Pesticides and Public Policy l‘ilational Agricultural Chemicals Association 1145 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Washington 6, D.C. BERKELEY LIBRARY UNIVERSZTY OF CALlFORNIA FOREWORD A serious threat to the continued supply of wholesome, nutritious food, and its availability at present-day low prices, is manifested in the fear complex building up as a result of recent unfounded, sensational publicity with respect to agricultural chemicals. These chemicals are necessary for continued production of adequate food, feed, and fiber crops. This pamphlet attempts to outline some of the broad aspects and implications of the current controversies which afiect every individual in the United States. L. S. HITCIINER Executive Secretary National Agricultural Chemicals Association May 1960 Public Health GIFT /’VV;— " * PESTICIDES AND PUBLIC POLICY /,_ INTRODUCTION AW 1 A ,, Our Age of Change and of Fear Our modern age is essentially an age of exceptionally rapid change. Almost every day we read of new advances in nuclear energy, space ex- ploration, food production, or the conquest of disease. Agriculture, still our largest and most basic industry, is advancing, too. More real progress has been made in farming in the past 40 years than in all the centuries of man be- fore 40 years ago. The growing pace of today’s prog- ress puts a severe strain on many people. For adjustments to new con- ditions and new beliefs about the world around us are always painful. Our grandfathers had a lifetime to adjust to a major change. We must learn to adjust to major changes at the faster rate of three or more per lifetime. Old and familiar beliefs die slowly with many people, and it is not sur- prising that many fall behind the times today. Nor is it surprising that some, with eyes focused upon narrow fields of interest, want to slow down or, in some cases, even reverse the march of progress. The challenging or shattering of an old belief for some is like an earth- quake to others. Their reaction is im- mediate and unreasoned fear. Just as our modern age is one of exceptionally rapid change, it also is an age of fear. Our news is often based largely on speculation of what we fear will happen or on what we fear will not happen. Science, which has opened the doors to progress and has given some the confidence to face the future fearlessly and with hope, has led others to fear the future. The state of the public mind has a direct bearing on judgments of what may be a hazard to life and health. The more fearful people are, the more hazards they will see. An opinion survey reported by the Survey Research Center of the Uni- versity of Michigan in 1958 showed these revealing attitudes. Eighty-three percent of Americans felt that the world is better off because of science. Five percent gave qualified approval of science. Twelve percent were op- posed to scientific advances or could not make up their minds about it. But what is perhaps most mean- ingful was that nearly fifty percent of those interviewed expressed fear of atomic annihilation, uncontrolled weapons, or other “evils” of science. Twelve percent held scientists directly responsible for the “evil” uses of their discoveries. Fear has been with man since the beginning. It arrived with darkness. In the past ages, man’s fears made him the victim of oracles, sooth- sayers, and scare-mongers. Not many centuries ago an eclipse of the sun was a cause for public terror. The man who could assure the public that the eclipse meant no harm, or the man who could promise that he could save the people from harm foretold by the eclipse, was the man of the moment. He could manipulate the people as he wished. 437 Science, by giving us sound knowl- edge about the eclipse of the sun, has eliminated this natural phenomenon from among those things which can cause public terror. But science, un- wittingly perhaps, has ushered in whole new areas where public lack of knowledge tends to make many people fearful. It seems important to recognize this climate of public opin- ion. The cry of “fire” in a theater can cause more human injuries than the fire itself. The same may be true of cries of danger in larger public areas outside the theater. Outside the theater the fear-arous- ing words today are “atom bomb”— “fallout"—“cancer”——and, to a lesser degree, “slow poison.” High public emotions can be aroused by shouting or even by whispering these words in public in connection with some event or some product. Probably, our modern age of fear really began in August 1945 when, by the explosion of two atom bombs, men learned that men now could create forces which could destroy mankind. The life-killing ability of so small an explosive package, raised the specter of life-destroying forces of other kinds. Frightening as an atom explosion would be, fear was heightened by the effects of unseen fallout from hydrogen bombs dis- covered in 1954. Some British scientists estimated that human life would be wiped out on earth if more than 1,000 atom bombs were exploded no matter where they fell. Other estimates were that as few as 10 bomb explosions would do the deadly job. Contamination of the atmosphere by radioactivity; pol- lution of air and water; contamina- tion of foods were all heightened as sources of danger to human life and as causes for public fear. Fear, or some such motive, caused at least one scientist to predict that the explosion of a hydrogen bomb would ignite the air, and the world would go up in flame. Scientists who knew more of the effects of the hydro- gen bomb assured the world that this would not happen. And so it didn’t. Lack of dependable knowledge, even on the part of some scientists, who speak out of their own fields, adds to the public confusion and fear over very serious questions. For the public, lacking knowledge needed to make a sound judgment on many scientific questions, must rely upon information and warnings given them by reputable scientists and public officials. Such information can counsel reasonableness, or it can excite wide- spread fear among some, hostility among others, and lack of public con- fidence in the government on the part of others. If we are to survive the present age, those in positions of authority must exercise reasonable judgment, and wisdom, in making public state- ments, and give due consideration to all the factors—benefits as well as hazards—that must be weighed in making a decision in the balanced best interests of the public. Such men must be above the sway of popular emotions and beyond the hold of popular, and often unfounded, fears. Rapidly changing conditions of life and widespread fear of unknown ele- ments which science is introducing into modern life form the background against which public policy decisions concerning pesticides are being made today. THE PESTICIDE INDUSTRY The chemical industry, of which the pesticide industry is a part, differs from most other enterprises in two important ways. First, it is not limited to one or to a small number of prod- ucts as are automobile makers and others. Second, although chemicals affect every phase of our daily life, they are usually absorbed by other branches of industry. The good they do is obvious in our improved clothes, houses, appliances, food and other products. But their role in these im- provements is not readily visible. Our abundance of wholesome foods, for example, is more likely to be credited by popular writers and the public to modern farm machinery than