Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1972. Chairman, Subcommitte on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: As you know, the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, of which you are chairman, held hearings in March of 1971 on S. 745, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971." The Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives held extensive hearings on H.R. 4152, a similar bill carrying the same title. After careful consideration the House Committee on Agriculture reported a clean bill, H.R. 10729, carrying the same title, namely, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971." The American Farm Bureau Federation by a letter dated October 1, 1971, advised each member of the House of Representatives of its support of H.R. 10729 as reported by the Committee. This legislation was considered by the House of Representatives on November 9, 1971. One amendment was accepted and the bill given endorsement by the members of the House by a roll call vote of 288-91. Under date of November 6, 1971 we wrote to each member of the subcommittee and the full committee as follows: "We assume the provisions of the House-passed bill, H.R. 10729 will now be considered by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry along with S. 745, the bill that was the subject of hearings by the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation. "We believe provisions of H.R. 10729 have been carefully considered, and we respectfully request the subcommittee and the full committee report to the Senate the language of the House-passed bill." Your subcommittee has announced plans to hold public hearings on the Housepassed bill, H.R. 10729, on March 7 and 8. It is fully understood that there may be a need for minor technical or clarifying amendments to H.R. 10729 but we wish to reiterate our recommendation that the subcommittee and the full committee report H.R. 10729, essentially as passed by the House, or a commtitee bill carrying essentially the provisions and language of H.R. 10729 with only minor technical or clarifying amendments. We request that this letter be made a part of the hearings on H.R. 10729. MARVIN L. MCLAIN, STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SCOTT, MASTER, NATIONAL GRANGE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The National Grange supports H.R. 10729, to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In our judgment the bill as passed by the House is a major improvement over the legislation as it was first introduced by the Administration. The bill is basically sound and is a substantial improvement over present law. We supported passage of the House Agriculture Committee bill before the House. There are, however, several amendments that have been proposed by various witnesses which we feel should not be adopted and several important amendments which we feel should be made to the bill in order to get the best possible legislation. We are opposed to all the amendments suggested by Senator Gaylord Nelson and supported by many witnesses that appeared before the subcommittee. There is one exception, however. We do support the striking of the indemnity section (Section 15) unless it can be amended to cover any crop loss suffered by a producer which is the result of the cancellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure of a previously approved and registered pesticide by the Administrator of E.P.A. The delegates at the 105th Annual Session of the National Grange adopted the following resolution which fully explains our position: "INDEMNIFICATION TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS" "Be it resolved, That the National Grange recommends that agricultural producers be indemnified for financial losses sustained due to the confiscation of any agricultural commodity because of contamination by the application of pesticides and/or from any other source, by the appropriate regulatory agency, Congress or persons responsible for the contamination, if such contamination is due to no fault on the part of the producer; and be it further "Resolved, That agricultural producers be indemnified for financial losses sustained due to crop losses which are the result of the cancellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure of a previously approved and registered pesticide by the Environmental Protection Agency, if such cancellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure regulation is issued after the start of the growing season of the crop in question. Such indemnification shall be made by the regulatory agency issuing the regulation or by the United States Congress; and be it further "Resolved, That no language be permitted in any pesticide legislation now pending or proposed in the future before the Congress that would foreclose an agricultural producer from seeking indemnification from the courts or from the U. S. Congress." In our judgment, based on the advice of legal counsel, if the indemnification section remains in the bill as written, without any reference to reimbursement for crop losses, it will foreclose any chance of a producer from seeking relief for such losses from Congress or through the courts, because all Congress or the courts would have to do would be to refer to that section of the bill and cite that it was only the intent of Congress to indemnify the producer, or persons who owned any quantity of such pesticide, for the cost of the pesticide owned by such persons. Therefore, if Sec. 15 cannot be amended to cover crop losses to the farmer, we would urge that the entire Sec. 15 be deleted. We do not believe that indemnification of persons suffering losses which are the result of government action sets a precedent. Quite the contrary is true. We are presently indemnifying dairy farmers and beekeepers for pesticide contamination that is not the result of their own actions. In addition, ten years ago the cranberry growers were paid indemnification for crop losses they sustained when a previously registered and approved agricultural chemical was found to be dangerous to human health, resulting in a portion of their crop being confiscated by the Federal Government. Likewise, at this present time, there is a bill that has been approved by a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to reimburse soft drink bottlers and other firms for losses caused by a government ban on cyclamates. H.R. 13366 has the support of the Administration and therefore we do not believe that a "bad precedent" will be set if Sec. 15 remains in the Act. Our concern, Mr. Chairman, is that if the language is not changed to cover crop losses, then the section should be deleted so that the opportunity to seek relief from Congress for such losses will not be denied agricultural producers. The National Grange will support needed minor technical or clarifying amendments to H.R. 10729 as contained in the Committee Print prepared by the staff of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. In addition, we support the following, proposed amendments: 1. 