Totaling 1670 as of this date, the number of allied-field professional persons who have added petitions like those previously filed with the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in support of this relief and this Amendment has now grown, since its recent Hearings, to 235 more, nearly all graduate, or higher level degree, landscapes architects or horticulturists or university instructors. All these petitions and, I believe, all communications to the Senate in support of the Plant Regulator, Clarification Amendment have been for the specific purpose of saving on the market my valuable products-which I positively will not teach other manufacturers how to make, on my labels-and to abate attempts forcibly to expropriate to public competition piracy my property, my proprietary formulas of my 60, 50 and 40 ingredient formulas of CUTstart 60-in-1, SUPERthrive 50-in-1, SEEDyield 40-in-1 and my equivalent products. These are the original, and perhaps still in some cases the only vitaminshormones products on the market for their purposes, long established and known to be far above any competitive materials for their purposes. Because the evidence presented to the Senate Committees has been deemed adequate, that these products and their maker have sufficient record of unique and high value to the nation, and its environment, and need for legislative relief from illogical treatment, your Committees have favorably reported my Amendment, which is gratifying and encouraging, in contrast to the early discouraging demands from EPA. (Who have apparently been kind enough lately to hold off from renewing their demands while this legislation is in process.) However, speaking frankly, to my observation, reading, by persons familiar with the problem, of the EPA comments on the Amendment, evince an unbelieving "What are they trying to do now?” It is certainly impossible for me or perhaps even for the EPA spokesman to read the minds of the EPA staff on their future plans. But the indications from the comments are surely worry-provoking. It is understandable that the 6000 EPA staff people, who have to work with 49,000 pesticides and other problems, have an immense amount of system to try to keep functioning, and that anything out of the ordinary can cause an EPA staff member to feel it loyalty to the Agency and its purpose to hold the same line as before. The question whether a habitual treatment method might be truly contrary to the purpose of the Agency, unreasonable, or in violation of the purpose or wording of the law, or even unconstitutional, might not occur to the minds of the Agency staff. By the same token, we should sympathize with this new Agency's problems when we observe as I have the identical 76-word series in letters sent over various Agency heads' signatures, starting last year, even when we note that the first such signer told me that he was unfamiliar with the subject, and did not remember writing the letter. These words included "nutritional chemicals," "hormone," "hormone-type" and "metabolically active chemicals," in an odd array that I felt to be pointless each time I saw them, in letters sent to various directions. By this means and others, I have come to the additional belief that some of the EPA heads have had to depend, in the press of circumstances, especially when often having to travel to discharge Agency speaking obligations, upon others for much of the material connected with this whole topic. I have been advised that these lower-ranked persons, in turn, may feel unempowered to use discretion, and that they may perhaps feel mistakenly that it would be good to try to get all the control that they can for the Agency, although they might conceivably thus reach a position of being, in effect, on occasion, substitute combination legislature, judge, jury and prosecutor. If some one in EPA has in mind throwing up road-blocks to force me to go to court, should the Amendment remain, before being able to get recognition from EPA that this Amendment is to protect the described products from being claimed to be under the Pesticide Act, EPA should surely have said so before, it would seem. Extreme court expense would violate my equal rights under the law, as I outlined in my Agriculture Subcommittee statement. If there is something about the Amendment that EPA has planned to take issue about, whether it effectively protects my products from the Agency's improperly claiming purview as "pesticides" while actually as opposite as possible-EPA should have said so, rather than planning any backdoor method of reprisal. After all, I was told by EPA officials, and the Senate Agriculture Committee staff were also, that some kind of legislation was needed before EPA would consider its arms untied from requirement to reach (wrongly) to claim purview of my products. I knew, of course, that I would still be dependent upon the integrity and good sportsmanship of all related EPA personnel to recognize such legislation, should it materialize, without any ensuing harassment, unconscious or otherwise. In phrasing the Amendment, I was betting that I was not misplacing my confidence in their willingness to accept Congressional spelling out of the intent of the law, and to be big enough to fit with it without sulking about it. Unawareness of the background and purposes of the Amendment seems an unlikely explanation for