page 58 permitting States to register pesticides for specific local needs under certain conditions. Mr. Chairman, we have made these suggestions believing they are constructive changes and helpful to the most effective administration of this proposed legislation. Farmers are aware of their responsibility for using pesticides safely. They are doing their best to produce an abundance of high quality food. They are concerned about the wildlife on their land, the safety of the food they produce and their own health. They are conservationists at heart, ecologists by profession, and environmentalists by practice.

Senator ALLEN. Mr. Spradling, would you like to add your comments to what Mr. Carpenter has to say?

Mr. SPRADLING. Well, I am kind of coauthor of this testimony so I can only agree with Mr. Carpenter's comments.

76-194-72-pt. 2-20

Senator ALLEN. I would appreciate it very much your suggestions and I assure you that each one of them will be given careful consideration by the subcommittee. Each one of them will be brought to the attention of the full committee when we proceed to mark up the bill Thank you very much.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter is as follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is L. C. “Clell” Carpenter. I am here today speaking for the Midcontinent Farmers Association with headquarters in Columbia, Missouri, and representing over 152,000 members in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and other adjacent states.

I am pleased to be accompanied here today by Mr. Stuart Spradling, Vice President of Research of Missouri Farmers Association. For clarification, members of the Midcontinent Farmers Association include members of the Missouri Farmers Association in Missouri and a sizable number of members from states that adjoin Missouri.

Mr. Chairman, it was our joint privilege to appear before you and your committee approximately a year ago to present our general views on new legislation pertaining to the Federal Insecticied, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Law. Our testimony today will be more specific and for sake of brevity we will ask that the entire statement be placed in the record while Mr. Spradling and I will make reference only to our specific recommendations regarding H.R. 10729.

We are appearing here today in general support of this bill. The recommendations we are making are mostly toward clarification. But we point out to you, any undue restriction on the registration and use of agricultural pesticides will undoubtedly be reflected in increased farm production costs. As you and members of this committee well know, ever-rising production costs is the principal "road block" to improved profit margins for farmers.

As representatives of a farm organization and farmer cooperative, we are concerned about any provision of a law which increases farm costs and thus makes it more difficult for farmers to earn satisfactory incomes.

We have noted with interest some of the testimony presented to your committee which in effect would place an outright ban on the use of many pesticides. Unfortunately, those well intentioned but obviously uninformed persons apparently don't realize the higher food prices which would result. The increase has been estimated as high as 300%.

As aforementioned, our testimony will outline suggestions which, if accepted by the committee, will more precisely reflect the intent of Congress, expedite administrative procedures and clarify the processes to farmers thereby lessening undue hardship on farmers.

1. We suggest in the definition of the ingredient statement contained on page 10 that option (i) under point 2 should be deleted. Very simply, if a product is suspected of poisoning, we feel it is essential that a physician or veterinarian be able to determine immediately both the name and percentage of each active ingredient in the product in order to properly prescribe treatment. This should apply to products in both "general" and "restricted" classifications.

2. A provision on page 19, lines 7 through 11, prevents data submitted by an applicant to substantiate claims for registration from also being considered in support of any other application. Admittedly, agricultural chemical manufac turers invest huge sums in research. The fact still remains that much of the data, particularly in the area of effectiveness, is derived from land grant colleges which are publicly financed. Chemical manufacturers today are provided patent protection for some 17 years. However, the secrecy provision in the bill as written in effect extends the exclusive right to produce and market beyond any patent coverage, and thus subverts patent laws. We strongly urge the removal of this provision as it can only result in higher costs to farmers. If this recommendation is accepted, page 19, lines 23, 24 and 25 will require modest re-wording.

3. On page 20, lines 6 and 7, we suggest the reference to time for review of data state "within six months" rather than "as expeditiously as possible"; also, in line 12 that the word "promptly" be replaced by "within 60 days". Mr. Spradling advises me that some problems have arisen in this area in the past and there is indeed need to stipulate more finite limits rather than leaving the wording vague and open to administrative interpretation.

4. The provision on page 23, lines 1 through 10, gives the Administrator broad powers for classification of product to restricted use. Certain compounds-aldrin. DDT, 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, toxaphene and others have been on the market for many years. They have been tested and tried not only for their effectiveness but also for the effect of their application upon the environment. We would hope that this committee with the help of the EPA could spell out the intent of this legislation with respect to classification for use of those pesticides which have been thoroughly tried and tested in actual field use over a long period of time.

5. Further, on page 23, line 14, we suggest that the bill clarify the limits of dermal and inhalation toxicity. Methods for assigning numerical values for toxicity are well known and establishing them as a part of this law would place this determination on a scientifically defensible and more stable basis.

6. Again, on page 30, line 2, we recommend that the word "expeditiously" be replaced by "within 90 days". Agriculture, as you know, is a seasonal business, and advanced planning is essential to a profitable operation.

