(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Migrant and seasonal farmworker powerlessness. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, first and second sessions .."

(OH-3> 



AMHERST COLLEGE 




3102 



, ,,,, ^ EASONAL FARMWORKER 

2 3111 4603 

POWERLESSNESS 



nEC2 11970 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 

OP THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

PESTICIDES AND THE FARMWORKER 

SEPTEMBER 29, 1969 



PART 6-B 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 





MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGEATOEY LABOE 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

PESTICIDES AND THE FARMWORKER 

SEPTEMBER 29, 1969 



PART 6-B 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
36-513 O WASHINGTON : 1970 



COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

RALPH YARBOROUGH, Texas, Chairman 
JENNINGS RANDOLPH. West Virginia JACOB K. JAVITS. New York 

HARRISON A. WILLIAMS. JR., New Jersey WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont 
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GEORGE MURPHY, California 

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania 

WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio 

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri RALPH TYLER SMITH, Illinois 

ALAN CRANSTON, California 
HAROLD B. HUGHES, Iowa 

Robert O. Harris, Staff Director 

John S. Forsythe, General Counsel 

Roy H. Millenson, Minority Staff Director 

Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel 



Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 

WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota, Chairman 
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS. JR., New Jersey WILLIAM B. SAXBE. Ohio 
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GEORGE MURPHY. California 

ALAN CRANSTON, California RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER. Pennsylvania 

HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa RALPH TYLER SMITH, Illinois 

BOREN Chertkov, Counsel 

A. Sidney Johnson, Professional Staff Member 

Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel 

(n) 



Format of Hearings on Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

powerlessness 

The Subcommittee on Migratory Labor conducted public hearings 
in Washington, D.C., during the 91st Congress on "Migrant and Sea- 
sonal Farmworker Powerlessness.'' These hearings are contained in the 
following parts : 

Subject matter Hearing dates 

Part 1: Who Are the Migrants? June 9 and 10, 1969 

Part 2: Tlie Migrant Subcultui-e July 28, 1969 

Part 3-A : Efforts To Organize July 15, 1969 

Part 3-B: p:fforts To Organize July 16 and 17, 1969 

Part 4^ A : Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 7, 1969 

Part 4-B : Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 8, 1969 

Part 5-A : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 21, 1969 

Part 5-B : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 22, 1969 

Part 6-A: Pesticides and the Farmworker Aug. 1, 1969 

Part 0-B: Pesticides and the Farmworker Sept. 29, 1969 

Part 6-C : Pesticides and the Farmworker Sept. 30, 1969 

Part 7 : Manpower and Economic Problems Apr. 14 and 15, 1970 

Part 8: Who Is Responsible? July 20, 21, and 24, 1970 



(in) 



CONTENTS 



CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 
Monday, September 29, 1969 

Murphy, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the. .State of California 

Chavez, Cesar, director of the United Farm Workers Organizing Com- 
mittee; Jerome Cohen, counsel to UFWOC; and Manuel Vasquez, Page 
Washington representative of UFWOC 3386 

Windlan, Harold M., Ph. D., director, the C. W. England Laboratories, 

Washington, D.C 3413 

Ley, Dr. H. L., Jr., Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration; J. 
Kenneth Kirk, Associate Commissioner for Compliance; Darryl E. 
Brown, Supervisory Chemist, New York District; Alvin L. Gottlieb, 
Deput.y Assistant General Counsel, Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfar, Food, Drug, and Environmental Health Division; Jerry 
Burke, Acting Head, Hologenated Compuonds Section, Residue 
Chemistry Branch, Division of Pesticides, Bureau of Science 3428 

STATEMENTS 

Chavez, Cesar, director of the United Farm Workers Organizing Com- 
mittee; Jerome Cohen, counsel to UFWOC; and Manuel Vasquez, 

Washington representative of UFWOC 3386 

Prepared statement 3396 

Egeberg, Roger O., M.D., Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific 
Affairs, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, before 
the Select Subcommittee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Rep- 
resentatives, September 18, 1969, prepared statement 3453 

Finch, Hon. Robert H., Secretar}- of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

prepared statement 3462 

Johnson, Charles C, Jr., Administrator, Consumer Protection and Environ- 
mental Health Service, Public Health Service, Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, before the Select Committee on Labor, Com- 
mittee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, prepared 
statement 3455 

Ley, Dr. H. L., Jr., Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration; J. 
Kenneth Kirk, Associate Commissioner for Compliance; Darryl E. 
Brown, Supervisory Chemist, New York District; Alvin L. Gottlieb, 
Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare, Food, Drug, and Environmental Health Divison; Jerry 
Burke, Acting Head, Hologenated Compounds Section, Residue Chem- 
istry Branch, Division of Pesticides, Bureau of Science 3428 

Prepared statement 3467 

Murphy, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of California 3384 

Windlan, Harold M., Ph. D., director, the C. W. England Laboratories, 

Washington, D.C 3413 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 
Aflfadavit of : 

Vasquez, Manuel, Washington representative of UFOWC 3387 

Articles, publications, etc.: 

"Aldrin Residue on Table Grapes," excerpt from the Congressional 

Record, August 12, 1969 3370 

Criminal Actions Involving Pesticides 3451 

DHEW Role in Helping To Protect Farm Workers from Pesticide 

Hazards 3462 

(V) 



VI 

Articles, publications, etc — Continued 

"Need To Improve Regulatory Enforcement Procedures Involving 

Pesticides," Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General Pase 

of the United States 3594 

"Pesticde Multiresidue Metholology," by J. William Cook, Food 

and Drug Administration Papers, November 1968 3479 

Protection of Worlcers Against Pesticides 3459 

"The Law of Pesticides: Present and Future," bj' Douglass F. Rohr- 

man, reprinted from Journal of Public Law, volume 17, No. 2 3633 

"The New Masked Man in Agriculture," by Mary K. Farinholt, 
published and distributed b}' National Consumers Committee for 

Research and Education, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio 3486 

"The Regulation of Pesticides in the United States," by U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture; Food and Drug Administration of HEW 3531 

Communications to: 

Johnson, Dr. Charles C, Jr., Administrator, Consumer Protection 
and Environmental Health Service, Department of Health, Educa- 
tion, and Welfare, Washington, D.C., from Hon. Walter F. Mon- 
dale, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota, Chairman, Sub- 
committee on Migratory Labor, Committee on Labor and Public 

Welfare, Washington, D.C., September 9, 1969 3380 

Mondale, Hon. Walter F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Minne- 
sota, chairman. Subcommittee on Migratorv Labor, Washington, 
D.C., from: 

Kirk, J. K., Associate Commissioner for Compliance, Food and 
Drug Administration, DHEW, Washington, D.C., October 13, 

1969 3438 

Winstead, Basil, vice president and division manager, Safeway 
Stores, Inc., Landover, Md.: 

1. September 17, 1969 (with enclosures) 3380 

2. September 17, 1969 (with enclosures) 3414 

Murphy, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of California, 

LT.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., from: Charles C. Johnson, Jr., 
Assistant Surgeon General, Administrator, Consumer Protection 
and Environmental Health Service, Public Health Service, Depart- 
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C., 

August 12, 1969 3370 

Winstead, Mr. Basil, vice president, Safeway Stores, Inc., Landover, 
Md., from Hon. Walter F. Mondale, chairman, Subcommittee on 
Migratory Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. 

Senate, Washington, D.C., September 9, 1969 3379 

Exhibits: 

Exhibit A — Survey on Grapes 3441 

Exhibit B — San Francisco District Surveillance of Pesticide? on 

Grapes 3448 

Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Agriculture, 
the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Health, Educa- 
tion, and Welfare, on Interdepartmental Coordination of Activities 

Relating to Pesticides 3459 

Memorandum to: 

Johnson, C. C, Jr., Consumer Protection and Environmental Health, 
HEW, from J. K. Kirk, Assistant Commissioner for Compliance, 

Food and Drug Administration, HEW, August IS, 1969 3370 

Principal Department Representatives to Administer Agreement on 

Interdepartmental Coordination of Certain Pesticides -- 3461 



MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 

(Pesticides and the Farmworker) 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1969 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 
OF THE Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 
4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Walter F. Mondale 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mondale (presiding), Kennedy, Cranston, 
Murphy, and Schweiker. 

Committee staff members present: Robert O. Harris, staff direc- 
tor ; and Boren ChertkoA', counsel to the subcommittee. 

Senator Mondale. The hearing will come to order. Our first wit- 
nesses will consist of a i>anel from the United Farm "Workers Orga- 
nizing Committee, Mr. Cesar Chavez, Director, Mr. Manuel Vasquez, 
and the general counsel, Mr. Jerome Cohen. 

Will you please come to the witness table. Perhaps you will want 
to introduce them. Senator Cranston. 

Senator Cranston. Mr. Chairman, I take great pleasure in pre- 
senting to this committee my friend Cesar Chavez, a man whom I 
have known for more than 20 years in California, who I consider 
one of the outstanding citizens not only of my State but of our 
Nation, a man who is leading his people in the great tradition of 
Mahatma Gandhi and ISIartin Luther King. Cesar Chavez has had a 
unique impact on California and on the United States. Countless 
others have made studies and written books to dramatize the plight 
of the American farmworker. Countless others have called for legis- 
lative reforms and governmental assistance to alleviate the poverty 
and neglect of these people at the very bottom of our economic life. 

Cesar Chavez came to the California farmworker with a different 
message: He says that the way to improve their lives and to give 
their children a future was not through the debilitating paternalism 
of more welfare programs nor the tokenism of begrudged govern- 
mental health and safety protection. 

The answer, he said, was to organize and negotiate contracts with 
the growers. He told farmworkers it is the growers, not the Govern- 
ment, they must talk to. 

Beyond the contract, Cesar Chavez told people living in rural 
poverty that they must work together to develop social programs 

(3365) 



3366 

that they themselves control, that they must be the generals in their 
own war on poverty. 

Thus, many of his critics accused Cesar Chavez of being a social 
reformer instead of just a comfortable and predictable union orga- 
nizer, forgetting that every great labor leader has worked to reform 
society. 

INIr. Chairman, in an age when the so-called "forgotten American" 
has a bumper strip which reads "I Fight Poverty — I Work", there 
is no one in our Nation who works harder for less money than the 
farmworker and no one whose fight against poverty is more in the 
American tradition of initiative and self-help than Cesar Chavez 
and his followers. 