these Hearings comments respective to it, since: EPA Office of Legislation picked up a copy of my statement and exhibits on the same day that I was heard by the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee; also, this statement, with recommending letters, was long ago published in the Hearings Record; I placed my Hearings statement in the hand of the Administrator personally at a public meeting in March; my problem and its proposed remedial legislation have been explained to Pesticide heads of EPA (although not by me directly as yet to the Assistant Administrator for Categorical Programs or to the new head of EPA Office of Legislation). Other possible explanations occur to mind. It is hard to imagine that EPA may indeed soon entirely "liberate" soon the sprays listed by it. Although perhaps listed officially as soil amendments, as my products have been, they are not indicated as specific products at all, and it would appear unlikely, not to say unprecedented, were products solely so described to be "commonly known as vitamin-hormone products," etc., as the Amendment describes, or claimed to be either a vitamin or a hormone product, let alone a vitamin-hormone product, in the case of the fatty alcohol, tobacco sucker "control." Whereas it is desirable that such of these as might partake of no characteristic of a pesticide should not be called a pesticide, nonetheless such products would each be separate subjects. Suggesting a tie-in with this Amendment for this group list places improperly at least some potential "scare" burden onto the Amendment which might have been expected to worry the Envrionment Subcommittee, had it not been for the fact, as I am told, that your Environment Subcommittee was aware, and penetrated there being no reason for the Amendment to carry responsibility for products not described by it. The most obvious other possible explanation for the EPA comments is that some one in EPA believes that its comments could somehow muddy or even warp the legislative history. It seems such a possible bid should be rejected totally-except for the part acknowledging non-objection to the Amendment-as in no wise coming to grips with the Amendment's terms and purposes, which are quite clear. With reference to a few other inappropriate remarks in the EPA material: Use of the expression "metabolically active," recurrently seems pointless when thus used, inaccurately and misleadingly inferring that this may be a black term referring to (non-existent) per se problem-that EPA might have some special reason for hugging to itself. This Amendment cuts through againstthe-public-interest writing of just such indefinably objectless and frothy wording, used so inappropriately as to block and negate the projected law, if allowed, contradictorily. This Amendment, far from "changing the scope of present law," solely spells out the spirit and the letter of present law, as I understand it, to check the Pesticide Regulation Division's claiming adherence to it when they have in effect said "Certainly, you may go in to swim, but don't go near the water," as in the latter case. Similarly, it is less than frank for the EPA repeatedly to propagate the unfounded impression that it has been interpreting the "plant regulator" definition (for treatment as pesticides)—and its listed exclusions-as it sounds when anyone reads it without being aware of the legalese interpretations put upon it by the Pesticide Regulation Division. Again, when it is repeated "Nutritional chemicals are now specifically excluded from the definition of a plant regulator," the full facts would require much further explanation, since it has been regularly found that anyone not familiar with what the practice has been would never guess. A number of unpredictable-seeming twists are used here. First, any substance or mixture to be used as a plant regulator "is" a pesticide; second, any substance or mixture affecting a plant "through physiological, rather than physical" action is defined as a plant regulator, and thence a pesticide; third, if supposedly excluded "plant nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemicals, plant innoculants and soil amendments" have any trace of physiological, rather than physical effect upon a plant—to that extent, they are "pesticides"—whether or not actually so. For practical purposes, therefore, in reality, only, roughly-speaking, hardware, water and plain commercial fertilizer, with or without trace minerals are apparently all that are admitted by the Pesticide Regulation Division, of materials that affect plants in any way, to be non-pesticides. (There may be other, unknown, so-called "physical" exceptions.) With a straight face, EPA personnel will insist that nutritional chemicals are excluded as pesticides-without denying that it has been claiming purview as a plant regulator and therefore pesticide of even any most healthful, non-toxic nutriment (or substance or mixture), even such as a vitamin, the second it helps a plant to revive, grow better, grow its roots longer, keep a cut flower, Christmas tree or bare root shrub fresher, or is itself (though a vitamin, for example) also a plant hormone and does a hormone job or does anything lifesaving, beneficially or healthfully for a plant, cutting, seed, bulb, etc., which would therefore be called "through physiological rather than physical action !" An