to chemicals. The machinery which speeds planting, cultivating and harvesting is visible. The chemi- cals which protect crops from insect, weed, and disease damage and from rodent contamination are not. It is our nature, as Americans, to believe what we can see, and to sus- pect, discredit, or, at best, under- appreciate what we cannot. So we take for granted food stores stocked with all the kinds of foods we like, and overlook a real miracle of our times—the role of science in giving us the most abundant food supply in the history of man. Producing meat, milk, grains, fruits, and vegetables to feed 180,- 000,000 people three times a day every day of the year is a big job, and a serious responsibility. If this flow of foods were cut off completely for two weeks, most of our 180,000,- 000 people would starve to death. While this possibility is far-fetched today, just this very event did take place in Ireland. About 100 years ago Ireland’s main food source—potatoes ——was all but wiped out by a fungus disease called late blight. Millions died or fled Ireland in a national tragedy that chemicals—now in use— could have prevented. An even more difiicult food supply problem faces man today than faced him 100 years ago. Population in the U. S. is expected to rise from 180,- 000,000 in 1960 to nearly double that number in the year 2000—just 40 years from now. It’s the same all over the world. The number of people to be fed is increasing by 100,000 peo- ple every day. World population is expected to rise from 2.8 billion now to over 6 billion in the year 2000. Calculate the sheer weight of food products someone must produce in order to feed all these additional fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters. Americans eat an average of 1,500 pounds of foods per year. The amount needed to feed Americans in 2000 is a staggering 270 billion pounds a year or 135 million tons of food a year more than we are producing today. Can we do it? Agricultural scien- tists say we can. That is, we can if we continue scientific research and if we continue to use the results of research to the maximum in our food produc- tion. This means using the latest de- velopments in improved seeds, im- proved plants, the best machinery, fertilizer and the most effective means of protecting crops against destructive pests. Above all it means a maximum use of chemicals in agriculture. Dr. Herrell DeGraff, agricultural economist, Cornell University, has estimated that one-third or more of our food production in the United States today can be credited to agri- cultural chemicals, including pesti- cides. With farm production at $30 billion a year, this indicates that chemicals are responsible for $10 bil- lion worth, or about enough to feed 60 million people. Some fibers such as cotton as well as food are included in the $30 billion total. But the av- erages do give an idea of the magni- tude of the contribution chemicals make to your full dinner plate every day. Even more than a full dinner plate is involved. Some 25,000,000 work- ers, over one-third of our work force, are employed in food production, processing, and distribution. Agri- business is our largest single industry and it contributes much to our na- tional strength and to our economic prosperity. Chemicals which enable farmers to control destructive pests also enable him to get higher yields, cultivate larger acreages, produce more efiiciently, and buy more pro- duction items, and more consumer items for himself and his family. In every community from Florida to Alaska, from Maine to Hawaii, where agriculture contributes to the econ- omy, millions of Americans benefit who have never seen a farm. Chemicals—pesticides—which en- able men to protect their food sup- Pesticides and American farmers began using pesticides on their crops in the mid- 1800’s. It was not until around 1910 that they entered the realm of public policy. In that year Congress passed a Federal Insecticide Act. This might be called a commercial act for it was designed to protect buyers from pos- sible misrepresentation of what ma- terials available then could do for them. Concern over health effects did not come until around 1919, when pears bearing excessive residues of arsenical compounds were seized by plies from destructive insects, plant diseases, weeds and rodents, have an impact upon national strength and economic growth far beyond the small size of the industry which produces them. Annual sales of some 3275,- 000,000 worth of technical chemicals, at the manufacturer’s level, can be calculated in terms of many billions of dollars in benefits to our local, state and national economies. The invisibility of chemicals, none- theless, leads the general public and, at times, legislators as well, to over- look the really critical role chemicals play in our economy, our agriculture, and in protecting our public health. There is a regrettable public tendency to concentrate attention on real or fancied ills allegedly caused by the misuse of a few of these chemicals. If all we read or heard about a per- son was limited to the bad things he or she did or was said to have done, we would have a poor impression in- deed of everyone——even of the most saintly of people. Chemicals need many advocates for their good points today, for there are in the land a number of vociferous advocates against them. Public Policy the Boston, Massachusetts, Health De- partment. Fruit producers were warned by the U. S. Department of Agriculture to remove spray residues by washing. Since then the use of pesticides has been fairly continuously under public debate and subject to public investi- gation and judgment. Extensive scientific investigations of pesticides by the government began around 1925. The Food and Drug Adminis- tration held hearings on residues in the spring of 1950. Exhaustive Con- gressional hearings were held on chemicals in foods from 1950 to 1953. A Federal Court case in Brook- lyn in 1957 centered around pesticide use. Today pesticides are a focal point of public action relating to chemicals in foods. Each time that all the facts have been presented to an impartial and balanced public body for judgment —when all the benefits as well as all of the real and alleged hazards re- sulting from their use have been weighed—two conclusions have been reached. One: use of these chemicals is essential to our modern life; and, two: they can be and must be care- fully and wisely used to avoid harm to the very things they are designed to protect. In this respect they are like the use of a hammer to fasten a picture hanger to a plaster wall. The hammer blow must be just hard enough to drive the nail into the wall and not so hard that it smashes the plaster. Like most new developments in mod- ern life, degree makes a difference. A proper amount does an immense amount of good; too much can do some harm. Public policy since 1925 has revolved around these two ques- tions. One: how much of a specific chemical is enough to control the in- sect, plant diseasc, weed or rodent involved? Two: how much will threaten to cause harm to food safety or to public health? Invariably, the tolerance or limit of amount of resi- due of a chemical allowed to remain in or on a food crop has been kept to a minimum in order to give maxi- mum protection to food safety and to the safety of public health. Determination of this kind of toler- ance should be a purely scientific question. It was the intent of two Federal laws to keep