In an age when most reformers call for compensatory programs 
and stepped-up Government assistance for the poor, Cesar Chavez 
has insisted that rural people win their own fight for decent wages 
and working conditions at the bargaining table. 

In an age when protest stems from skeptical disbelief, Cesar 
Chavez's cause is grounded in personal and deeply religious convic- 
tion. 

]Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to welcome Cesar Chavez before this 
committee. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you. Senator Cranston, for that very 
fine introduction. 

I wish to join in welcoming Mr. Chavez here today. I agree with 
Senator Cranston that he is one of the truly remarkable men of our 
time, and we are most pleased that he could be with us here this 
morning. 

This morning we continue the fifth in a series of hearings on 
migrant and seasonal farmworker problems. The underlying theme 
of our hearings is powerlessness, and in this particular series of 
hearings we are investigating pesticides and the farmworker. 

In past hearings we have endeavored to obtain a broad ir'Toduc- 
tion to various problem areas by hearing farmworkers the nselves 
tell of their own lives, their own problems. 

We have heard testimony from both community and union orga- 
nizers on the obstacles to their self-help efforts to improve their own 
situation. 

We have explored what really happens to the men, women and 
children that are confronted with the severe economic and social 
stress of migratory farm work. 

We have also heard testimony on the border commuter labor prob- 
lem and the severe economic depression created by the surplus of 
desperately poor people forced to accept substandard living and 
working conditions along our borders with Mexico. 

Last month we heard testimony on the legal problems most often 
faced by farmworkers, and the"^ pervasive problems of legal and 
social discrimination. 

Today we are continuing our discussion of the effects of pesticides 
on farmworkers. On August 1, 1969, we had 1 day of testimony in 
which we sought to determine what the short and long-range effects 



3367 

are, if any, of the use of pesticides on farmworkers who apply them, 
or work in the fields soon after they have been applied; whether in 
view of increasing production, and the proliferation of various new 
pesticides, adequate funds are being devoted to research on occupa- 
tional hazards to farmworkers; and what government programs 
exist for protection of the farmworker from pesticides and whether 
they are adequately funded and enforced. 

Our hearings today and tomorrow will be devoted to a further 
examination and discussion of evidence presented at our August 1 
hearing. 

At that hearing, INIr. Jerome Cohen, Counsel for the United Farm 
Workers Organizing Committee, testified that aldrin was present on 
grapes in amounts above accepted tolerance levels. 

After INIr. Cohen had testified, and during the testimony of Dr. C. 
C. Johnson, Chief, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health 
Services of HEW, I was handed a laboratory report from the C. W. 
England Laboratories in Washington, D.C., which showed that 
grapes in the Washington area had 18 parts per million of aldrin. 

In response to a question from me. Dr. Johnson said that the 
accepted tolerance level for aldrin on grapes was 0.1 parts per mil- 
lion, and that the laboratory results therefore showed aldrin resi- 
dues 180 times the human tolerance level. 

At that time I gave Dr. Johnson the England laboratory report, 
and asked the FDA to investigate the matter. 

Thereafter, the Consumer Protection and Environmental Health 
Service, through the Food and Drug Administration, tested a 
sample of table grapes for pesticide residues. 

The results of these tests and other relevant materials were sent to 
me by Dr. Johnson on August 12, 1969. 

The FDA report indicated that of the 60 samples of grapes tested 
(48 from stores in four major cities, and 12 from railroad cars in 
California), no pesticide residues above tolerance levels were found 
and no aldrin residues were found at all. 

On August 12, Senator George Murphy, a member of our subcom- 
mittee, placed the FDA's findings in the Congressional Record. A 
copy of Senator Murphy's statement will be included in the hearing 
record at the close of my statement. 

In his statement on the floor of the Senate, Senator Murphy 
included affidavits from Anthony Bianco, said to be the grower of 
the grapes tested by England, and from the company that applies 
all of Bianco's pesticides. Both affidavits stated that aldrin had not 
been used on Bianco grapes any time in the last 6 years. 

Senator INIurphy. submitted a statement from the Kern County 
(California) commissioner of agriculture that aldrin had not been 
used on grapes in Kern County in 2 years. He also submitted a labo- 
ratory report which showed traces of aldrin on Bianco's grapes. 

Senator JNIurphy, in this statement, said that : 

The grapes presented to the England Laboratory had somehow achieved 
strange qualities which I find very difficult to explain. And it seems possible 
that a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate has been the victim of duplicity. 



3368 

Senator Murphy went on to say that : 

If this be the case— this tactic on the part of the United Farm Workers Or- 
ganizing Committee is a vicious type of deceit. . . . 

He further said that: 

I believe they have gone too far in this case and that this deplorable story 
will show the UFWOC effort up for what it really is. 

On August 19, Senator Murphy wrote me a letter requesting that 
the subcommittee reconvene its hearings on pesticides, noting that : 

The FDA and other materials appear to point to an attempt to mislead the 
subcommittee by presentation of false evidence. 

Subsequently, the subcommittee learned that Safeway Stores, Inc., 
the store from which it is alleged that the first sample of grapes was 
taken for England Laboratory testing, commissioned three different 
chemical laboratories, including the C. W. England Laboratories, to 
run pesticide residue tests on their grapes. 

The subcommittee learned further that Safeway subsequently 
reported the results of these tests to the Food and Drug Administra- 

On September 9, I wrote both Safeway Stores, Inc., and the FDA 
requesting that they immediately submit to the subcommittee any 
information they had concerning these additional tests, including 
explanations and copies of any test results. Copies of these letters 
will appear in the hearing record. 

Safeway Stores, Inc., cooperated fully with this request and sub- 
mitted their test information at once. The FDA has made no 
response to my request. . 

Safeway's report to the subcommittee indicated the following : On 
August 2, samples of Bianco grapes were taken from the Safeway 
Store's warehouse in Landover, Md., by the Eastawai Research Lab- 
oratories in Baltimore and the C. W. England Laboratories m 
Washington. 

Additionally, on August 6, 1969, Safeway commissioned C. W. 
England Laboratories to test grapes in railway cars at the Safeway 
warehouse. 

On August 7, 1969, Safeway commissioned the Strasburger & 
Siegel Laboratory in Baltimore to sample and test grapes from their 
Landover, Md., warehouse. 

The reports of these tests are attached to this statement and will 
be included in the record. They all show that there were pesticide 
residues on the grapes. 

In addition to the initial England test showing 18 parts per mil- 
lion of aldrin, England found 0.65 parts per million of aldrin on the 
grapes sampled on August 2, 1969, and the Eastawai Lab found 17.6 
parts per million of aldrin on the grapes tested on that same date. 

The August 6 England test of grapes from rail cars at the Safe- 
way warehouse showed 0.32 parts per million of aldrin. 



3369 

The August 7 Strasburger & Siegel test of grapes at the Safeway 
warelioiise found no aldrin residues. 

Because of an apparent conflict between the preliminary labora- 
tory findings of pesticide residues and a California Department of 
Agriculture report that these pesticides had not been applied, Safe- 
way then asked the laboratories to recheck their results. 

two days later, Safeway notified the supplier to temporarily sus- 
pend shipments of grapes until the test results were clarified. Safe- 
way further explored with the labs the possibility of confusion 
between sulphur and aldrin. 

Thereafter, Safeway notified the grape supplier to resume ship- 
ments. The full chronology of actions taken by Safeway will be 
made a part of the hearing record. 

The purpose of this week's hearings is to determine, on the basis 
of information submitted to the subcommittee and the testimony to 
be presented by the witnesses, answers to the following questions : 

Is there any truth to the charge that the union presented false evi- 
dence in an attempt to mislead the subcommittee ? 

Were the England and Eastawai Laboratory results which showed 
[)esticide residues far in excess of human tolerance levels accurate ? 

How can the apparent conflicts between FDA results and the 
results of England and Eastawai Laboratories be explained ? 

AVas the chemical sulphur mistakenly identified as aldrin in any 
of the laboratory tests? 

What pesticides are being used by California grape producers ? 

What precautions are being taken by California grape producers 
to protect farmworkers from pesticide injuries and poisoning? 

What sampling and testing procedures were used by the Food and 
Drug Administration ? 

How are tolerance levels for pesticide residues established by the 
FDA and what do they mean? 

Does the FDA have the ability and competence to protect the con- 
suming i^ublic against the threat of dangerous pesticide residues on 
produce sold in grocery stores? 

What actions did FDA take, and what advice did they give, after 
they received the various laboratory reports showing pesticide resi- 
dues in excess of the tolerance levels on table grapes ? 

Why has not the FDA responded to my letter of September 9, 
1969, requesting that they submit to the subcommittee any informa- 
tion they had regarding the additional laboratory tests of table 
grapes, including explanations and copies of any test results ? 

Whether the records of pesticide applications by California table- 
grape growers are public information available to all interested par- 
ties. 

Finally, and most importantly, after answers to some of these spe- 
cific questions growing out of Senator Murphy's request that these 
hearings be reopened, the subcommittee will seek to reestablish its 
focus on the most important inquiry of all : what the effects of pesti- 
cide applications are on the farmworkers who apply them or work 
in the fields shortly after they have been applied. 



3370 
(The documents referred to follow:) 

[From the Congressional Record, Aug. 12, 1969, p. S. 9868] 
Aldrin Residue on Table Grapes 

Mr Murphy. Mr. President, I think it is important tliat the Record show, 
and the American people be aware of, what seems to be a shocking attempt to 
mislead the public by the presentation of false evidence to the Subcomittee 
on Migratory Labor. ^^ .^ ^ ^ -.^r i 

On August 1, 1969, Jerry Cohen, general counsel for the United Farm W ork- 
ers Organizing Committe^UFWOC— apiieared before that subcommittee and 
testified that two bunches of Thompson seedless grapes contained quantities of 
the chemical Aldrin which were 180 times the established tolerance level for 
human beings. Mr. Cohen submitted a laboratory report from the C. W. Eng- 
land Laboratory, of Washington, D.C., showing an Aldrin content of 18 parts 
per million compared with the legal tolerance level of .01 parts per million^ 

The England Laboratory, in later comments to the news media, said that the 
grapes they tested had been presented to them by a representative of the 
UFWOC and were not purchased or obtained from any market directly by the 
laboratory. ^. ^ ^, , . 