example of another problem involved in the EPA short remarks connected with this Amendment bobbed up in EPA recognition of common meaning when the word "hormone" is used. For a long time, the Pesticide Regulation Division has attempted to obtain, as have some few others, public use and acceptance of the term "hormone-like." This has been a statistical 100% failure. Only force has extracted even label use of the hyphenated designation. In a parallel case, most of the world and much of the population in the United States refers mainly or only to manure when talking about "fertilizer." Commercial or manufactured chemicals are looked upon by most of these as different and artificial. But none refer to "fertilizerlikes" when talking about them. Also, vitamins in many cases are not the identical naturally occurring ones, but are still known to be vitamins. No one would suggest calling the manufactured equivalent life-saving vitamins "vitamin-likes." Whereas, too, human and animal hormones are a definitely separate field from horticultural ones-in that field no one goes about talking of "hormone-likes" either. In the case of the horticultural hormones, the word "hormone" was used for all kinds of hormones some twenty years before any concerted effort was initiated, to try to get people to speak with this elongated terminology. After most of these years of campaign, the newest, 3d edition of the Merriam Webster Unabridged Dictionary gives as a definition of hormone: "A synthetic substance that resembles a naturally occurring hormone in producing a specific biological effect."Page 1091 Nobody buys, sells, asks for, tells about use of, or catalogues "hormone-likes," any more than they do, with equal reason, "vitamin-likes" or "fertilizer-likes." It is time to give up on governmental forcing of this lost campaign. Also, the government should do all that it can to ease, and to popularize, the use of my vitamins-hormones products, to aid further in their public recognition for the great environmental contributions and potential for which they are and can be used, as outlined in my Agriculture Subcommittee exhibits. I have no doubt that after such abbreviated references, on the part of the EPA Assistant Administrator, to the Plant Regulator Clarification Amendment, and his statement that the EPA has no objection to it, he may consider much of my statement to be unappreciative and even unwarranted. Having heard him give his statement to the Agriculture Subcommitee, I am sorry to find so much to talk about in his comments, as I feel that both his and his Agency's attitude are constructive, and that he would not deliberately have occasioned my concern as expressed in this statement, in apparently needed defense. Unaccustomed as I am to legislative contact, it is easily possible that I may have unproductively over-reacted in this answering statement. In risking this, I pray that your Committee and any other readers of your record will accept in advance my apology, if this is so. In all fairness, however, it should be borne in mind that this is only, from my standpoint, the most recent in a series of occasions on which this topic has drawn a frustratingly non-relating communication from EPA, albeit interspersed with these proper statements by responsible officials of non-objection to the Plant Regulator Clarification Amendment. It is fair to ask, too, that it be borne in mind that I am expected to carry the word for the nationally scattered persons and organizations and public units that depend upon my products, even to the extent in various cases of the continued success of their livelihood, as well as for civic environmental health improvements, as outlined in my Agriculture Subcommittee statement and exhibits, and in letters to that Subcommittee's perspicacious Chairman, Senator James B. Allen, as well as to other members of the Agriculture Committee, from professional, park official and industry leaders all over the country. Additionally, it is difficult to know what to do or say under the circumstances, when my own lifetime of scientific accomplishment is in the balance. One thing, though, I do know for certain. My case proves that any unknown citizen can come across the country to the Nation's Capital, and find that the Congress will receptively hear and heed a need for righting a legislative inequity. Thank you again for your support in further backing the original inclusion of this Amendment by Senator Allen and his Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, as adopted also by the full Committee on Agriculture before your additional review. Also please accept my appreciation for affording me this opportunity to call to your attention, for the record, these points which seemed to need to be expressed. Respectfully, EXHIBIT A JOHN A. THOMSON. LIST OF ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE FORWARDED TO THE SENATE THEIR WRITTEN EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT FOT THE PLANT REGULATOR CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT TO H.R. 10729 NATIONAL National Recreation and Park Association of America American Forestry Association American Institute of Landscape Architects American Association of Nurserymen Associated Landscape Contractors of America Society of American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturists National Landscape Association