the determina- tion of amounts to be used and toler- ance limits for residues to be per- mitted in or on foods on scientific levels. The Federal Insecticide, Fun- gicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 did the first of these things. The Mil- ler Pesticide Residue Amendment (1954) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was intended to do the other. While the United States is a nation run by law, the laws must be admin- istered by men. Administrators of laws, scientists, and those regulated by laws, are all human. They are in- lluenced by their own views. They are influenced by public opinion or what they take to be the opinion of the public. Judgment as to what may be a hazard to public health is much more difficult and much less exact than judging what is a hazard. Judg- ing what may be a hazard appears to have become the object of many who speak on public policy today rather than the scientifically ascer- tainable question of what actually is a hazard. The Cranberry Episode Until November 9, 1959, cran- berries were considered as small red berries good to eat with turkey on Thanksgiving and during the Christ- mas holidays. A small but growing number of people had begun to think of cranberries, cranberry sauce, and cranberry juice as year-round foods. But 60 percent of cranberry sales were during the Thanksgiving period and 20 percent during the Christmas period. Just as the nation was moving toward the Thanksgiving season, and beginning to plan on buying cran- berries as a traditional symbol of an abundant food supply, there came a clap of thunder and a flash of light- ning. Headlines screamed, “Cran- berry-Cancer Taint Revealed.” A per- sonal appearance by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare warned people they would eat cran- berries at their own risk of getting cancer, until all cranberry shipments were checked. For whatever reason we may never know, the panic button had been pushed. Cranberry sales collapsed. Public confidence in the American food supply was shaken here and abroad. Farmers, led by the American Farm Bureau, the National Grange, and other major farm organizations rose in arms against what they con- sidered an unjustified public act. Was the real hazard to the public health so pressing that such extreme measures could be justified? Was the Federal law under which the ac- tion was taken mis-applied? Is the law so written that the public can ex- pect future public actions of the same nature? Answers to these questions cannot be tossed ofl lightly. The stability of our agriculture, public confidence in the safety of our food supplies, and a judgment on how well the balanced best interests of the people are being served are all involved. If how pesti< cides are used has become a subject of public policy, the laws and the pub- lic actions affecting their use must also be a subject of public policy. The cranberry episode centered around the misuse of a weed killer, aminotriazole. This product had been registered with the U. S. Department of Agriculture for use as a weed killer in 1958. Directions for use, as reg- istered, called for applications which would leave no residues of the chemi- cal on harvested products. This meant that if directions for use were fol~ lowed, none of the chemical would be in or on any food delivered to market and to consumers. This was eminently a safe procedure. A little over a year later, Federal Food and Drug Administration in- spectors discovered some cranberries grown in Washington State which bore traces of aminotriazole residues when they were harvested. Following usual FDA procedure, these lots of food would have been impounded and the growers would have faced hearings and possible fines. They had violated the law by marketing cran- berries which had aminotriazole resi- dues on them. Hundreds of food seizures are made by Federal Food and Drug in- spectors every year. During October 1959 FDA seized 418 tons of unfit foods. Some were seized because of economic cheat, that is, because of short weight, sub-standard quality, or misbranding. A larger amount was seized because of contamination by insect and rodent filth in storage warehouses after interstate shipment. Such seizures are noted in monthly press releases from the Food and Drug Administration, and, in some months, seizures of crops which bear excessive residues of pesticides are noted. When it came to cranberries, how- ever, it was elected for some reason to warn the public against an alleged health hazard from eating them, until all cranberries going to market had been checked. The claim was made that the chemical was a cancer caus- ing agent and came under a clause in the Food Additive Amendment (1958) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This clause states that any chemical found to cause cancer in laboratory animals when fed at any dosage may not appear in foods consumed by man. The Secre- tary of Health, Education, and Wel- fare explained to the press afterwards that he told the public that some cran- berries bore residues of a cancer- producing chemical because of his “obligation to protect the health of the American people.” The warning carefully avoided stating that the residues found on cranberries actually constituted a health hazard. The Sec- retary, instead, reported that people would eat cranberries only at their own risk and that he was not going to eat any himself until they had been checked. While millions of housewives quickly rearranged their menus to exclude cranberries and thus break age-old customs, testing of cranber- ries by FDA inspectors and others began. By the first of December, 21,- 875,000 pounds of cranberries had been cleared for sale. Less than 2% of all cranberries checked had been found to contain some residues of aminotriazole, and were taken off the market. Meanwhile, some facts about the residue’s probable effect upon hu- mans began to come to light. Dr. Ed- win A. Astwood, senior physician at Boston’s New England Center Hos- pital, said that an anti-thyroid com- pound which acts like aminotriazole occurs naturally in mustard, cabbage, turnips and broccoli and no one re- frains from eating these because of this compound. Dr. C. Boyd Shaffer, of the Ameri. can Cyanamid Company, who had conducted extensive studies of this chemical, and who, presumably, knew more about its effects than anyone else, declared that “a human would have to eat 15,000 pounds of (con- taminated) cranberries a day for many years” to approximate the dos- age and conditions under which thy- roid tumors were observed to develop in laboratory rats. Dr. Shaffer also pointed out that the dosage of the chemical which caused thyroid tumors in rats, did not affect the thyroid glands of dogs in any way when ad- ministered daily for a period of a year. A study made immediately by the National Agricultural Chemicals As- sociation disclosed the view of com- petent toxicologists that the dietary concentration that was required to produce, in rats, thyroid tumors un- equivocally due to the chemical was 1000 times as great as the residue allegedly found on the seized cran- berries, and that cranberries consti- tute only a small fraction of the total human diet. These toxicologists con- cluded that the residue of aminotria- zole found on the contaminated ber- ries “could not offer any significant risk to the consumer.” By this time cranberry sales for the 1959 season had been destroyed. Back in the cranberry bogs an even more serious situation was developing. Cranberry growers who belong to the Ocean Spray Cooperative, which rep- resents 75 percent of the industry, had been advanced half of the projected value of their crop. They had spent this and more to get their berries to market. Growers feared they would have to return all or part of the ad- vanced money, an act which would force most of them out of business. These growers were not “million dol- lar businesses.” They were small farmers whose welfare most public officials of the nation are dedicated to protect. The economic fate of cranberry growers, the supply of cranberries to consumers, and the cost of cranber- ries continue to hang upon actions taken by the Federal Food and Drug Administration and the U. S. Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Wel- fare. Like most administrative decisions, the one relating to cranberries was supported by some and opposed by others, and there were extremists and moderates on both sides. But the questions still remain. Was the action on cranberries wise? Was it effective? Was it in the balanced best interests of the American people? These are questions which can only be answered by the public and by those elected or selected to represent the public when all the facts are in. The doubts, the questions, the hostili- ties aroused by the action indicate, at least, that the action deserves a proper review. The Apple Incident We are all likely to think that when an incident occurs within our own memory, it was the first incident of its kind. The cranberry episode has a precedent, although few people now would remember it as it happened some 30 years ago. Red apples instead of red cranber- ries were at the center of public ex- citement then. And the repercussions were international. This is what hap- pened. In 1926 illnesses were reported in England. The cause was alleged to be from the eating of apples imported from the United States. The apples had been treated with lead arsenate for the control of codling moth. The symptoms reported were of lead poi- soning. The British then answered that no apples would be admitted to Britain unless they conformed to a tolerance set by the British Royal Commission. This tolerance was a “beer” tolerance, set at the turn of the century, to pre- vent excessive residues in British beer resulting from use of lead pipes in brewing. Apples in shipment when this rule was laid down were dumped on the docks in Britain in a reverse of the Boston tea party. Repercus- sions were felt in the United States. Spray control observations begun in the United States by the U. S. De- partment of Agriculture in 1925 had 10 revealed residues on apples and pears above the British standard. That raised a dilemma. Under the Food and Drug Act of that time, the Food and Drug Administration would only permit a spray residue safe for con- sumption. Everyone realized then that a drastic downward revision of spray tolerances might wipe out the apple industry in the United States. Accordingly, the apple industry came forward with the statement that the growers would abide by any facts that were developed, even if it meant ruinous inability to control the insects attacking the crop. They wanted facts, however, and not speculation as to what was a hazard and what was not. A conference of nationally-known sci- entists was called by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1927 for advice on a temporary tolerance for lead and arsenic to be set in the public interest. After much study, the conference advised tolerances of 3 parts per mil- lion of arsenic and 2 parts per million of lead. The actual tolerances, how- ever, were somewhat lower than these recommendations. The tolerance for arsenic was pushed down to approxi- mately 1.5 parts per million, and the tolerance for lead was under 2 parts per million, during the mid-thirties. Then, as now, not everyone was happy with administration of the law. Discontent with some FDA practices appear to be behind a decision of Congress in 1937 to direct the U. S. Public Health Service to find the real facts. Was the use of lead arsenate spray a genuine or a fancied health hazard? Again, the apple industry said it would live with whatever facts were developed. The times were not unlike our own. Lead arsenate was accused of causing a wide variety of diseases from sexual impotency to cancer. Only a full scale investigation by competent medical and toxicological scientists could de- termine the facts. The Public Health Service, under the direction of Dr. Paul Neal, Senior Assistant Surgeon, conducted a 3-year study based on a study of the human population in an area found to have the greatest exposure to the spray chemical. Orchardists in the Wenatchee Valley of Washington State were given complete medical examinations, former orchardists and consumers were examined. Medical and toxicological examinations were made of man and animals. Results of this monumental study were published in a l81-page Public Health Bulletin No. 267, in 194-1. Con- clusions: lead arsenate spray caused none of the diseases many fearful people claimed it did. Men and wo- men who used sprays and ate apples containing spray residues were just as healthy and as fertile as anyone else. Nor was any evidence discovered of cumulative build-up of the residue in the system. The Public Health Serv- ice reported, “It appears that the in- creases in lead and arsenic assimila- tion from eating lead arsenate spray residues on apples and pears do not overtax the ability of the body to excrete lead arsenate.” Following the Public Health Serv- ice report, the actual tolerances for both arsenic and lead were more than doubled. The new tolerances provided complete safety for consumers and at the same time permitted the efficient growing of crops. Guns were firing and armies were marching when the Public Health Service report came out, and soon the United States was involved in World War II. Public concern shifted radi- cally from worry over residues of pesticides on food, to the job of win- ning the war. A major element in that effort was the production of adequate amounts of pesticides, including lead arsenate, to enable farmers to pro- duce the needed quantities of food. Food as much as bullets is the foundation of national power. A com- mittee on pesticides was made part of the War Production Board to ex- pedite the manufacture of pesticides. Production of food was raised. The United States became the arsenal of democracy, and not only fed our own 12 million men under arms, but many of our allies, too. Pesticides helped to maintain our national power in a time of need, and in fact, contributed measurably to winning the war. Pesticides Record The demands for pesticides to pro- tect vital food crops during the war years speeded up research to find new pesticides in laboratories all over the world. DDT, re-discovered in Basel, Switzerland, in 1939, came to the attention of the American and British 11 Governments in 1942. Following tests by the U. S. Public Health Service, which included extensive tests on hu- mans, DDT became a new tool in the protection of public health. Used widely by the armed forces, DDT is credited with saving 5,000,000 live' and preventing many more illnesses by protecting troops and civilian pop- ulations from insect and rodent borne diseases. World War II became the only major war in history in which deaths due to typhus were fewer than casualties due to military action. By 