After this testimony the Food and Drug Administration, at the request ot 
subcommittee Chairman Mondale, has conducted tests of table grapes m mar- 
kets across the country. It obtained 60 sample, including 48 from retail outlets 
in New York. Chicago, Los Angeles, and the Washington-Baltimore area. It also 
sampled 12 carlots in the San Francisco market. 

The Food and Drug Administration report shows there was no Aldrin resi- 
due on any grapes. It also shows there no chemical residue of any na- 
ture on any grape sample that approached the human tolerance level. I ask 
unanimous consent that the report of the Food and Drug Administration be 

printed in the Record. ..,..,. ^.v -d^ 

There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Re- 
cord, as follows : 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

Public Health Service, 
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, 

Washington, D.C., August 12, 1969. 

Hon. George Murpht, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Senator Murphy : As a result of material presented at the August 1, 
1969 hearing before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor of the Committee 
on Labor and Public Welfare, the Consumer Protection and Environmental 
Health Service through the Food and Drug Administration instituted a survey 
of pesticides on table grai^es. The results of that survey and other relevant 
materials are attached. » ^x,- • 4. * 

Please be assured of our continuing concern in all aspects of this important 
public health problem. 

Sincerely yours, ^ ^ ^ 

Charles C. Johnson, Jr., 

Assistant Surgeon General, Administrator. 



[Memorandum from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public 
Health Service, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, 
Food and Drug Administration, August 8, 1969] 

To : Mr. C. C. Johnson, Jr., Administrator, CPE. 

From : J. K. Kirk, Associate Commissioner for Compliance. 

Subject : Results of Table Grape Survey— August 1969. 



3371 

A total of 60 samples of various types of table grapes ; i.e., Thompson Seed- 
less, Ribier, Cardinal and Red Malaga, were collected and analyzed for pesti- 
cide residues. The analytical procedure used for obtaining these results was 
multi-residue methods for organic chloride compounds (aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, 
etc.) and organophosphate compounds (parathion, ethion, etc.), using gas liq- 
uid chromatography. 

Forty-eight (48) of these samples were from retail stores (Washington-Balti- 
more; Los Angeles, California; New York, N.Y. ; Chicago, Illinois), including 
the Safeway store, 1730 Hamlin Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., and Giant 
Food Store, 4900 Annapolis Road, Bladensburg, Maryland. 

Sumtnary of Results. — None of the samples contained pesticide residues 
above tolerance, and all residues were substantially below tolerance. No resi- 
dues of aldrin were found. Pesticide residues found : 



Pesticide Range Tolerance 

Kelthane _ to 1.4 p.m 5.0 p.p.m. 

DDT Oto 0.29 p.p.m 7.0 p.p.m. 

DDE Oto 0.01 p.p.m. _.__ None (metabolite of DDT). 

Dieldrin to trace ' 0.1 p.p.m. 

Diazinon Oto trace i _ 0.75 p.p.m. 

Ethion. Oto 0.29 p.p.m 2.0 p.p.m. 

1 Trace indicates less than 0.01 p.p.m. 

Twelve (12) samples were obtained from packers located in the San Fran- 
cisco, California, area. 

Sutnman/ of Results. — None of these samples contained pesticide residues 
above tolerance, and all residues were substantially below tolerance. No resi- 
dues of aldrin were found. Pesticide residues found : 

Pesticide Range Tolerance 

Kelthane Oto 0.43 p.p.m 5.0 p.p.m. 

DDT Oto 0.04 p.p.m _ 7.0 p.p.m. 

DDE.. Oto 0.02 p.p.m - None (metabolite of DDT). 

Diazinon Oto 0.02 p.p.m 0.75 p.p.m. 

Ethion Oto 0.28 p.p.m 2.0 p.p.m. 

Tedion Oto 1.7 p.p.m 5.0 p.p.m. 

Attached is a listing of samples, grower, and individual results of analysis. 
Also attached are the results of our pesticide analysis on grapes (total) and 
California grapes for FY 1967, FY 1968 and July 1, 1968 to March 30, 1969. 

A survey of pesticide residues on table grapes grown in Southern California 
and Arizona was conducted during July 1969 and these results are also at- 
tached. None of the samples from this survey contained pesticides above toler- 
ance level. Pesticide residues found : 



Pesticide 


Range 


Tolerance 


DDT 

DDE 

Carbaryl- -- _. 


TraceMo 0.06 p.p.m 

_ to 0.03 p.p.m. 

Oto 0.4 p.p.m.. 


-. 7.0 p.p.m. 

None (metabolite of DDT). 

10.0 p.p.m. 



> Trace Indicates less than 0.01 p.p.m. 



3372 

TABLE GRAPE SURVEY 



Parts per million 



Retaillevel Kel- Diel- Dia- 

Sample No. Grower or packer thane DDT DDE drin zinon Ethion Tedion 



TOLERANCE, p.p.m 5.0 7.0 None 0.1 0.75 2.0 5.0 

118-093C . El Rancho Farm, Arvin, Calif 0.86 

118-094C do 0-17 

118-164C.. Guimarra Vineyards Corp., 

Bakersfield, Calif T 

118-165C do T 

118-095C do T T 

118-096C do 0.31 — 

116-470C - El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Calif T 

117-216C.. Unknown 0. U T T 

116-471C.. El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Calif T T T 

117-217C Table of Grapes, Table of Grapes, Calif T T I U-"o 

117-950C El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Calif 0.66 -. 

117-949C do 0-17 

222-182C John J. Kovacevich, Inc., Arvin, Calif 0. 09 

196-570C do -—- 0.0 

222-183C Guimarra Vmeyards Corp., Bakersheld, 

Calif 0-08 

222-184C do 0-05 - 

222-1850 do 0.19 

222-186C do 0. 07 

222-187C Guimarra Vineyards Corp., Bakersfield, 

Calif 0. 03 - 

222-188C do 0- 17 — - - -- 

222-189C do 0-04 

222-190C do 0-12 

222-191C do 0-04 

196-569C The William Mosesian Corp., Lament, Calif.. 0. 15 — 

165-728C - Leo Gagosian, Bakersfield, Calif 

165-729C Guedera Farms, Bakersfield, Calif T -- 

165-730C Guimarra Vineyards Corp., Bakersfield, 

Q3|jf 0.52 

166-761C TheWifllam Mosesian Corp., Lament, Cahf.. 0.78 0.02 0-13 

166-762C Sabovich Bros., Bakersfield, Calif 0.89 

166-763C.. I.T.D. Packing Co., Reedley, Calif ... ---- 

Tolerance, ppm 5.0 7.0 None 0.1 0.75 2.0 S.u 

166-764C Leo Gagosian, Bakersfield, Calif 0.74 T 

166-765C . Guimarra Vineyards Corp., Bakersfield, 

Calif 0.26 — 

166-766C . V. W. Heldcarn, Parlier. Calif 0.11 0.03 

166-767C Demesio C. Carranza, Thermal, Calif -.-- - 

168-027C Muzinch Farms, Wheeler Ridge, Calif 1.4 0.29 

168-028C . Elmo Vineyards, Inc., Visalia, Calif... .--- - ---- "•" 

095-798C . Bianco Fruit Corp., Fresno, Calif.. 0.46 T 0.01 _ .- 

095-796C -.do vatv ""^^ t" t " ■ 

095-797C David Freedman & Co., Inc., Thermal, Calif I i - 

09S-080C . Bianco Fruit Corp., Fresno, Calif.. 0.35 T T .--- 

095-992C Heggblade, Margulers Co., San Francisco, 1.33 u-^' 

Calif. 

095-990C . James Macchiaroll Fruit Co., Higley, Ariz -- -- - -- 

095-799C David Freedman & Co., Inc., Thermal, T I 

Calif. „,..„,„ T T 

095-991C The Willaim Mosesian Corp., Lamont, Calif. 0.20 T I - 

095-989C . James Macchiaroll Fruit Co., Higley, Ariz T T 

095-122C do - - - I 0.01 



095-123C do 

095-121C. 



T T 



the William Mosesian' Corp.,' Lam'ont, Calif". 0.61 -- 0-08 



Packer level 



211-644C.. Russo Brothers, Arvin, Calif. . .-- 0.13 .....-...---. "'"'o'is 

211-645C Logrecco & Sons, Bakersfield, Calif 0.40 0.03 0.01 0-18 

211-646C . Marko Zaninovich, Earlimart, Calif... - -- 

211-647C .do ,--—„-,-..- n no -- " " "" 

211-648C.. Pagliarulo Fruit Co., Delano, Calif O.OZ ;-:- 

211-649C do 0.01 "-^1 

211-650C . A. Caratan & Sons, Delano, Calif ---- "■"" "•,* 

211-651C do - - ^-^^ 02 

211-652C Agri-Business Investment Co., Ducor, Calif....-.--- "-"^ 

211-653C. do ----- 0.15 .- 

211-654C.. United Packing Co., Parlier, Calif .-...-. nnb"" 

21 1-655C.. L.R.Hamilton, Reedley, Calif - 0.43 0.04 0.02 0.02 



> Safeway Store, 1730 Handlin St. N.E., Washington, D.C. 
2 Giant Food Store, 4900 Annapolis Rd., Bladensburg, Md. 

Note: T— Trace, indicates less than 0.01 p.p.m. 



3373 



PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN GRAPES 



July 1,1968, 
Fiscal Fiscal to Mar. 30, 

year 1967 year 1968 1969 Total 



Number of samples -— 208 61 65 334 

Number with residues -- - 1« ^^ " "^ 

DDT-Tolerance7 p.p.m.:)' „. 

Kefp'r' —-::::::: H U o? os 

Rw.?:r::;:::::::::::::::::::: T-3.18 T-3.19 T-0.21 

DDE-Tolerance (none): ,„ „ 

Percent incidence - - 37.0 32.8 lb.4 ci^.u 

Average p.p.m.--- r n Ji t n n^ T n or 

Rangep.p.m T-0.37 T-0.05 T-0.08 

TDE-Tolerance 7 p.p.m.: . . . 

