Such regulations can be particularly valuable in situations where the State's pesticide law is weak, and in cases where massive spraying programs are underway. It may well be that the citizens of a given community do not wish it to be sprayed with a particular pesticide, and they should have some voice in this decision.

EPA commented on this report language: "EPA opposes the proposed report language which would remove all authority for political subdivisions of States to regulate pesticides. We base our opposition on the principle that Federal regulation of pesticides should only be a minimum level of regulation which could be exceeded by States or political subdivisions if necessary; and the fact that some large municipalities have programs regulating pesticides.'

We agree with EPA, but we are disheartened to see their admission that the much-touted pesticide bill will in fact provide only a "minimum level of regulation."

There are numerous other items in H.R. 10729 which deserve comment, but to avoid repetion these will be discussed by representatives of other organizations. Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views.

(Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, June 19, 1972.)

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDE CONTROL

ACT OF 1971

MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1972

U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 12:05 p.m. in room 1318, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye presiding.

Present: Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Before proceeding, I would like to convey to all of the witnesses the apologies of this committee. It appears that the temporary inconvenience caused by the airline strike has stranded several of our members in many parts of this Nation. So I am the pinch-hitter today.

The hearing this afternoon will be the second and concluding day of hearings on H.R. 10729, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act.

Last Thursday we heard from several witnesses from the environmental and public interest sector. This afternoon we will hear from the Environmental Protection Agency and witnesses from the pesticide industry.

Hopefully, this hearing this afternoon will give the committee a balanced record upon which to proceed.

First, let me welcome our first witness, Mr. David Phillipson, vice president of Upjohn Co. Mr. Phillipson is representing the National Agricultural Chemicals Association.

I have been advised that he will be accompanied by Mr. John D. Connor, general counsel of the association, and others from the industry.

Mr. Phillipson, once again I apologize for this long delay, and I would appreciate, before we proceed, you introduce your panel members for the record.

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. PHILLIPSON, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN D. CONNER, GENERAL COUNSEL; JOHN J. HOOD, VICE PRESIDENT, GEIGY AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS, DIVISION OF CIBA-GEIGY CORP.; DR. C. BOYD SHAFFER, DIRECTOR OF TOXICOLOGY, AMERICAN CYANAMID CO.; DR. JOHN S. TOBIN, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, NIAGARA CHEMICAL DIVISION; AND DR. DONALD SPENCER, ECOLOGIST, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION

Mr. PHILLIPSON. Mr. Chairman, the members accompanying me today are Mr. John J. Hood, to my immediate right, vice president

(133)

and director of research for Geigy Corp.; to his right is Dr. C. Boyd Shaffer, chief of toxicology, American Cyanamid Co.; sitting next to me is Mr. John D. Conner, counsel for National Agricultural Chemicals Association; to his left is Dr. John S. Tobin, director of the department of health and safety, Niagara Chemical Division, and chairman of the NACA Subcommittee on Health and Safety; and to my far left is Dr. Donald Spencer, consulting ecologist, National Agricultural Chemicals Association.

Mr. Chairman, we are delighted that you got here, because some of us have airline problems, also.

My name is David A. Phillipson, I am a vice president of the Upjohn Co., Kalamazoo, Mich.

By profession, I am a doctor of veterinary medicine. I appear before your committee as vice chairman of the board of directors of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, a membership association consisting of 130 basic manufacturers, formulators, and associated suppliers of the agricultural pesticide industry.

The reports accompanying H.R. 10729 of both the House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry place the problem of pesticide use and regulation in sound perspective. They recognize the vital role of pesticides in promoting public health and in producing an adequate supply of food and fiber.

Nevertheless, there are those, we believe, who either fail to recognize or do not accept for one reason or another, the essentiality of the use of pesticides. It possibly is because of this reason that there are the widely divergent views concerning the underlying philosophies of pesitcide regulation. There are those who appear to believe that pesticides are used primarily for cosmetic purposes-to enhance the appearance of food.

Senator Nelson, in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, suggested that the current use of pesticides disrupts seriously the economic stability of the farming community in some parts of the country.

It cannot be assumed that ending the use of pesticides raises only the specter of blemished food. Indeed, it has been well recognized that ending the use of pesticides raises the specter of substantially reduced quantities of foods.

Estimates have been made that without pesticides, basic food and fiber yield would be cut 10 percent to 25 percent, and fruit and vegetable yields reduced by 40 percent to 80 percent.

We recognize that the use of pesticides to accomplish these beneficial purposes present inherent risks which must be controlled and regulated. It is in recognition of these factors that the National Agricultural Chemicals Association has supported constructive legislation to regulate pesticides., both at the Federal and State levels.

It supported the enactment of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act in 1947, the Miller amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, to regulate pesticide residues in 1954, the 1959 amendments to extend coverage of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the 1964 amendment eliminating the so-called registration-under-protest provisions and to require that the Federal registration number appear on the label.

It has cooperated in the development of uniform State laws relating to the regulation of pesticides. It supported the enactment in the House of H.R. 10729 and before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, advocated the enactment, with a number of proposed amendments, of H.R. 10729 as it passed the House. Some of these amendments were adopted by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, others were not.

H.R. 10729, as reported by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, reflects substantial changes in existing law. The primary changes are:

It regulates for the first time, at the Federal level, intrastate marketing of pesticides.

It requires the classification of specific uses of specific pesticides into general or restricted categories depending upon the inherent risks associated with that use.

It requires that pesticide uses which are classified as restricted be applied by or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator or subject to other restrictions imposed by the Administrator.

It prohibits the use of a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.

It requires for the first time, the registration with the Administrator of plants in which pesticides are produced.

It provides for the imposition of civil penalties and injunctions. Accordingly, the regulatory pattern which has evolved is much more comprehensive than are those reflected in present Federal law. For the first time, it authorizes regulation of the local use and marketing of pesticides. For the first time, it authorizes Federal licensing of applicators.

While the National Agricultural Chemicals Association has supported in general, this legislation, the regulatory pattern of H.R. 10729 as it has evolved, does cause serious concern on a number of issues:

One, overlapping Federal and State authority. As has been mentioned, H.R. 10729 regulates local production and use of pesticides. It requires Federal registration of each pesticide produced in the United States.

It requires Federal registration of each plant in which a pesticide is produced. It prohibits any use, however local, of a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.

Section 23 preempts labeling and packaging of pesticides. Since it preempts labeling, we construe the bill also as a preempting classification. To this extent this bill, if enacted, will bring a degree of FederalState uniformity in the regulation of pesticides.

Nevertheless, each State will remain free to impose use restrictions in addition to, or at variance with its Federal registration by way of legislation, regulation, licensing, or permit.

As we construe this bill, there is nothing to prevent the Federal and State governments from imposing overlapping and possibly even conflicting restrictions.

Two, we are concerned also because of the broad authority which the Administrator is given to classify pesticides in the restricted category and to impose controls which are in part, open ended, and undefined on their use. We likewise are concerned with the broad grant of authority to license applicators with few, if any, guidelines as to the qualifications for licensing and with no understanding as to the personnel who is to do the licensing.