1944 extensive testing of DDT for use on food crops was underway at State Agricultural Experiment Sta- tions and by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Toxicological testing was undertaken by the Federal Food and Drug Administration, and in 1945 FDA suggested a tolerance of 7 parts per million be set for DDT residues on some food crops. The growing use of pesticides in agriculture during and immediately after World War II led leaders in the pesticide industry and in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, to seek new legislation to control pesticide use. A new measure was proposed to Congress in 1945. This finally became the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947. By December 1947 farmers and agricultural scientists were reporting phenomenal increases in yields com- ing from the use of the new chemicals, many as high as 20 percent to 40 percent. This led farm leaders to pro- pose an all-out war against pcsts as the answer to the world’s post-war food shortage problem. Protection of public health through the control of insects and rodents— developed during the war years—led more than 2,000 communities from coast to coast to use sprays and baits to reduce populations of mosquitoes, flies, and rats. Effectiveness of these chemicals in protecting public health won praise from the then Surgeon General, U. S. Public Health Service —Dr. Leonard Scheele—and other 12 medical doctors in the Public Health Service. All of this rapid and amazingly successful progress in pest control intensified the problems of control- ling the use of pesticides. The Federal Food and Drug Administration op- ened hearings January 17, 1950, to determine tolerances to be set on chemical residues to be permitted on food crops. These hearings ran through much of 1950. Testimony of well over 200 scientists and represen- tatives of the pesticide industry, agri- culture, farm groups, commodity or- ganizations, agricultural colleges and experiment stations were heard. The old issue of what is a health hazard and what may be a health hazard was raised. Some witnesses, worried about what may be a hazard, produced some sketchy evidence, and a great deal of speculation. When questioned, they fell back on the fa- miliar argument that men really do not know all the answers about what may be a health hazard. Demands were made for more research on one hand, and the banning of some highly useful materials on the other. Against this approach by a rela. tively few witnesses, the majority set forth evidence that pesticides caused no indication of damage to health when the materials were used as di- rected. Mountains of evidence were presented to demonstrate that the proper use of pesticides was essential to United States’ and world food pro- duction. The United States obviously was an island of agricultural plenty in a world of severe food shortages. A major reason was our growing use of pesticides. Before FDA had made any final conclusions, Congress in 1950 opened a major investigation into all chemi- cals in foods. The Congressional Investigations Over the next three years, 1950 to 1953, the debate was conducted before the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Prod- ucts, created by the House of Repre- sentatives, July 20, 1950. Hearings began in September 1950. More than 220 witnesses were heard. They included representatives of the American Medical Association, Amer- ican Dental Association, American Public Health Association, New York Academy of Medicine, National Re- search Council, U. S. Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Agricul- ture, U. S. Food and Drug Adminis- tration, Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, American Cancer Society, Grocery Manufac- turers of America, National Agricul- tural Chemicals Association, National Fertilizer Association, Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, American Plant Food Council, General Federa- tion of Women’s Clubs, Cooperative League of the USA, American Home Economics Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Na- tional Grange, and National Farmers Union. Numerous other witnesses from the chemical industry, from the food in- dustry, and from professional and consumer groups were heard, as were expert witnesses from colleges, uni- versities, and Agricultural Experiment Stations. Witnesses fitted into three broad categories: One was made up of witnesses who felt that chemicals were unnecessary or were too dangerous to use in food production. Among these were the late Louis Bromfield, novelist and amateur farmer, and J. I. Rodale, edi- tor of Organic Gardening and Or 13 ganic Farming magazines, a former accountant and manufacturer of elec- trical devices who is credited with founding the organic farming move- ment in the U. S. Also in this cate- gory were Dr. Frank Granville Knight of California, and Dr. R. F. Mobbs of North Carolina, both medical doc- tors. At that time some witnesses felt we did not know enough about the long- term effects of ingesting small amounts of chemical residues day after day. This was the view expressed by the American Public Health Asso- ciation, the Council of Foods and Nu- trition of the American Medical Association,“ and such medical men as Dr. Charles S. Cameron, medical director of the American Cancer So- ciety. The largest number of witnesses took the position that chemicals were both necessary to our food produc- tion and safe when used according to directions. In this group were toxi- cologists from the U. S. Public Health Service, scientists from the U. S. De- partment of Agriculture and State Ag- ricultural Experiment Stations, medi- cal doctors who had tested many of the chemicals in medical toxicological laboratories, representatives of chemi- cal users—the farm organizations and the chemical manufacturers. All witnesses, except for the hope- ' The American Medical Association’s Committee on Pesticides later stated in January 1957, “Pesticides play an impor- tant role in providing the nation’s food supply and protecting public health. Thanks to the Miller Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the con- sumer is assured of an unparalled degree of protection. The Miller Amendment re- quires the pre-testing of a pesticide chemi- cal for the protection of the consumer." less extremists, agreed without reser- vation that “no chemical should be permitted entry into the nation’s food supply until its safety for use has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.” A major concern in 1950 and 1951 was cancer, just as it is today. After hearing all the evidence offered by expert witnesses, the CongreSsional investigating committee noted, “' l‘e testimony proflere-l was not that cer- tain chemicals presently in use as additives and insecticides do cause cancer, but rather that there is a defi- nite lack of knowledge on the sub- ject.” Dr. A. L. Miller formerly Director of Public Health in Nebraska, and, at the time he testified, a member of Congress from Nebraska, had pre- sented this problem in an unusually clear light on May 15, 1951. Dr. Miller pointed out, “We are finding that there are many causes of cancer and perhaps a certain number of these have to operate in just the right combination in order for cancer to develop. 1 would imagine that a great deal of the testimony which you have heard here along that general line is, ‘We simply don’t know whether this particular additive is carcinogenic.’ And yet, there is some evidence that under conditions of very particular laboratory control it may be; but in general the evidence is not very spe- cific.” In other words, Dr. Miller raised this question. Even when certain chemicals are found to produce cancer, or are believed to produce cancer, in one or two laboratory ani- mals at the end of a two or three year feeding period, the same conditions may never occur outside of the labo- ratory and thus the same chemical 14 might present no hazard of cancer to humans at all. To inject a more recent laboratory development here, a Dr. Josel Szep- senwol of the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine reported in the December 1959 issue of Proceed- ings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine results of feed- ing hard boiled eggs to mice. Dr. Szepsenwol found that mice fed hard boiled eggs in addition to their regu- lar diet showed a much higher inci- dence of tumors than their litter mates on an egg-free diet. Commenting on this report, Dr. Arnold Lehman, Director of the Fed- eral Food and Drug Administration’s Pharmacology Division, and Dr. Ar- thur Nelson, pathologist in the same division, said that in 1954 rats fed a rich diet of egg yolk in milk became obese and tended to develop tumors of the liver. Reputable scientists immediately agreed that this evidence was not of a kind to justify any change in the public’s consumption of eggs or prod- ucts that contain them. Other scien- tists pointed out that almost all food and water contain small amounts of lead and arsenic. Burnt toast and charred meat contain traces of well known elements which can induce cancer in laboratory experiments. But the body can cope quite well with such minute amounts, and eliminate them without any harm to health. Yet, evidence of this nature is now enough, under the Delaney clause in the Food Additive Amendment of 1958, to ban the use of pesticides in food production, or, at least, to place a zero tolerance on residues from such chemicals remaining in or on crops at harvest. This was the crux of the action of the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare re- garding residues of aminotriazole on cranberries, and HEW action on the use of diethylstilbesterol in poultry. Directing his testimony during the 1950-53 Congressional hearings to- ward this very question of how any new law regulating pesticides must be administered, Lea S. Hitchner, Execu- tive Secretary of the National Agri- cultural Chemicals Association, sug- gested that, “The most appropriate manner of improving the tolerance control is by improving the tolerance setting procedure.” Conscious that the final decisions might be made by non- scientists or by scientists whose ex- perience might be limited in some ways, Mr. Hitchner further suggested that, “Provision is made for advisory committees composed of qualified ex- perts to advise and consult with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in connection with toler- ances. This avoids placing complete responsibility over highly technical questions of science in the province of one agency.” Mr. Hitchner was expressing a fun- damental American belief in the divi. sion of powers in government; name- ly, that every effort must be made to prevent one person or one govern- ment agency from exercising life or death control over any individual or over any industry or over any one product. This has been a constant source of danger in our free govern- ment since the earliest days, and ap- pears to remain so despite all our laws and regulations designed to pre- vent it. At the end of three years of hear- ings, the Select Committee to Investi- gate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products stated: “. . . there is a genuine need for the use of many chemicals in connection with our food supply. . . .” 15 “The American public may feel justifiably proud of the manner in which the scientists of this country, in conjunction with the food and chemical industries, have solved the many serious food problems which have arisen. . . .” “Nevertheless the public is in need of protection against small, irrespon- sible elements, as well as against the possible inadvertent mistakes of repu- table food processors and premature enthusiasms of chemical manufac- turers.” In other words, after hearing all the evidence, Congress concluded that the record of pesticide use had been of over-all benefit to the public but that some additional legislation was needed as an extra safeguard. This position was supported by all respon- sible witnesses including consumers, farm organizations and the pesticide industry. Subsequently, several bills were in- troduced into Congress and the Miller Pesticide Residue Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed by Congress and made into law in July 1954-. The Miller Amendment requires the thorough pre-testing of a pesti- cide chemical before it can be used on food crops. Under the law the manufacturer must provide detailed scientific data to prove to the U. S. Department of Agriculture that the chemical is useful in agriculture and how much residue, if any, will re- main in or on a food crop after appli- cation. The manufacturer must also supply scientific data on the toxicity of the chemical to warm blooded ani- mals, data obtained from two to three or more years testing of the chemical through the normal life span of a variety of laboratory animals. From this data, and from their own re- search on the chemicals, the Federal Food and Drug Administration sets a tolerance or maximum amount of residue of the chemical which may legally remain in or on the food crop when it enters interstate commerce. This level is scientifically determined to be safe for humans. Foods hearing more than the set tolerance are seized, kept off the market, and the person responsible for the excessive residue may be fined. While tolerance setting procedures, provisions for the use of advisory committees of experts, and final re- course from administrative decisions to the courts were also written into the Miller Pesticide Residue Amend- ment, the question of where to set tolerances and how to handle the en- forcement of the law in every case has not been completely solved to everyone’s satisfaction. The cranberry episode, alone, raises the possibility that products, chemical firms, and even food grow- ers, can be put out of business by administrative decision without ade- quate scientific justification. Several other conclusions of the Congressional investigating commit- tee are especially pertinent here. The Committee concluded, “In the com- mittee’s view, it is important that un- necessary obstacles to technological improvements in food production and processing not be created.” The Committee further concluded that, “The Committee does not be- lieve that an insecticide which can be used without danger to the consuming public, and with benefit to the grower should be kept from the market be- cause of failure of a few to observe the recommended directions for use.” The intent of Congress appears to be clear from these conclusions and from the provisions of the Miller Pesticide Residue Amendment itself. It is equally clear that the full intent of Congress may not always be fol- lowed in every case today. The Senate Study on Pesticides At the same time the House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Foods, chaired by Rep. James J. Delaney, N. Y., was probing the use of pesticides, a