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 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 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 rewording. 2. The provision on page 23, lines 1 through 10, gives the Administrator broad powers for classification of products to restricted use. Certain compoundsaldrin, 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. 3. 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. 4. We also support the amendment as proposed by the National Agricultural Chemicals Association as an alternative to the third party procedure as stated in the proposed EPA Rules of Practice published in the Federal Register on January 22, 1972. We believe the proposed amendments to Sec. 3, Subsection (c) (page 21, line 7) and Sec. 6, Subsection (b) (page 29, lines 1-17) show on the part of registrants a recognition of third party intervention, at the same time maintaining an equitable position for all parties involved. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the Federal-State approach contained in H.R. 10729 for carrying out the purposes of the Act. However, we also are just as strong in our support for adequate Federal monies being authorized so that the participation by the States will be encouraged. The States are now struggling under severe financial strains in carrying out their responsibilities under various Federal programs. We therefore respectfully request that the Subcommittee keep this in mind during the drafting of the final legislation. We appreciate this opportunity to present the Grange's views on H.R. 10729 and wish to express our appreciation to you and the Subcommittee for conducting further hearings on such a vital and important legislative matter that will affect the lives of everyone. Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN. NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA, Memphis, Tenn., March 7, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: Mr. Lon Mann, cotton farmer and ginner from Marianna, Arkansas, testified for the National Cotton Council before your Subcommittee on March 23, 1971, in connection with several pesticide bills under considertion at that time. Earlier, Mr. Mann presented similar testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture. Subsequently, the House Committee developed H.R. 10729, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971," which was approved by the House of Representatives. As Mr. Mann's testimony stated, the cotton industry is vitally concerned with any legislative and regulatory actions relative to pesticides used. Likewise, our industry has a great interest and concern in the condition of our environment and recognizes its responsibility in this area. We believe that the provisions of H.R. 10729 fulfill the needs of agriculture and the American people. Except for No. 2, page 1 of the Committee Print, we also endorse the amendments suggested by the staff of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Suggestion No. 2 is to amend section 2(n) (2) of H.R. 10729. We feel that regardless of the classification of a pesticide, its label should always show the percentage of active ingredients. Pesticides are often formulated and sold at different strengths. For row crops, a farmer sometimes will use them on a broadcast basis, and other times in a band. He must know the percentage of active ingredients in order to calibrate his application equipment to put out the correct amounts. State experiment stations and extension services generally make recommendations on the basis of pounds of active ingredients per acre (generally broadcast basis). It seems rather awkward and unnecessary for a farmer to have to calculate the percentage of active ingredients by substract. ing the percentage of inert ingredients from 100 when the percentage of active ingredients could be easily shown on the label. In summary, we support the provisions of H.R. 10729 and the suggested changes, except suggestion No. 2. Respectfully, CHARLES F. YOUNGKER, President. Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, NATIONAL FARMERS ORGANIZATION, Washington, D.C., March 10, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN ALLEN: The National Farmers Organization supported S. 1794 and we wish to compliment you and the other members of the committee for the favorable action on that bill. Regarding H.R. 10729, there are a number of provisions of vital interest to farmers. Generally, we support passage of the legislation. Agricultural technology has reached its present point of efficiency by expanding reliance on fertilizers, herbicides and many chemical means of insect control. Only by utilization of such modern means of increasing production, have agricultural producers been able to cope with rising costs and the commodity prices that are so often disappointing. Consumers also have benefited greatly by being able to purchase their food at reasonable prices. It must be acknowledge, however, that the rapid expansion of both the quantities and types of chemicals applied to control pests in recent years has endangered some of the users. The pressure to produce at less cost is such that many producers have spent unnecessary money and may have injured the local environment quite beyond what is really necessary to control inserts. In short, it