Percent mcidence i° ^■° ^-i ''j 

Ran^Mim;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: T-0.05 T-0.07 T-0.01 

Dieldrin— Tolerance 0.1 p.p.m.: , c 

Percent incidence - 2.4 i-2 

Averagep.p.m - t n >i a 

Range p.p.m - i-u.48 - - 

Carbaryl— Tolerance 10 p.p.m.: - . 

Percent incidence.-- -- -- 2.4 i.b z.i ^■'» 

Averagep.p.m --- -- n m n nl nsn T 

Rangep.p.m 0.01-0.05 0.80 l - 

Keilthane— Tolerance 5 p.p.m.: ^ ct 

AmagVpt'r'--- "-■::::::"-:"- o'bi 'hi oVs 0.02 

Range'p.p.m .V.::::::::::;:: t-i.oi 0.07-0.92 t-i 34 -. 

Parathion— Tolerance 1 p.p.m.: - . o 

Percent incidence - 6.J i.i i-a '♦•| 

Averagep.p.m-.- - T i i 

Rangep.p.m - '-0-21 '-0-"2 u.u-; .-- 

Ethion— Tolerance 2 p.p.m.: . „ c , 

ai'ptt" "-::::::: o*bi o'bi o'bi o'bl 

Range^p.p.m ;:::::::::::::::::::"-:: -- o.o3-o.84 0.03-0.08 0.02-0.28 

Tedion— Tolerance 5 p.p.m.: , , ec 

Percent incidence -. 8-2 6.6 I.b b6 

S^.^:r::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: T-g:^l o.o7-5:^^ o.i{ ':''. 

Aldrin— Tolerance 0.1 p.p.m.: , q 

Percent incidence 3.4 t.a •a- 

Averagep.p.m j ' -- 

Rangep.p.m - '-0-01 0.01-0.03 - ---- 

Chlorbenside— Tolerance (none): q , 

Percent incidence l-° - - j 

Averagep.p.m --- - ' --- --- 

Range p.p.m --- "• '" 

Endosulfan— Tolerance 2 p.p.m.: - 

Percent incidence -- 1-0 - - '? 

Averagep.p.m --- t n no '"'" " 

Range p.p.m i-u. us - - 

Melhoxychlor— Tolerance 14 p.p.m.: pc 

Percent incidence 1-0 --- "5 

Averagep.p.m — - U-Ul --- - 

Range p.p.m u.i:4-u.9b - 

Diazinon— Tolerance 0.75 p.p.m.: qc 

Percent incidence O.b l.b --. "•» 

Averagep.p.m. j 

Rangep.p.m .- — - O-H 0-01 



> P. p.m.— parte per million. 



3374 

PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN CALIFORNIA GRAPES 



July 1, 1968, 
Fiscal year Fiscal year to Mar. 30, 

1967 1968 1969 Total 



Number of samples 94 50 58 202 

Number with residues. 49 27 18 94 

DDT— Tolerance 7 p. p.m.: » 

Percent incidence 17.0 26.0 8.6 16.8 

Average p. p.m 0.01 0.07 T 0.02 

Rangep.p.m T-0.15 T-3.19 T-0.11 

DDE— Tolerance (none): 

Percent incidence. T T T T 

Average p. p.m 11.7 32.0 13.8 17. 

Rangep.p.m.. T-0.09 T-0. 08 T-0.05 

TDE— Tolerance 7 p. p.m.: 

Percent incidence 3.2 10.0 6.9 5.9 

Average p. p.m _ T T T T 

Rangep.p.m... T-0.05 T-0.07 T-0.01 

Dieldrin— Tolerance 0.1 p. p.m.: 

Percent incidence 1.0 0.5 

Average p. p.m T T 

Range p. p.m T 

Carbaryl— Tolerance 10 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence ^., 2.0 3.4 1.5 

Average p.p.m -__ 0.02 T T 

Rangep.p.m _ 0.80 T 

Kelthane— Tolerance 5 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence 8.5 10.0 8.6 8.9 

Average p.p.m 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 

Rangep.p.m T-1.01 0.07-0.92 T-1.34 

Parathion— Tolerance 1 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence 1.0 0.5 

Average p.p.m _.. _ T T 

Range p.p.m. T 

Ethion- Tolerance 2 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence 9.6 8.0 6.9 8.4 

Average p.p.m 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Rangep.p.m _ 0.03-0.48 0.03-0.18 0.02-0.28 

Tedion— Tolerance 5 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence 17.0 8.0 1.7 10.4 

Average p.p.m. 0.04 0.02 T 0.02 

Rangep.p.m. T-0.69 0.07-0.39 0.11 

Aldrin— Tolerance 0.1 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence 6.4 6.0 4.5 

Average p.p.m T T T 

Rangep.p.m.. T-0.01 0.01-0.03 

Chlorbenside— Tolerance (none): 

Percent incidence _ 2. _. 0.5 

Average p.p.m T T 

Range p.p.m 0. 10 

Endosulfan— Tolerance 2 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence 2.1 1.0 

Average p.p.m. T ._. T 

Range p.p.m T-0.09 

Methoxychlor— Tolerance 14 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence 2.1 _ 1.0 

Average p.p.m _ 0.01 0.01 

Range p.p. _ 0.24-0.96 

Diazlnon — Tolerance 0.75 p.p.m.: 

Percent incidence. _ __ 1.0 ._ , O.T 

Average p.p.m. __ T _-. 5 

Range p.p.m. 0.11 

1 P.p.m.— parts per million. 

SURVEY OF PESTICIDE RESIDUES ON TABLE GRAPES GROWN IN SOUTHERN 
CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA 

Backgroiind 

The FY 1970 FDA Pesticide Residue Surveillance Program calls for sam- 
pling and examination of raw agricultural products on an individual com- 
modity basis. This involves a series of samples of a given food product repre- 
sentative of a geographic area, a growing area, or any other meaningful 
subdivision. Each District determines what foods shall be so covered based on 
their knowledge of the local situation. 

Los Angeles District undertook a survey of table grapes grown in the Dis- 
trict area. This survey was to serve as an information base concerning the 
local grape industry and to investigate recent highly publicized allegations re- 
garding misuse of pesticides by grape growers. 



3375 

The Los Angeles District area includes Southern California, the southern tip 
of Nevada, and the State of Arizona. We have three principal grape growing 
regions within our boundaries. Two are in Southern California and one in Ari- 
zona. These are : 

1. Coachclla Valley (Calif.) This includes the towns of Coachella, Mecca, 
Thermal and Indio. The growing season runs from ]\Iay through July and 
nearly all fields are in table grapes. USDA figures indicate an annual produc- 
tion of about 9,500 tons. 

Investigation indicated growers generally use DDT and Carbaryl (Sevin) for 
insect control. Parathion was reported used by one grower to control a thrip 
(small sucking insect) problem. No Aldrin or Simazine have been used in the 
Coachella area. 

We collected and examined a total of 15 samples of table grapes represent- 
ing 14 principal growers in the Coachella Valley. (One grower produced two 
varieties — both were sampled.) 

2. Sati Bernardino Area (Calif.) This includes San Bernardino, Mira Loma 
and Cucamonga. There is light production of grapes during June and August, 
but the main growing season is in September and October. The grapes grown 
are principally used in wine manufacture as opposed to table consumption. 

No samples were taken at this time. 

3. Phoenix Area (Ariz.). This generally encompasses the Phoenix, Higley 
and Litchfield regions. The growing season is mid-June through July with an 
annual production of table grapes only slightly less than the Coachella Valley 
area. The Phoenix area produces about 75 percent of the total grapes grown in 
Arizona. 

The most common pesticide used is Carbaryl. There is presently a statewide 
moratorium on the use of DDT on any agricultural product. The largest firm 
commercially applying pesticides to grapes in this area stated than no Aldrin 
has been used in. the past five years and that Simazine has not been used for 
the past year. 

A total of 12 samples were collected and examined representing eight princi- 
pal growers (as above, different samples from the same grower represented 
different grape varieties). 

Analytical findings 

Each sample consisted of 22 lbs. of grapes. The entire sample was compos- 
ited and chopped, and a representative iX)rtion taken for analysis. 

The analytical system used would detect chlorinated pesticides (i.e. DDT, 
Aldrin, etc. ) at levels as low as 0.003 ppm. We only quantitate, however, those 
residues which equal or exceed 0.01 ppm. Any residue which is less than 0.01 
ppm but is identifiable is reported as a "trace." Organophosphate pesticides 
(i.e., Parathion, etc.) are also detected and may be quantitated at the 0.01 
ppm level. All samples were also examined for Carbaryl residues by a separate 
method sensitive to the 0.1 ppm level. 

TABLE GRAPE SURVEY 
Coachella Valley samples (collected July 7, 1969) 

Findings (p.p.m.) 



Sample number Growing area Grape variety DDT DDE Carbaryl 

167-7200 Rancho Mirage Thompson Trace 0.03 

167-721C Mecca do do. . - 0.02 

167-7220 Thermal do do Trace 

167-7230 Indio do do do 

167-7240 Coachella do do do 

167-7250 do do do do 

167-7260 Thermal do 0.06 do 

167-7270 do do Trace do 0.2 

167-7280 do do do do 

167-7290 Coachella do do do 

167-7300 do do 0.06 0.01 

167-7310 Thermal Black Beauty 0.03 0.03 

167-7320 Mecca Cardinal 0.02 0.02 

167-7330 do Thompson 0.02 0.01 

167-7340 Thermal do Trace Trace 

Note: No organophosphate pesticides were detected. The DDE found is a degradation product of DDT. No other chlo- 
rinated pesticides were detected. DDT and analogs have a combined tolerance of 7 p.p.m. Carbaryl tolerance is 10 p.p.m. 

36-513 O — 70 — pt. 6B 2 



337e 

TABLE GRAPE SURVEY 
Phoenix area samples (collected July 7-8, 1969) 



Sample number 



Growing area 



Grape variety 



Findings 



DDE 


Carbaryl 


(p.p.m.) 


(p.p.m.) 












































Trace 





Trace 











Trace 


0.4 


Trace 


0.1 



166-373C Higley 

166-374C do 

166-375C do. 

166-376C _ do 

I66-377C Eloy 

166-378C Queen Creek. 

166-379C Higley 

166-380C _ Litchfield.... 