Senate Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Minn., ex- amined the subject of Manpower, Chemistry and Agriculture. The House Select Committee studied the possible hazards of pesticides, the Senate Subcommittee concentrated on their benefits. The Senate Subcommittee report, presented by Senator Humphrey, February 20, 1952, stated in part: “We have seen the efliciency and 16 versatility of chemicals in many im- portant fields of agricultural produc- tion. They are able to increase and improve the crops and animal prod ucts. They are being used to protect fruits and vegetables from damage, to hasten the ripening of fruits or to delay the blossoming of trees, to con- trol insects, nematodes, fungi, and plant diseases. And yet science has barely scratched the surface in its exploration of chemical farming tools. Hundreds of new chemical compounds of potential usefulness are synthesized and tested every year. Thousands more are waiting for experimental tests and new uses for old chemicals are being constantly developed. To what extent future discoveries in chemistry, plant physiology, micro- biology, entomology, and animal hus- bandry will hasten the spread of chem- ical agriculture, nobody can predict. But the already known discoveries and adopted new farming practices are sufficient to foretell radical changes in American agriculture in the near future.” The report also noted, “An inciden- tal but very important ‘labor saving effect’ of the increased use of insec- ticides and fungicides is the eradica- tion of many human diseases in rural areas transmitted through animal parasites or fungi. It is estimated that malaria alone is the direct or indirect cause of over one-half of the entire mortality of the human race. With its powerful accomplice, the hookworm, it has been a major factor in reducing human efficiency and retarding the economic progress, especially in parts of our own southern states. The eradi- cation or substantial reduction of many communicable diseases together with improved nutrition must have resulted in greater productivity per man-hour since a healthy, sturdy, well-fed body and alert mind can cer- tainly do better work than a disease- ridden, weak, malnourished body and dull mind.” Recognizing these gains due to the increased use of pesticides, the Senate Subcommittee report nonethe- less noted, “In spite of their enormous importance for modern life the prod- ucts of chemical industry are rarely recognized by the ultimate consumer since they do not reach him as such, but constitute only raw or auxiliary products. Thus he might not be fully aware to what extent they shape his life.” In 45 pages of small type the Sen- ate Subcommittee report detailed ben- efits all mankind gains from the proper use of pesticides. But the key statement that these benefits are not recognized by the public dominates all of them. Failure of the public to realize how much is owed to the proper use of these chemicals and over-concern with charges of alleged hazards from their misuse have con- tinued to keep the pesticide industry on public trial. The National Academy of Sciences Report Many people who participated in the House and Senate hearings as well as several public groups felt that an impartial scientific study should also be made of the issue of pesticides. Consequently, this was done by a Pesticides Subcommittee of the Food Protection Committee of the National Academy of Sciences—National Re- search Council. After its own investigation, this National Academy of Sciences Sub- committee concluded: “These materials (pesticides) were developed because they had the abil- ity to destroy, prevent, repel, or miti- 17 gate the activity of insects, weeds, fungi, nematodes, rodents, or bac- teria. . . . No one knows exactly what would happen if use of pesticidal chemicals on the farm should be abandoned, but it is safe to say that we could not commercially produce apples, peaches, potatoes, citrus and tomatoes, to mention only a few crops; and yields of many others would be drastically reduced . It seems evident that the American people cannot be fed adequately un- less crops and livestock are protected from insects and other pests.” Nonetheless, the failure of the pub- lic to realize how much is owed to the proper use of these chemicals and over-concern with charges of alleged hazards from their misuse—pointed out by the Senate Subcommittee in 1952—continued, and, in fact, ap- pears to have been promoted by that small percentage of people who viewed the alleged hazards with an almost abnormal fear. The DDT Trial in Brooklyn Against this background of public misconception about the benefits of using pesticides to control destructive pests, Archibold B. Roosevelt and others launched a court case in 1957 against the spraying of trees in Long Island for gypsy moth control. The plaintiffs, residents and prop- erty owners in Nassau and Suffolk Counties of Long Island, sought an injunction to halt the spraying of DDT on their lands from low flying airplanes. The trial in 1957 took almost a month. Some 50 witnesses testified, including a number of ex- perts from as far away as California. Many of the witnesses were old hands in the field of testifying on this issue. Dr. W. Coda Martin, Dr. Mal- colm M. D. Hargraves, Dr. Granville Knight, and Dr. Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., had either testified in the toler- ance hearings held by FDA in 1950, in the Congressional investigations of 1950—53, or had published articles and speeches against the use of pesti- cides. All are associated with groups identified as favoring “natural” foods, that is, foods untainted by any chemi- cal residues, and groups termed by some as “food faddists.” All of these witnesses, only one of whom, Dr. Martin, was from New York, claimed that DDT caused vari- ous human ills. Opposed to this testi- mony, Dr. Wayland Hayes, U. S. Pub- lic Health Service, Dr. Frank Princi, and Dr. Frank P. Cleveland, of the Kettering Laboratory in Cincinnati, 18 recounted exhaustive medical and toxicological research which demon- strated beyond a reasonable doubt that the quantities of DDT used in the spraying in Long Island would cause no deleterious effects on human health. The Federal Judge, D. J. Bruch- hausen, judged that the plaintiffs had not proved their case on hazard to human health. He also judged that the plaintifls’ claims of extensive in- jury to birds, fish, bees and crops had not been shown. Specifically, Judge Bruchhausen declared, “The plaintills have not sustained their claim that spraying causes any con- siderable loss of birds, fish, bees and insects. Only a few fish and birds were killed in the subject area. Further- more, evidence of spraying programs throughout the country demonstrates that the fish, bird, and bee loss has been inconsequential. While there is no evidence of damage to bees and aquatic insects in the subject area, experts and others from various sec- tions of the country established that the defections are made up by repop- ulation in a short space of time.” Since the plaintiffs had not been injured in any way, the Judge ruled against their plea for an injunction against aerial spraying of DDT for gypsy moth control, in a decision handed down June 23, 1958, and later upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court. Again, when all the facts were pre- sented to an impartial judge, the de- cision was in favor of the facts of what is and against unsubstantiated