now may very well be in the best interest of producers from an economic standpoint, and the handlers and laborers who come in contact with these strong chemicals in some instances, if we are able to slow down the high pressure expansion and sale of chemical insecticides. The development of integrated biological-cultural methods to supplement or displace heavy chemical usage would not only be desirable from an environmental point of view-it also would be enhanced by this effort to improve the registration and better supervision of the application of the chemical pesticides. We support the amendments to H.R. 10729 proposed by Senators Hart and Nelson because these recommendations will strengthen the process of registration and the overall administration of this act. In the interest of brevity, we will not comment on the specifics of each of the amendments, but we are greatly impressed with the sincerity and thoughtfulness reflected in the statement made by Senator Gaylord Nelson before your subcommittee. The National Farmers Organization is convinced that groups representing the public interest in environmental matters will contribute substantially to the welfare of farm operators if they are permitted to participate actively in hearings on pesticide registration and related actvity. This will afford the public a better opportunity to understand the needs of modern day farm operators. Only by an honest effort of all concerned, will we be able to maintain efficient farming methods while reducing the irreparable and unjustified injury to innocent people and the environment in which we all must live. We urge adoption of the eleven amenlments proposed to your subcommittee by Senators Hart and Nelson and passage of the bill. Sincerely, CHARLES L. FRAZIER, ANIMAL HEALTH INSTITUTE, Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: The Animal Health Institute is a national trade association whose member firms manufacture more than 90 percent of the animal health products sold in the United States. We are enclosing (1) a brochure descriptive of AHI's functions and scope ("This is AHI"), and (2) our current membership roster, which lists member companies and their parent corporations. Many of the animal health products produced by member firms fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act because they are classified as animal "pesticides." In other cases, products are classified as being both animal "pesticides" and veterinary "drugs"; thus, they fall under the jurisdiction of both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Because of the interest of member companies, the Animal Health Institute has been concerned with the content of H.R. 10729-an Act to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The AHI has closely followed the legislative history of the bill from its inception through its passage by the House of Representatives. Since H.R. 10729 has now been referred to your subcommittee, AHI wishes to advise you of its general support of the bill as passed by the House of Representatives. We believe it to be a workable proposal, of benefit to the consumer and to American Agriculture. Very truly yours, Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, FRED H. HOLT, Executive Vice President. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: The Institute appreciates this opportunity to make a brief comment concerning the proposed Federal Pesticide Control Act. While the Institute does not oppose the judicious use of pesticides, we recognize the necessity for adequate knowledge and practical guidelines for controls. In this regard, the House-passed bill, H.R. 10729, does no contain a provision that would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to register only those pesticides and those uses that are absolutely essential. This is a very important authority for the regulating agency to have. It is part of the present law and to leave it out of new legislation would be a step backward. The Institute also has reservations about the inclusion of the indemnity provision. This provision, which would have the federal government reimbursing the manufacturer for stocks on hand if a particular pesticide were cancelled, is not desirable because it would remove the pressure on industry to make sure that a product is safe before it is marketed. It would also place tremendous financial pressure on EPA, which would pay the indemnities out of its budget, not to cancel a pesticide even if circumstances warrant. We would appreciate having this letter made a part of the hearing record. DANIEL A. POOLE, President. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GAME, FISH, AND CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS, Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and General Legislation, Senate Agriculture Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: This letter is a statement from the International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners regarding H.R. 10729, on which your subcommittee is currently holding hearings March 7 and 8. We respectfully request that this letter and statement be entered into the hearing record. The International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners is deeply concerned over the present lack of control over use of pesticides today. We are especially disturbed that H.R. 10729, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971," retains many of the weaknesses of FIFRA, "The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act," it purportedly corrects. H.R. 10729 does propose extensive amendments to FIFRA. However, as now drafted, H.R. 10729 is little better than FIFRA. In many ways it provides even less protection for the environment and the public than does FIFRA, while further protecting manufacturers, formulators, and users of harmful pesticides. With certain constructive amendments, however, H.R. 10729 could strengthen FIFRA and change it from a weak and easily circumvented statute. We suggest the following changes in H.R. 10729 to overcome its most serious shortcomings : 1. Provide for citizen suits or participation, either in hearings before the EPA, or in the judicial review of such proceedings. |