I66-381C do 

166-382C do 

166-383C do 

166-384C Phoenix 



. Exotic 

.. Cardinal... 
.. Thompson. 

do.... 

.. Cardinal... 

do.... 

.. Thompson. 
.. Cardinal... 
.. Thompson. 

do.... 

.. Exotic 

.. Thompson. 



Note: No organophosphate pesticides were detected. No other chlorinated pesticides were detected. The trace amounts 
of DDE found in the Litchfield and Phoenix samples are believed due to contamination by windblown dry earth. Arizona 
soil is heavily contaminated with DDT and its metabolites. (See Pesticide Monitoring Journal, vol. 2, No. 3, p. 129, Dec. 
1968, "Pesticides in Soil— An Ecological Study of DDT Residues in Arizona Soil and Alfalfa.") 



Mr. Murphy. Mr. President, the grapes presented to the England Laboratory 
were taken there by Manuel Vasquez, the Washington district representative 
of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. They were purchased, Mr. 
Cohen said in his testimony, from Safeway Stores in Washington. 

Mr. Cohen said the grapes were produced by "Bianco." That would be An- 
thony A. Bianco, Jr., and Bianco Fruit Corp. of Delano, Arvin, and Thermal. 
Mr. Bianco has not used aldrin in any form on his properties in the past 6 
years. He has filed statements to this effect from his professional pesticide ap- 
plicator and supplier and from himself. 

I ask unanimous consent that the statements of Mr. Bianco and of Mr. 
Sampson, his pest control applicator, be printed in the Record, together with a 
report of test conducted on grapes from the Bianco Ranch by the BC Labora- 
tories of Bakersfield, Calif. 

There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the 
Recobd, as follows : 



STATEMENT OF ANTHONY A. BIANCO, JB. 

This will certify that I, Anthony A. Bianco, Jr., owner and operator of the 
Bianco Fruit Corporation, have not purchased, obtained or received the chlori- 
nated hydrocarbide Aldrin and have not applied, administered or used Aldrin 
in any of my fields during the past six years. Aldrin has not been authorized 
for use on my property in any form or method during that period. The GriflBn 
Spray Company has applied all pesticides for the Bianco Fruit Corporation 
during the past six years and has made no application or other use of the 
chemical Aldrin on my property in that period. 

Anthony A. Bianco, Jr., 
Bianco Fruit Corp., Delano-Arvin-Thermal. 



State of California, 
County of Kearn, ss: 

On August 8, 1969, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for 
said County and State, personally appeared Anthony A. Bianco Jr. known to 
me to be the President of the Corporation that executed the within instrument, 
known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf 
of the Corporation therein named, and acknowledge to me that such Corpora- 
tion executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of 
its Board of Directors. 

Witness my hand and oflBcial seal. 

Joyce M. McPherson. 

My commission expires Mar. 10, 1970. 



3377 

To whom it may concern: 

This is to certify that Bianco Fruit Corporation has not purchased or ap- 
plied, to our knowledge, any Aldrin during the past six years. Tom GriflBn is 
an owner of Southern Valley Chemical and is the owner of Griffin Spray Com- 
pany. Griffin Spray Company has handled the application of pesticides for 
Bianco Fruit Corporation for the past six years and has made no application 
of the chemical Aldrin. 

(signed) Ed Sampson, 
Manager & Owner, Southern Valley Chemical Co. 



Insecticide residue determination 
(Concentration in parts per million as received basis) 

Constituent: 

Aldrin 0. 008 

Lindane (less than) . 001 

Dieldrin (less than) . 004 

Endrin (less than) .001 

Parathion (less than) . 01 

Sulfur (less than) . 017 

Kelthane (less than) . 01 

Toxaphene (less than) . 1 

DDE . 004 

DDD . 003 

DDT .008 

Residue determination by Gas Chromatography with electron capture 

detection. 

B. C. Laboratories. 
J. J. Eglin. 

Mr. Mi'RPHY. Mr. President, Seldon Morley, the Agricultural Commissioner 
of Kern County, Calif., in which Mr. Bianco does the bulk of his grape produc- 
tion has submitted a statement that there has been no commercial application 
of Aldi'iu in any grapes in Kern County. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. 
Morley's statement be printed at this point in the Record. 

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Rec- 
ord, as follows : 

STATEMENT OF SELDON MORLEY, AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER, COUNTY OF KERN, 

CALIF., AUGUST 7, 1969 

Through May 30, 1969, there has been no commercial application of the pes- 
ticide aldrin on any table grape vineyards in the County of Kern this year. 

The only commercial application of aldrin in the County of Kern in 1969 has 
been as follows : 

January 1969, 104 acres of lettuce. 

February 1969, 81 acres of sugar beets. 

March 1969, 127 acres of tomatoes. 

April 1969, 46 acres of tomatoes. 

There have been no further commercial applications of aldrin in the County 
of Kern this year. 

Aldrin must be registered with the State Department of Agriculture and all 
commercial applications of aldrin and other pesticides to agricultural crops are 
required by law to be reported to the Agricultural Commissioner in the county 
where applied. 

Mr. MrRPHY, Mr. President, the last grapes shipped by Mr. Bianco from the 
Coachella Valley were cleared by the Federal FDA Inspector C. R. Lewis — No. 
319 — and went to Texas on July 13. No Coachella Valley grapes could have re- 
tained salable quality until late July when the grapes in question had to be 
purchased. 

Pesticide chemists have found that aldrin converts very rapidly to the chem- 
ical dieldrin appearing within 6 or 7 hours after aldrin application in the 
fields. Dr. Paul E. Porter, the assistant to the director of physical sciences for 



3378 

the Shell Development Co., biological research center in Modesto, Calif. — a di- 
vision of the only firm manufacturing aldrin — reports it would take an appli- 
cation of 10 to 15 pounds of aldrin per acre to achieve a level of 18 parts per 
million immediately after spraying. The normal application, as approved by 
the California Department of Agriculture, is one-fourth pound per acre. 

But this is moot. Aldrin is not used on grapes in Kern County — as Mr. Mor- 
ley specifies — and normal application of the pesticide in California is confined 
to soil as a grasshopper combatant. Although no aldrin was used, grapes 
showed up 3,000 miles away in Washington containing a massive dose of ald- 
rin. 

Dr. Porter reports aldrin converts rapidly to dieldrin while exposed to sun- 
light — with only negligible amounts of aldrin remaining after 6 days. To 
achieve 18 parts per million, aldrin would have to be sprayed directly on the 
grapes just before shipment. And as the agricultural commissioner of Kern 
County has stated, aldrin is not used on grapes in that county. 

The conclusion is clear : The grapes presented to the England Laboratory 
had somehow achieved strange qualities which I find very diflBcult to explain. 
And it seems possible that a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate has been the vic- 
tim of duplicity. 

If this be the case — this tactic on the part of the United Farm Workers Or- 
ganizing Committee is a vicious type of deceit and makes clear the witness has 
raised the pesticide question as part of UFWOC's "rule or ruin" methods. 

"Rule or ruin" is not my phrase. It is the statement of a dozen table grape 
growers who tried to negotiate a contract with UFWOC. The negotations 
failed because the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee refused — in 
the statement's words — to bargain in good faith. 

These growers exposed "the pesticide issue" in its true light by citing a 
statement written last July 3 by the United Farm Worker's Organizing Com- 
mittee and addressed to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Here 
is the pertinent part of that statement : 

That we are prepared to give a moratorium to the whole industry on the 
pesticide campaign for a limited time in exchange for an acceptable contract 
covering all workers, all crops. 

This might be considered a new type of biological blackmail. 

Mr. President, I believe the true purpose of UFWOC in raising the pesticide 
issue was well set forth in a conversation which Jerome Cohen had with Mrs. 
Eleanor Schulte, office manager for the South Central Farmers Committee in 
Delano, Calif., on June 10, 1969. I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum 
from Mrs. Schulte concerning this conversation be printed at this point in the 
Record : 

There being no objective, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows : 

MEMORANDUM RE CONVERSATION WITH JEROME COHEN 

To whom it may concern: 

On Tuesday, June 10, 1969 at approximately 3 :30 p.m., Mr. Cohen came to 
the South Central Farmers Committee office, asked for me by name, and said 
he would like to talk to me. He said the purpose of his visit was to have me 
pass along to our growers the substance of our conversation. I will attempt to 
enumerate below, to the best of my recollection, the points he made in our con- 
versation. In most cases I cannot quote him verbatim, but will list the point of 
his remarks. 

He introduced himself as Jerry Cohen, Attorney for UFWOC. 

The Board of UFWOC (he mentioned the names Larry, Dolores and Phil, 
whom I assume to be Larry Itliong, Dolores Huerta and Phil Veracruz) had 
met the previous night and voted to mount an all-out campaign this year on 
the boycott, including the pesticide issue. 

He spoke of the "cranberry scare," and said that every time the Department 
of Agriculture issued a bulletin denying pesticide poisoning in cranberries, it 
only made the situation worse. He said we couldn't fight the pesticide issue, 
and even "Baxter and Whitaker" would not be able to wage an effective cam- 
paign against it. 

He claims that traces of DDT have been found in grapes, and that DDT has 
been found to cause cancer in mammals. He mentioned that the "American 



3379 

eagle, the symbol of America" is being killed off by DDT. He said suits have 
been filed on DDT, and more will be filed. I asked him if negotiating with the 
union would render pesticides harmless, and he said that the health and wel- 
fare clauses in the contracts could provide safety controls that will protect 
both the worker and the consumer. 

He hinted that UFWOC could scare the wits out of the American public 
with the threat of pesticide poisoning, and we couldn't do anything about it. 

The boycott did not hurt the grower.s much last year because it did not get 
organized until November, but this year it is all set to go in 275 cities. He cor- 
rected himself to say 277 cities "as of today." 

For those growers who would negotiate with the union, the boycott machin- 
ery will be used to promote the sale of their grapes. I said that I could not re- 
call that the union had promoted the sale or DiGiorgio grapes after signing 
with the union. He said that was because DiGiorgio, on the contrary, after 
signing with the union had "switched labels with Bruno, Kenny Kovacevich" 
and one other name I cannot recall. He said that when the growers came to 
realize it was in their own best interest not to switch labels, the boycott ma- 
chinery could be used very well to promote the sale of union picked grapes. 