speculation of what may be. If a simile may be permitted here, the situation in regard to pesticides is much like that of an individual sitting in his oflice or his home. He may rise, walk out of the front door, cross the street and be hit and killed by an automobile. The chances are millions to one against it. But it may be. The improbable may be element, however, does not paralyze his action The Margin What really is involved in all of the current controversies over the use of pesticides is the margin of safety, and how to determine it. Both the Senate and the House already have made the judgment, in the public in- terest, that pesticides are essential to our food production and to the pro- tection of public health. Both the Senate and the House have said that pesticides must be thoroughly pre- tested for safety and effectiveness be- fore they can be offered for use and that their use must be carefully regu- lated. The only room left for contro- versy is over how big a margin of safety is needed. One element in computing margin of safety also has been decided by Congress. Every effort must be made to maintain our food supplies. The House Select Committee to Investi- gate the Use of Chemicals in Food Production specifically indicated it did not want to hamper research or to slow down progress in finding newer and even better pesticides. On the contrary, Congress wanted to speed research in this vital field. No one could mistake the reason. Any action which hampers food pro- 19 and prevent him from going about the business of his daily life. By the same token, the chance of hazard to health from properly applied pesticides is just as remote. This is assured by the extensive research on these chemicals before they are used, the extensive campaign to assure their use accord- ing to directions, and the power of the Federal Food and Drug Adminis- tration to impound all crops which bear chemical residues above toler- ances set with a view toward maxi- mum public health safety. of Safety duction, or which makes more difficult the primary task of feeding our rap- idly expanding population, contrib- utes directly toward reducing our margin of safety affecting public health and national survival. Our margin of safety as a people can be measured in terms of available tons of wholesome food. Can it also be measured in parts per billion of a chemical residue which has not dem- onstrated a hazard to public health? The answers to both questions can be found in scientific research. To what extent has federal legislation and the administration of the federal laws affected research on pesticides? In 1952, a survey of pesticide man- ufacturers revealed that the cost of research before a product could be registered for sale ranged from $200,- 000 to $500,000 per product. Inflation has hit research costs more than most costs in the years since 1952. The more rigorous requirements for data demanded by the Federal Food and Drug Administration have also in- creased research costs on these prod- ucts. The result is that a survey made more recently indicates that the costs of screening, testing and developing a product for sale now are in the range of $500,000 to nearly $2,000,000 per product. Some 30 research steps are involved. Testing continues over a two to three year period. Hundreds of highly trained and highly competent scientists and medical men are in- volved. Even with this investment of time, talent and capital, the chem- ical may yet fail to get USDA and FDA approval. Even with FDA ap- proval, the tolerances set may be so low as to so limit the profitable use of the new chemical that the company producing the chemical may not be able to regain the amount of its in- vestment. Small manufacturers with limited capital simply cannot carry out re- search on new products in this field. The major research is done by fewer than 40 major chemical firms today, and this number tends to decrease every year or so. Perhaps, this trend toward reliance for progress upon the big firms in the pesticide industry is a parallel to similar reliance upon big firms for progress in automobiles, in pharmaceuticals, in plastics, and in other chemical products. The cranberry episode, and similar decisions along the same line, have injected a new factor of uncertainty in the production of new and better pesticides on the part of private in- dustry. That element is that even after a new chemical is tested, approved, and in use in food production, fed- 20 eral action can be taken, upon tenu- ous scientific grounds, which has the effect of banning the use of the chem- ical or of so limiting its use that its continued production becomes un- economical. F ear and uncertainty in the indus- try caused by these decisions have led at least one company to cancel at- tempts even to gain initial FDA ap- proval for a quite promising chemical in which hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of highly talented time have been in- vested. One can speculate that the losers in this case included not only the owners of the company, but food producers, processors and consumers as well. The progress of scientists them- selves is contributing to this develop- ment. Men of science are continually improving their ability to analyze progressively smaller amounts of chemical residue in or on food crops. An analytical method which can de- tect down to two parts per billion may be considered as zero in 1960. During subsequent years the analyti- cal method may be improved to de- tect 1 part per billion, or less. The problem for the manufacturer, the users, and the Food and Drug Ad- ministration is obvious. As the entire field becomes more complicated year after year, ever greater wisdom is needed to maintain continued progress in the balanced best interests of all the people. Summing Up Pesticides have been a subject of public policy since 1910 and a sub- ject of public controversy since 1927. These chemicals have been investi- gated by the U. S. Public Health Serv- ice, by the Federal Food and Drug Administration, by the National Academy of Sciences, by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and by Congress, both the House and the Senate. They have been tried in a Federal Court. Conclusions of all these investiga- tions and trials have been almost iden- tical. In general terms, the conclusions are that 1) pesticides are essential to maintain and improve our food sup- plies and our public health, and 2) they must be thoroughly pro-tested for safety before use and must be carefully and wisely used. Two pieces of Federal legislation have been passed to assure these de- 21 sirable results. One is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti- cide Act of 194-7. The other is the Miller Pesticide Residue Amendment (1954) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The objective of the pesticide man- ufacturers, food producers, and proc- essors, the U. S. Department of Agri- culture, the Federal Food and Drug Administration, and the U. S. Public Health Service has every reason to be identical—the production of an adequate supply of wholesome food to nourish and make strong our rap- idly growing population and to im- prove the protection of the public health from the threat of insect and rodent borne diseases. Common sense is the major ingredient needed by all groups in working to achieve these goals in the balanced best interests of all. Single copies free, on request Bulk quantities available at cost (02667635?