Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

in Guatemala reported by Dr. Barry Commoner in his book "The Closing Circle."

Pesticides were used extensively over a decade ago to control malaria, and a dramatic reduction in malaria rates was achieved. But mosquitoes gradually developed resistance to pesticides and now rates of malaria are worse than before the spraying occurred. Examples such as this indicate that we should be quite cautious in worldwide spraying operations or we could wind up with a far worse situation than we had to start with.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Blackwelder. We appreciate your testimony.

We appreciate your willingness to come before the committee and give us the benefit of your views and your recommendations as to some of the amendments that you believe would be desirable and that would improve the bill.

Do you feel that the bill as passed by the House was a step forward or a step backward in the matter of regulation of use of pesticides. Mr. BLACKWELDER. Certainly in many areas, we believe that it is a real step backward. The indemnity section is quite alarming as is the section restricts the use of data by the Administrator of EPA. We believe the bill is not forward looking at all. And at the very minimum. we would hope you would make the changes we have suggested in the markup version provided for you.

Senator ALLEN. Yes; well, now, these are pretty well amendments suggested by Senators Nelson and Hart.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. That is correct. We fully support those. There are some additions, of course, that could even go beyond those suggested by Senators Hart and Nelson. We think these are also very reasonable.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much.

That concludes our witness list for today. We meet again at 10 o'clock in the morning. The committee will stand in recess.

(Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the hearing adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, March 8, 1972.)

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1972

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

AND GENERAL LEGISLATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 324, Old Senate Office Building, Hon. James B. Allen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Allen and Curtis.

Senator ALLEN. Let the committee please come to order. There is a quorum of the subcommittee present so we will proceed with the hearing.

Yesterday some of the witnesses were allowed to exceed the 10-minute rule, particularly Senator Nelson and Mr. Dominick of EPA because they are the spokesmen for two of the several points of view regarding the bill.

Today in view of the large number of witnesses, we are going to have to ask that the witnesses abide by the 10 minutes of oral presentation of your testimony with leave to file a full written statement, which will be made a part of the record. Now, Mr. Kendall is going to be the timekeeper. He is not going to be discourteous enough to advise the witnesses that their 10 minutes have expired. He is going to advise me in a stage whisper which will be heard by the witness, and it is requested that the witnesses take note of this stage whisper and govern themselves accordingly. The witnesses will abide by the rule, please. Now, it is requested of the witnesses that it will be well for them to refrain from philosophying on this subject and come to grips with the mechanism of the regulations of the manufacturer registrations, labeling, and use of pesticides. That is what the bill deals with and at this time, we are studying the House bill. We are asking for suggestions, criticisms, constructive or destructive, and this is in order that we might come up with the best possible bill.

The first witness this morning is Mr. Reuben Johnson with the National Farmers Union. We are always delighted to hear from you, Mr. Johnson, as you come before the committee of Congress to give it the benefit of your views and the views of your fine organization.

STATEMENT OF REUBEN L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Mr. JOHNSON. The National Farmers Union has just ended a convention in Houston, Tex. The delegates to the convention passed policy statements concerning the environment, which are attached here

(233)

as exhibit A, and Mr. Chairman, I ask your permission to insert this in the record.

Senator ALLEN. It will be inserted.

(Exhibit A follows:)

EXHIBIT A

EXCERPTS FROM THE POLICY STATEMENT, ADOPTED BY THE DELEGATES OF THE 1972 NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION, FEBRUARY 28-MARCH 2, HOUSTON, TEX.

C. "NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS"

"Preserving the ecology and preserving the family-farm system of agriculture are interrelated. We hail the crusade led by science and the ecologists to save mankind from its own folly. Food and land are as necessary to mankind as air, water, and population control. What is needed is a new national land and food policy oriented to family agriculture. Family farmers, the historic custodians of Mother Earth, must take part in this crusade to save the human species from extinction. We call upon the ecologists and scientists, ministers and their followers, teachers and their students, and all people of good will, to join with rural America in preserving family agriculture which is the foundation of American democracy. We must act in unison to preserve the food supply and the environment.

"Farmers working with soil and water conservation districts have been the leading force since the 1930's in the protection and improvement of our resources and environment. Therefore, these and related programs should have continued leadership and sufficient appropriations.

1. "Environmental Protection"

"Farmers Union reaffirms its traditional commitment to sound policies and programs for the conservation and protection of the nation's precious land, water, and air resources. We applaud the increasing commitment of the nation to the goal of protecting our natural environment.

"However, where the accomplishment of such goals requires substantial alteration and/or change of location for existing livestock management facilities we urge that reasonable time allowances be granted for compliance with pollution control regulations.