When the pesticide issue came up with Seldon Morley, the Kern County Ag- 
ricultural Commissioner, UFWOC tried for nine months to settle things quietly, 
but Mr. Morley and his people would not cooperate and thereby forced the 
union against its wishes, to bring the case into court and into the public eye. 

He said the union had had conversations in the past with John Giumarra, 
Jr., and that "we told him we would make the boycott a national issue, and he 
laughed, when we told him we would bring up the pesticide issue, and he 
laughed, but we did all these things." He said he hoped I would be more effec- 
tive in passing along to the growers his message. He said something about es- 
tablishing a line of communications, and that I could turn my office into a ne- 
gotiating center. I got the feeling here that he was trying to see if he could 
detect whether or not he could give me delusions of grandeur about being the 
key figure in ending the whole mess. He said the growers do not need to be so 
fearful of negotiating. His exact words were "the growers seem to feel that if 
they sit down to a negotiating table with the union they will lose their virgin- 
ity." 

I asked him again his purpose in visiting me and he said it was to have me 
pass along to the growers the message that if we do not negotiate, the union 
will press the boycott and the pesticide campaign, which will be needlessly de- 
structive for both sides. 

Eleanor Schulte, 
Office Manager, Soiith Central Farmers Committee. 

Mr. Murphy. Mr. President, obviously the union has raised the pesticide 
issue in an effort to further harass the grape industx-y and in furtherance of 
their design to force the grape growers to force their workers to join a union 
which they do not wish to join. I believe they have gone too far in this case 
and that this deplorable story will show the UFWOC effort up for what is 
really is. 

One of the contributing factors in this entire unfortunate affair has been the 
contrived confusion, built on propaganda, half truths, and, in some cases, out- 
right falsehood. I intend from now on to check all witnesses for creditibility, 
character, and purpose, so that the subcommittee may make proper and pro- 
ductive pronouncements as a result of these hearings. 



U.S. Senate, 
Committee on Labor & Public Welfare, 

Washington, D.C., September 9, 1969. 
Mr. Basil Winstead, 
Vice-President, Safeway Stores, Inc., 
handover, Md. 

Dear Mr. Winstead : This will confirm the telephone conversation which I 
understand Mr. Boren Chertkov, Counsel to the Migratory Labor Subcommit- 
tee, had with you earlier today regarding Senator Murphy's request that this 
Subcommittee reopen its hearings on the Effects of Pesticides on Farmworkers, 



3380 

and recall witnesses that testified on August 1 about pesticide residues on 
table grapes. 

As I know Mr. Chertkov discussed with you, the Subcommittee's primary in- 
terest in this matter is to learn the entire truth about the issues which devel- 
oped out of these hearings. In particular, we hope to obtain all relevant facts 
concerning the charge that laboratory tests submitted to the Subcommittee 
which showed table grapes with aldrin residues 180 times the human tolerance 
level were misleading. 

We would like to learn more about reports that your company had independ- 
ent laboratory tests conducted of the grapes in question, the results of such 
tests if they were conducted, and any subsequent actions of the company con- 
cerning this situation. Please send us explanations and copies of any test re- 
sults you have obrained in this regard. 

I am pleased to learn of the cooperation that you offered Mr. Chertkov, and 
we will soon be in touch with you regarding any additional matters that we 
believe are worthy of careful review. 

With warm regards. 
Sincerely, 

(signed) Walter F. Mondale, 
Chairman. Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. 



U.S. Senate, 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 

Washington, D.G., September 9, 1969. 
Dr. Charles C. Johnson, Jr., 

Administrator, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, De- 
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, B.C. 
Dear Dr. Johnson : This will confirm the telephone conversation which I un- 
derstand Mr. Boren Chertkov, Counsel to the Migratory Labor Subcommittee, 
had with Mr. J. K. Kirk, Associate Commissioner of FDA for Compliance, ear- 
lier today regarding Senator Murphy's request that this Subcommittee reopen 
its hearings on the Effects of Pesticides on Farmworkers, and recall witnesses 
that testified on August 1 about pesticide residues on table grapes. 

As I know Mr. Chertkov discussed with you, the Subcommittee's primary in- 
terest in this matter is to learn the entire truth about the issues which devel- 
oped out of these hearings. In particular, we hope to obtain all relevant facts 
concerning the charge that laboratory tests submitted to the Subcommittee 
which showed table grapes with aldrin residues 180 times the human tolerance 
level were misleading. 

Please send me immediately any information that you have regarding other 
laboratory tests recently conducted on grapes, including explanations and cop- 
ies of any tests results. Please also advise me of the date that you received 
this information. 

Thank you for your attention to this request. 
With warm regards. 
Sincerely, 

(Signed) Walter F. Mondale, 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. 



Safeway Stores, Inc., 
Landover, Md., September 11, 1969. 
Senator Walter F. Mondale, 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Senator Mondale: Thank you for your letter of September 9th re- 
questing information concerning our Company's tests as related to pesticide 
residues on table grapes. 

For your information, we are attaching reports and other data dealing with 
the laboratory tests which we undertook on August 1, 1969 concerning the 
above product. We have also outlined the actions taken in chronological order 
to further clarify our situation. 



3381 

Two of our Company representatives met with Mr. Boren Chertkov on Fri- 
day, September 12th, in the offices of the National Association of Food Chains, 
and relayed the attached information to him. 

Again, thank you for your letter and we hope that the enclosed data will be 
of assistance to you. 
Best regards. 
Sincerely, 

Basil Winstead, 
Vice President and Division Manager. 

August 1st — Graiies identified as purchased at Safeway introduced into hear- 
ings. Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Washington, ^D.C. Division, notified two 
laboratories to sample test the grapes that had been received by Safeway. 
(C.W. England Laboratories, Eastawai Research Laboratories). 

August 2nd — Product samples of grapes were selected by the above two labo- 
ratories. 

August 6th — C. W. England reported preliminary results via telephone. Re- 
sults indicated chemicals present which California Department of Agriculture 
reported had not been used. Laboratory requested to re-check results and tests. 

August 7th — Strasburger and Siegel, Incorporated contacted and requested to 
sample test the product. 

August 8th — Division Office received telegram with information from Califor- 
nia Department of Agriculture saying that presence of non-toxic sulphur could 
be confu.sed with other elements. All three laboratories contacted by phone 
with the above information relayed to them along with request to re-check re- 
sults. Company notified supplier to temporarily suspend shipments of product 
until test re.sults clarified. 

August 9th — Phone report from Eastawai on tentative test results. 

August 12th — Food and Drug Administration report published. 

August 14th — Written report from C. W. England (attached dated August 
8th). Phone report from Strasburger and Siegle (attached written report dated 
August l.")th ) . 

August l.jth — Eastawai phone report. (Attached written report dated August 
15th). 

August 19th — Company notified supplier to resume shipments. 

August 20tli — Written notification to all laboratories requesting clarification 
of test results as related to article which appeared in Journal of Agricultural 
and Food Chemistry, Volume 15 entitled, "Identification of the Aldrin Arti- 
fact" by J. R. Pearson, F. D. Aldrick and A. W. Stone. (Letters and article at- 
tached ) . 

September 10th — Response to the August 20th letter by Strasburger and 
Siegel. (Attached). No response to-date from C. W. England Laboratories or 
Eastawai Research Laboratories. 



The C. W. England Laboratories, Inc. 

Washington D.C., August 1, 1969. 

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (A. O. A. C. AND A. P. H. A. METHODS) 

Product : Thompson Seedless Grapes. 

Received from : United Farm Workers Organizing Committee AFL/CIO, 
945 G Street, NW, Room 207, Washington, D.C. 20001. 
Date Received : July 30, 1969 

REPORT 

Chlorinated, hydrocarbons 

Thompson Seedless Grapes (Richard Bagarian — Mecca, California), 0.11 ppm 
Simazine ; 1.04 ppm Aldrin. 

Thompson Seedless Grapes (Bianco Fruit Corporation — Chellchella Valley, 
Theral & Mecca, California), 0.27 ppm Simazine; 1.31 ppm BHC ; IS ppm Ald- 
rin. 

Note, ppm — Parts per million. All results are in terms of Product. All re- 
sults are accomplished by use of gas chromatography. 

Habold M. Windland 

Director. 



3382 



StEASBUEGER & SlEGEL, INC., 

Baltimore, Md., August 15, 1969. 



CEKTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (a. O. A. C. AND A. P. H. A. METHODS) 

Laboratory No. : 12388. 

Sample of: Grapes (See Below). 

Received from : Safeway Stores, Inc., Landover, Md. 

Marked: Sampled by M.S. 8/7/69 (See Below). 



2 lb. Composite Sample taken from 10 boxes, representing a shipment of 3000 
boxes ( 26 lbs. each ) 

Sample of : Thompson Seedless Grapes — 26 lb. net wt., Anthony Brand, Cali- 
fornia Fruits Growers «& Shippers, Bianco Fruit Corp., Main Office, Fresno, 
Calif. 

Chlorinated Pesticide Residues by Electron Capture Gas Chromatography : 
Kelthane — 0.20 ppm ; DDT — ^0.11 ppm ; Other Chlorinated Pesticide Residues — 
None. 

Organosphospahte Pesticide Residues by Thermionic Detector Gas Chroma- 
tography — None. 

Eastawai Research Laboeatoeies, Inc., 

Baltimore, Md., August 15, 1969. 

ceetificate of analysis 

Laboratory No. : SF02086901 

Sample of : Red, Green & Black grapes. 

Received from: Safeway Stores, Inc. 6700 Columbia Park Road, Landover, 
Maryland 20785, Warehouse at Cabin Branch Road. Mr. Len Corsentino, Public 
Relations Manager. 

Date of Receipt : 02July 69 

EEPOET 

A. Object — To determine the pesticide content in each of the three grape 
samples provided. 

B. General Summary. — TLC — All (3) three grape samples were positive for 
chlorinated pesticide residues. GC — Positive for Aldrin and Dieldrin. Total 
Pesticide residue in Red grapes=16.8 ppm. Total Pesticide residue in Green 
grapes = 17.6 ppm. Total Pesticide residue in Black grapes = 19.1 ppm. These 
results are in gross violation of accepted standards. 