7. Also, on page 30, lines 18 through 20, infer that, even though judicial review is under way, the proposed suspension order shall be in force. We realize this sentence does not specifically say that, but the inference is there. Surely, in such instances, the Administrator should not be limited in his determination as to whether it is wise to stay or continue the suspension order. We believe it preferable that this sentence be deleted.

S. We strongly support provisions on page 31 which permit and encourage use of the National Academy of Science.

9. Provisions on page 35, beginning with line 20, permit the taking of samples. Even if this resulted only in a portion of the contents of a package being taken, the result is a broken container and an unmarketable product. We believe it only fair to provide within this section for payment to cover the loss to the owner of the product sampled.

10. Indemnity payments are provided for on page 50, lines 1 and 2, for losses by reason of suspension or cancellation of the registration. We believe just compensation should also be provided where loss is incurred due to change in classification.

11. We are puzzled by the specific instruction given on page 55, lines 23 through 25, to give priority to biologically integrated alternatives for pest control. We recognize that this language may have special appeal to some, but it really is meaningless. If the intent is to limit choice of research by emphasizing methods of biological pest control, then we question whether this is in the best interest of the public. There is ample proof that biological methods are not necessarily free of hazard to any greater extent than are chemical methods. We suggest that the Administrator not be limited in the pursuit of practical, safe and economical means of pest control.

12. We are pleased to note the addition on page 58 permitting states to register pesticides for specific local needs under certain conditions.

Mr. Chairman, we have made these suggestions believing they are constructive changes and helpful to the most effective administration of this legislation. Farmers are aware of their responsibility for using pesticides safely. They are doing their best to produce an abundance of high quality food. They are concerned about the wildlife on their land, the safety of the food they produce and their own health. They are conservationists at heart, ecologists by profession, and environmentalists by practice.

Senator ALLEN. Dr. Crosby, we are happy to have you appear before the subcommittee and give us the benefit of your views.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWIN A. CROSBY, DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DIVISION, NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION

Dr. CROSBY. In the interest of time, I will limit my remarks to only the salient points in my printed statement and, of course, request that it be made a part of the record in full.

My name is Edwin A. Crosby and I serve as the director of the agriculture division of the National Canners Association, often referred to as NCA. This is a nonprofit trade association with approximately 540

members operating canning plants in 41 States, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa. Members of the NCA pack 85 to 90 percent of the total U.S. production of canned fruits, vegetables, soups, juices, baby foods, and other items.

Canning is the primary use for a number of the important fruit and vegetable crops grown in the United States including apricots, pears, peaches, olives, tomatoes, red beets, asparagus, sweet corn, peas, and green beans. As director of NCA's agriculture division, I am charged with the conduct of a broad program designed to promote and protect the interests of the canning industry in the application of research and technology to the production, harvesting, and handling of fruits and vegetables. The proper and effective use of pesticides in canning crop production has been my direct concern during the 16 years I have served as assistant director and director of the agriculture division.

Because of our long standing concern for the proper use of pesticides and recognition of the need for appropriate control over their use to protect crops while avoiding hazards to the applicator, the environment, and the ultimate consumer of the processed food, we support in general H.R. 10729 as passed by the House of Representatives on November 9, 1971. NCA does seek, however, a new amendment of H.R. 10729 to protect the rights of users of established pesticides in instances in which the registrant does not choose to defend against cancellation or change in classification of a registration. Unlike the initial refusal to register, if a registration is threatened with cancellation or change of classification after it has been in effect, others besides the registrant, such as users who have come to depend upon the pesticide, are interested parties to the cancellation or change of classification. Particularly because such persons are permitted to seek judicial review of the Administrator's action under section 16 (as applied to this section), it would be anomaly if they are not able to invoke and participate in the hearing procedure in which the record under review is made.

This amendment is also important as a practical matter because a pesticide may be vital to growers of a particular crop, but the volume used may be too small to interest the registrant in defending its registration. In this situation, elemental fairness requires that the user be allowed to defend his use of the pesticide.

Senator ALLEN. Would that mean this user would have the right to come in and resist the cancellation or suspension? Suppose he was successful, in what way could they require the manufacturer to continue manufacturing this commodity?

Dr. CROSBY. It isn't really a question of manufacturing a commodity. It is a question of retaining the registration for the use of that commodity on the crop in question.

Senator ALLEN. Where would it come from then, if the manufacturer is the sole registrant of it?

Dr. CROSBY. Let's go back to the specific case of DDT. It is registered for use on many products. In the procedure to cancel uses of DDT, uses may be deleted, for important minor crops.

Senator ALLEN. It won't be a problem in getting the commodity, it would just be the use for certain crops.

Dr. CROSBY. Yes, certain crops. I can cite a specific example where