"Ecological balance can best be achieved through maintenance of a familytype agriculture in which crops are rotated, livestock waste is not in excess of the volume that can be returned to the 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. "The soil and water conservation programs have proven highly effective for pollution abatement. Each family farmer and rancher should have conveniently available to him competent federally financed technical assistance and adequate cost-sharing programs needed by him to develop and put into operation his own technically sound conservation plan. so that he may use each acre of his farm land within its capabilities and treat it in accordance with its need for protection and improvement, including all the soil, water, and timber resources upon which his family's livelihood and the nation's long-term security depend.

"The Great Plains Conservation Program has been in use long enough to prove its value in achieving land use adjustment and the conservation of land and water should be extended to other areas.

"We urge continued improvement and acceleration of the small watershed program under Public Law 566, administered by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, for proper water management development.

"Farmers Union urges effective regulation-in combination with governmental research and educational programs-aimed at proper use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, and other chemicals if they constitute a source of pollution. "Any new legislation relating to pesticides, herbicides, and commercial fertilizers should include recognition of the benefits as well as the risks to man and the environment, and the decision-making agency of government should be required to weigh the recommendations of the United States Department of Agriculture, land-grant colleges and experiment stations to the end that the nation be assured dependable production of a reasonably priced food supply of highest quality and that the future of the family farm not be jeopardized.

"We favor efforts to establish priorities for immediately controlling non biodegradable pollution that is hazardous to mankind. We oppose the dumping of atomic wastes into salt mines and other such areas until further studies are made of the environmental impact of such dumping practices.

"More stringent regulations concerning other types of harmful pollution, such as noise pollution, should be developed and enforced.

"The rural community development revenue sharing proposal of the Nixon Administration would abolish several of the federal program that have been most effective in soil and water conservation, including the Rural Environmental Assistance, Great Plains Conservation, and Water Bank programs. We oppose the Administration's revenue sharing proposal. Such federal environmental programs should be strengthened and expanded, and other rural development efforts should be financed with new money rather than money taken from successful existing programs."

"With only 6 percent of the world's population, our nation uses 50 percent of the world's natural resources. With this usage, there is a great deal of waste, as evidenced by the fact that last year Americans discarded 30 million tons of paper, wasted more than 500 million trees, discarded 28 billion bottles and 48 billion cans, and junked more than 7 million cars. The earth's supply of natural resources is limited. All possible efforts must be made to judiciously use remaining resources. We urge, therefore, that greater emphasis be given to resarch, oriented towards developing economically feasible recycling programs."

Mr. JOHNSON. The Farmers Union is an organization of operating farmers. The environment is just one of the broad range of issues in which our convention delegates make policy each year.

On the matter of pesticides and the environment on members and delegates believe that 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 areas of disagreement at times. The reconciliation of differences, therefore, is extremely important. In this regard we believe that the recmmmendations made to the subcommittee 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 he suggested 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 per

76-194-72-16

mission of the originator of the data if such data tends to support another registration application.

The objectionable language that we recommended be deleted from the bill is found on page 19, line 7, of the Senate Agriculture Committee print, after the comma. The language that we recommend be deleted from the bill 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 registeration.

This objectionable language in the committee print begins on page 19, in the middle of line 7 and extends through line 11.

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 Product Division, Farmers Union Central Exchange, 1185 North Concord Street, South St. Paul, Minn., 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 H.R. 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 a 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.

Hence, this section of the Act is designed to provide chemical producers with additional exclusive production, pricing and marketing. Such a restriction would deprive farmers of benefits of competitive chemical production and marketing. Also, Mr. Chairman, to supplement the quote from Mr. Wolcott, I would like to quote from the testimony of the EPA witness, Mr. Dominick, who said:

The effect of this provision is to afford additional economic protection, foster monopoly, and it may tend to restrict pesticide business to large manufacturers. In addition, it would increase not only Federal administrative cost, but those of the manufacturer as well, aside from unnecessarily increasing the application processing time.

The cost of such protection as this provision affords large manufacturers of agricultural chemical pesticides will be borne solely by the user-the farmer.

Many of the products developed by large manufacturers of pesticides would not have been possible without access to Federal research. It is our conclusion that not to strike the objectionable language referred to above would constitute a gross injustice to farmers, to farmer cooperatives and to small business distributors of pesticides, as well as adding unnecessary redtape procedures to the administration of the program.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the time to present the views of National Farmers Union. We will be happy to submit to any questions that the subcommittee might have,

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate your testimony. We appreciate this policy statement that you have inserted into

« AnteriorContinuar »