C. Procedure — Thin Layer Chromotography. — a. 26 gms of each of the grape 
varieties were placed into a flask of suitable size. 

b. To each flask was added 1000 ml of Hexane saturated with N.N.-dimethyl 
formamide. 

c. Each of the flasks were stoppered with saran covered rubber stoppers and 
shaken on a mechanical shaker for 5 hours. 

d. The super-natant liquid was then drawn off, measured, and evaporated 
under vacuum to dryness. 

e. The residue was then re-dissolved in l.Occ hexane and chromatographed. 

D. Standard Information. — Maximum allowable hygienic standards as estab- 
lished by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists for 
specified agricultural commodities are 0, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.57 ppm by weight for 
Dieldrin and 0, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.75 ppm by weight for Aldrin. 

E. References. — a. Industrial Hygienic and Toxicology, Second Revised Edi- 
tion, Vol. 2, pgs 1356 thru 1359. 

b. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Agricultural 
Chemists, Tenth Edition, with official revisions. 

c. Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Drugs & Pesticides by Benjamin Grend- 
cinowicz, pgs. 408-512 

Respectfully submitted. 

Eael S. Waitsman, 
Director of Laboratories. 



3383 

The C. W. England Laboeatobies 

Washington, B.C., August 8, 1969. 

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (A. O. A. C. AND A. P. H. A. METHODS) 

Product : Grapes. 

Received from: Safeway Stores, Inc.— Produce Merchandising Department, 
1501 Cabin Branch Rd. Landover, Maryland 20785— Attention : Mr. Allen Fran- 
cis. 

Date Received : August 4, 1969. 

REPORT 

Chlorinated hydrocarbons 

Thompson Seedless Grapes (Anthony Bianco brand), 0.65 ppm Aldrin ; 0.03 
ppm Simazine. 

Black Grapes (Anthony Bianco brand), 0.05 ppm Aldrin. 

Red Grapes (Anthony Biauce brand), 0.08 ppm Aldrin. 

Castys Red Grapes, 0.03 ppm Aldrin. 

Note : ppm— Parts per million. All results are in terms of Product. All results 
are accomplished by use of gas chromatography. The extract from the Thomp- 
son Seedless Grapes was processed using a second method (paper chromatogra- 
phy ) . This method also shows the presence of Aldrin. 

Product : Grapes. 

Received from : Safeway Stores, I c— Produce Merchandising Dept., 1501 
Cabin Branch Road, Landover, Maryland 20786— Attn : Mr. Allen Francis. 

Date Received : August 6, 1969. 

REPORT 

Chlorinated hydrocar'bons 

Thompson Seedless Grapes (from Rail cars), 0.32 ppm Aldrin; 0.04 ppm 
Simazine. 

Note: ppm — Parts per million. All results are in terms of Product. All re- 
sults are accomplished by use of gas chromatography. 

Harold M. Windlan, 

Director. 



Senator Mondale. I understand Senator Murphy also has an 
opening statement before we begin testimony. 

Senator JNIuephy. Yes, I wish to welcome the witnesses. I would 
like to say that I am very pleased that these hearings of the Sub- 
committee on IMigratory Labor have been reconvened. 

It is extremely important that we resolve some serious questions 
which have arisen as a result of testimony and evidence submitted to 
this subcommittee on August 1. 

We are dealing with an issue of critical importance to the Ameri- 
can people, whether they be employees, employers, or consumers. It 
is therefore vital that the Senate of the United States have before it 
all facts bearing on the questions raised before this committee. 

I hope that this hearing will bring out all pertinent facts pertain- 
ing to the charges made before this committee on August 1 that Cal- 
ifornia table grapes are contaminated by dangerous levels of pesti- 
cide residue. I am here to learn those facts from the concerned 
witnesses who will appear. 

On August 1, ]Mr. Jerome Cohen, General Counsel of the United 
Farm Workers Organizing Committee, appeared before this commit- 
tee and testified that two bunches of Thompson seedless grapes con- 
tained quantities of the pesticide aldrin 180 times the established tol- 
erance level for human beings. 

A report from the C. W. England Laboratories, Inc., of 
Washington, D.C., was submitted to the committee saying that the 
grapes had an aldrin content of 18 parts per million compared with 
the legal tolerance level of .10 parts per million. 



3384 

The laboratory report indicated that the grapes in (question had 
been received from the United Farm Workers Organizing Commit- 
tee, and representatives of the laboratory later told the news media 
that the grapes had been furnished them by a UFWOC representa- 
tive. 

Chairman Mondale, indicating that the grapes in question were 
being sold by Safeway Stores in Washington, D.C., requested the 
Food and Drug Administration to test grapes in markets around the 
country. 

The FDA did conduct such tests on 60 samples of grapes, 12 of 
these from packer lots in the San Francisco market area and 48 
samples having been obtained from retail stores in New York, Chi- 
cago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore- Washington (including the same 
Washington chain store from which the grapes on which ^Ir. Cohen 
reported had been obtained). 

The results of the FDA survey showed that there was no aldrin 
residue on any of the grapes tested. The FDA also stated that the 
survey showed there was no chemical residue of any nature on any 
grape sample that even approached the level of human tolerance. 

Subsequently, the grower of the grapes in question — Mr. Anthony 
A. Bianco, Jr., who will be a witness tomorrow — has testified that he 
has not used aldrin in any form on any of his properties. Other 
competent authorities point out that aldrin isn't applied to grapes 
for any reason. 

As I stated on the Senate floor on August 12, I find it difficult 
then to understand how the grapes presented to the England Labo- 
ratory achieved the unusual qualities ascribed to them, and I have 
questioned whether or not this committee has been subjected to 
duplicity in an effort to frighten the American consumer and dis- 
credit the California table-grape industry. 

It is vital to this committee — and to the public — ^that these ques- 
tions be resolved. I liope that we can obtain at these hearings con- 
crete evidence relevant to this issue, and I urge that all of us give 
careful attention to the testimony because to a large extent these 
witnesses will be speaking through us to the American consumer. 

It is my sincere desire that we get at the basic facts of this prob- 
lem which I wasn't present at the hearing. Reading the record, 
obviously I found a great discrepancy. For that reason, INIr. Chair- 
man, I asked that the committee be reconvened so that we could find 
out once and for all excatly where the fault lies, what exactly did 
happen, where the grapes came from, where the aldrin came from, 
and if we are in fact endangering the lives of the consumers and the 
workers. 

Senator INIondale. Thank you. Senator ^Murphy. We will place 
your remarks, in full, in the record. 

(The statement of Senator Murphy follows :) 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MURPHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator Murphy. I am very much pleasured that these hearings of 
the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor have been reconvened. It is 
extremely important that we resolve some serious questions which have 



3385 

arisen as a result of testimony and evidence submitted to this subcom- 
mittee on August 1. 

We are dealing with an issue of critical importance to the Ameri- 
can people, whether they be employees, employers or consumers. It is 
therefore vital that the Senate of the United States have before it 
all facts bearing on the questions raised before this committee. 

I hope that this hearing will bring out all pertinent facts pertain- 
ing to the cliarges made before this committee on August 1 that Cal- 
ifornia table grapes are contaminated by dangerous levels of pesti- 
cide residue. I am here to learn those facts from the concerned 
witnesses who will appear. 

On August 1, ^Ir. Jerome Cohen, general counsel fo the United 
Farm Workers Organizing Committee, appeared before this commit- 
tee and testified thlit two bunches of Thompson seedless grapes con- 
tained quantities of the pesticide aldrin 180 times the established tol- 
erance level for human beings. A report from the C. W. England 
Laboratories, Inc., of Washington, D.C., was submitted to the com- 
mittee saying that the grapes had an aldrin content of 18 parts per 
million compared with the legal tolerance level of 0.10 parts per mil- 
lion. 

The laboratory report indicated that the grapes in question had 
been received from the United Farm Workers Organizing Commit- 
tee, and representatives of the laboratory later told the news media 
that the grapes had been furnished them by a UFWOC representa- 
tive. 

Chairman Mondale, indicating that the grapes in question were 
being sold by Safeway Stores in Washington, D.C., requested the 
Food and Drug Administration to test grapes in markets around the 
country. Tlie FDA did conduct such tests on 60 samples of grapes, 
12 of thes9 from j^acker lots in the San Francisco market area and 
48 samples having been obtained from retail stores in New York, 
Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore-AVashington (including the 
same Washington chain store from which the grapes on which Mr. 
Cohen reported had been obtained). 

The results of the FDA survey showed that there was no aldrin 
residue on any of the grapes tested. The FDA also stated that the 
survey showed there was no chemical residue of any nature on any 
grape samj^le that even approached the level of human tolerance. 

Subsequently the grower of the grapes in question — Mr. Anthony 
A. Bianco, Jr., who is here today as a witness — has testified that he 
has not used aldrin in any form on any of his properties. Other 
competent authorities point out that aldrin isn't applied to grapes 
for any reason. 

As I stated on the Senate floor on August 12, I find it difficult 
then to understand how the grapes presented to the England labora- 
tory achieved the unusual qualities ascribed to them, and I have 
questioned whether or not this committee has been subjected to 
duplicity in an effort to frighten the American consumer and dis- 
credit the California table grape industry. 

It is vital to this committee — and to the public — that these ques- 
tions be resolved. I hope that we can obtain at these hearings con- 
crete evidence relevant to this issue, and I urge that all of us give 



3386 

careful attention to the testimony because to a large extent these 
witnesses will be speaking through us to the American consumer. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have a further statement, Senator 
Cranston ? 

Senator Cranston. No, INIr. Chairman. 

Senator Mondale. Mr. Chavez, you may begin. I understand you 
want to introduce your fellow panelists. You may proceed in any 
order you wish. 

STATEMENTS OF CESAR CHAVEZ, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED FARM 
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE; JEROME COHEN, COUNSEL 
TO UFWOC; AND MANUEL VASQUEZ, WASHINGTON REPRESENT- 
ATIVE OF UFWOC 

Mr. Chavez. Thank you, INIr. Chairman. 

Thank you. Senator Cranston for the introduction. 

I want to thank you. Senator IMurphy, for asking that the com- 
mittee be reconvened so that we can present further testimony on the 
issue of pesticides. 