National Council of State Garden Clubs (400,000+ members) Mail Order Association of Nurserymen REGIONAL American Society of Landscape Architects, Southeastern Chapter Southern Nurserymen's Association Western Association of Nurserymen STATE Alabama Recreation and Parks Society California Association of Nurserymen California Landscape Contractors Association Florida Association of Nurserymen Florida Institute of Park Personnel Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association Georgia Nurserymen's Association Georgia Recreation and Park Society, Inc. Georgia State Florists Association Iowa Nurserymen's Association Kansas Recreation and Park Association Louisiana Association of Nurserymen Louisana State Florists Association Minnesota Nurserymen's Association North Dakota Nurserymen's Association STATEMENT OF REUBEN L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The delegates to the convention of National Farmers Union, February 28-March 2, in Houston, Texas, passed policy statements concerning the environment which are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Farmers Union is an organization of operating farm families. In view of this fact, our organization is heavily oriented toward the interest of full-time farm operator families. The environment is just one of the broad range of issues on which our convention delegates make policy each year. On the matter of pesticides and the environment our members and delegates believe that family farming is a far superior means of protecting the environment. More prudent and safe use of pesticides is possible on family farms than is possible under a system of corporate agricultural productive processes. Therefore, our membership takes strong exception to those national policies which continue to force migration from rural areas into cities. In short, we believe that the family farm system of agriculture affords the best protection from pollutants in the air, soil and water. Our policy statement proclaims that ecological balance "can best be achieved through maintenance of a family-type agriculture in which crops are rotated, livestock waste is not in excess of the volume that can be returned to soil through organic decay, a farm forestry plot is protected, and other conservation measures are common practice. Corporate agriculture, on the other hand, is less sensitive to natural resource conservation. There is particular need for control of corporate-dominated industrial livestock feeding-which has resulted in serious water and soil pollution." Many of the decisions which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must make under the provisions of pesticide control legislation will be difficult decisions. There undoubtedly will be considerable area of disagreement at times. The reconciliation of differences, therefore, is extremely important. In this regard, we believe that the recommendations made to the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation by the Environmental Protection Agency witness, David D. Dominick, to be constructive. We view other changes in H.R. 10729, recommended by Mr. Dominick, also to be constructive and helpful. In this connection there is one amendment Mr. Dominick mentioned which Farmers Union strongly supports. That is the provision in Section III that test data submitted in support of a pesticide registration application cannot be considered by the EPA Administrator without permission of the originator of the data if such data tends to support another registration application. The objectionable language that we recommend be deleted from the bill as reported by the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee is found on Page 19, beginning on Line 10 after the comma, and extending through the colon on Line 14. The language that we recommend be deleted from the hil! is as follows: “... except that data submitted in support of an application shall not. without permission of the applicant, be considered by the Administrator in support of any other application for registration :" To further explain our objection to this provision of the bill. I would like to quote briefly from a letter received from Mr. Art Wolcott, Manager, Chemical Department, Agri Products Division, Farmers Union Central Exchange, 1185 North Concord Street, South St. Paul, Minnesota, as follows: "The Protection offered chemical producers in this bill would virtually prohibit any other producer from competing. The investment in money and time to develop the data for registration would not be available in the face of the 17 years protected profits of the original registrant. "To cite an example using the pesticide product, Atrazine. It was patented in 1956 and is protected by a 17-year United States Patent until 1973. No one else can produce it during the life of the patent. If HR 10729, section 3(c) (1) (D) were law, it would protect (Geigy) Atrazine from competitive production, registration and marketing for another several years. It would be protected for the period required to produce efficacy data, tissue study data and a complete file of data suitable for registration, which may take five years. This would duplicate the data already on file with EPA registration section and serve no useful purpose. Of the chemical products now being marketed, 90% are protected throughout the 17 years of the patent duration. |