I have here today with me Mr. Jerry Cohen who is the general 
counsel of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee and 
Mr. IManuel Vasquez who is the Washington representative of 
UFWOC, now leading the boycott campaign in Washington, D.C.. 
He will be testifying in a few moments regarding the aldrin episode 
in the Safeway stores but I think that more important than that is 
the whole question of health and safety for farmworkers and the 
unchecked application of dangerous pesticides that is casuing poi- 
soning among large numbers of workers. 

We are happy to be here and to deal first with the aldrin episode. 
We are also willing, if need be, to be put under oath while we tes- 
tify so that everyone will be satisfied that what we are saying are 
the facts as we know them. 

Manuel Vasquez is going to tell the committee his part in the ald- 
rin-grape episode with Safeway. 

Senator Mondale. Mr. Vasquez, if you want, you may read your 
statement. 

Mr. Vasquez. I will make a short, brief statement. 

On the morning of July 30, me and Gene Boutillier were discuss- 
ing in his office the possibility of residue on grapes here in the 
Washington area. He suggested to me the C. W. Laboratories, which 
is C. W. England Laboratories in the Northeast. 

Immediately a friend of mine, John Walsh, and I went on a 
motorcycle in the Northeast to find the location of these laboratories. 

When we found it from there we proceeded to the first Safewway 
store that we came across in that particular area. We traveled on 
Rhode Island Aveneue when we came across the first Safeway. 

I immediately went into the store. I saw the grapes there. In that 
particular store the grapes were in pretty poor condition, they were 
really run down. You could not get a true test from these grapes. 

On the second Safeway that we traveled to on Rhode Island, 
which is on 18th Street, Northeast, the grapes were wrapped in 
paper. I proceeded to the back of the store and I asked the produce 



3387 

manager whether these grapes were from California or not. He told 
me that they were. 

I said would you mind if I take down the name of the grower and 
the place where the grapes are from. He said, "No, as a matter of 
fact, why don't you just get one of those labels which are on the 
boxes," which at that time there were about six or seven boxes in the 
cooler rooms of that particular storage. Later I tore off the Bianco 
label. 

Senator IMoxdale. Let the record show that the witness is holding 
up for the benefit of those in the hearing room to see, a blue label. 

INIr. Vasquez. Yes. We got the grapes there. I bought about 2 
pounds. I paid for them and they were put in a paper bag and we 
proceeded to another store on Annapolis Koad. We bought another 2 
pounds or close to 2 pounds of grapes. 

Now between these two bags of grapes they were very distinct 
because one of them was the neat type, not in paper or nothing, they 
were in neat bags, at Giant, and the ones who were wrapped in 
paper were the Safeway. They were marked distinctively. 

When we took them down to the laboratory I told the person 
there that these were Bianco and these were from the other growers 
and they were marked right there and then. 

He told me that the test was going to be completed at 9 o'clock on 
Friday, August 1. That morning I went there at 9 o'clock to pick 
them up and I brought them up here and this is as much as I can 
testify to. 

Senator Mondale. As I understand it, in brief, you went to these 
two stores, purchased grapes, determined at least what the boxes 
said about where they were grown, took them directly to the Eng- 
land Laboratory, and then went back to pickup the test results, and 
brought those results to the subcommittee hearings held on August 

Mr. Vasquez. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. Did you in any way tamper with or change or 
alter the sample from the time you brought it until you took it to 
the laboratory? 

Mr. Vasquez. No, sir. 

Senator ^Mondale. They were in the original package when you 
turned them over to the laboratory ? 

IMr. Vasquez. Yes, sir. 

Senator Moxdale. Very well. 

At this point in the record I order printed an affidavit which you 
have filed with the subcommittee. 

(The information subsequently supplied, follows:) 

Affidavit of Manuel Vasquez 

My name is Manuel Vasquez. I have been living in the Washington DC 
area for 14 months. Prior to that, I was a farmworker in California since the 
age of .5 or 6. I am now 35. I am now working in Washington as the Washing- 
ton representative of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 

Some time around the first of July it was suggested by my home office in 
Delano, California that area representatives look into the possibilitv of having 
grapes on retail store shelves checked for pesticide residue levels. I made sev- 
eral efforts to accomplish this in such a way that it would not cost the union 



3388 

anything. Since tlie Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor liad scheduled 
liearings on August 1, 1969, to investigate the Effects of Pesticides on Farm- 
workers, I realized the value that might come from testing grapes in the 
Washington area. It was either on July 29 or the morning of July 30 that the 
Reverend Gene Boutilier, National Director of the National Campaign for Ag- 
ricultural Democracy, suggested that we test grapes before the hearing, and he 
noticed that the C. W. England Laboratories is located in Northeast Washing- 
ton and would test grapes. We then decided to find retail food stores nearest 
the Lab to get samples of grapes. 

At about 2 :00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, July 30, I rode a motorcycle 
driven by John Walsh to a Safeway store at Rhode Island & Thayer St., N.E., 
to buy some grapes. When I noticed the bad condition of the grapes, I decided 
that a good residue test would not be possible. AVe then went to the Safeway 
store at Hamlin & ISth St., N.E. Mr. Walsh stayed outside the store and I 
went inside to the produce section where I noticed that the grapes were in a 
shelf display rather than in their original lugs. I then proceeded to the back 
of the store to talk to the produce manager. I asked him if the grapes were 
from California, and he said yes. I then asked to see the boxes and he took 
me to the cold storage unit where there were about half a dozen boxes. I 
asked him if I could copy down the name from the label and he answered that 
it wasn't necessary because I could just tear one off a box. I did that and sub- 
mit it as exhibit 1. 

I then proceeded back to the produce section and took about 1 lbs. of grapes 
by the stem and placed them, including their tissue wrapping, into a standard 
Safeway brown paper bag and proceeded immediately to the cashier where I 
paid about $L00 for them. 

After purchasing the Safeway grapes, I checked with the Reverend Boutilier 
and informed him that I had gotten grapes from Bianco at Safeway and he 
suggested that I go to another store and get another sample of grapes from a 
different grower. We then proceeded to the A & P across from that Safeway 
where there are no grapes. From there we went to a Giant store at about 4900 
Annapolis Road. 

At that Giant I went directly to the produce section where I saw Thompson 
Seedless grapes wrapped in plastic mesh bags in a shelf display. The grapes 
were not in their original lugs. 

I then went to the produce manager and asked if the grapes were from Cali- 
fornia, and he said no, that the grapes were from Arizona. We went to the 
back room where I noticed an empty box with a Bagdasarian label. When I 
noticed this discrepancy, I asked to .see the grapes in cold storage and he re- 
fused. 

I went back to the display counter and purchased about 2 lbs. of these 
grapes for about $1.00. We then proceeded to the Lab on Bladensburg Road 
and at most it was a 15 minute ride between Giant and the Lab. 

John stayed with the motorcycle and I went inside the Lab where I asked 
the receptionist if there was a possibility that these grapes could be tested to 
determine pesticide residues. She then called a chemist and I asked him if he 
could take tests on the grapes. He said yes. When I as^ked him if the test re- 
sults could be ready by Thursday evening (July 31) he said that this would 
push him for time to do an adequate job. He then informed me that the cost 
for each sample would be $35 or $70 for two, which I immediately realized 
conflicted with the price quoted over the phone to Reverend Boiitilier of 25 
for both samples. In view of our need for the tests, I ordered the tests despite 
the high price. 

At about that time I marked the bags with the names of the growers as re- 
flected by the labels. I knew that the Safeway grapes were Blanco's and that 
they were distinguishable from the Giant grapes because the Giant grapes had 
a mesh bag. I used my pen to mark the name Bianco on the Safeway grapes 
and Richard Bagdasarian on thp Giant grapes. 

On Friday, Aug. 1, at abou. J:00 a.m. I went to the England Labs, picked 
up the lab report, and wrote a check on the account of the Washington D.C. 
Boycott. At that time the same man who took the samples from me on 
Wednesday verbally confirmed the test results and said that the grapes had a 
lot of aldrin on them. 



3389 

Mr. CoHEx. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks. I 
was testifying on August 1st. The burden of my testimony was the 
proposition that we believe the California table grape growers use 
the wrong amounts of poisons, the wrong amounts at the wrong- 
times, and disregarded the health of the workers and consumers. 

At the conclusion of my testimony, ;Mr. Vasquez brought the labo- 
ratory test in. I saw they were from the C. W. England Laborato- 
ries. We turned that test over to the staff of the subcommittee. 

I would like to make a few comments. 

Subsequent to that on August 12, Senator INIurphy introduced in 
the Congressional Record a statement implying we had engaged in a 
shocking attempt to mislead the American public. 

I want to present our position in relationship to that. 

First of all, that presentation of August 12, on page S9868 of 
the Congressional Record, and as Senator Murphy has said in his 
opennig statement this morning, Mr. Bianco signed an affidavit and 
said he has not used aldrin. 

His commercial applicator states he has not applied aldrin. 

On the very same page there is a test which Senator INIurphy in- 
troduced whicli indicates an aldrin residue on Bianco grapes. There is 
an inconsistency. 

The inconsistency is between the tests which Mr. Murphy intro- 
duced and the statement of Mr. Bianco and his commercial applica- 
tor. 

Furthermore, since that time and according to the test which was 
given to the press this morning, which I now have a copy of, the 
Safeway Stores conducted their own independent tests of the grapes 
which I believe were taken not only from the warehouse but also 
from the sealed railway cars, some of the grapes from the same 
batch that these grapes were from. 

One of the tests is the Eastawai tests from the Eastawai Labora- 
tories which indicates they found 16.8 parts per million of aldrin, 
li.Q, and 19.1. 

Now those tests of Safeway grapes confirm our tests. They were 
not brought to the laboratories by any farmworker. 

Fui^her, Safeway states in their letter they canceled their contract 
with Bianco, ho m terms of the facts of that episode I think our 
position IS surely vindicated. 

I just want to make one further statement. In the statement of 
August 12, Commissioner :Morley is quoted, and Commissioner 
xMorley has given some information to this committee. 

Commissioner Morely has been involved in a battle with the 
United I^arm A\ orkers for over a year now. We are trying to get 
records. I hope at this point the records from commercial spray 
applicators from Commissioner ]\Iorley's office will become public 
information since he seems to have given some of this information 
out. 

That is it. Cesar is here to talk about the issue which concerns us 
most of all and that IS the issue of how the use of economic poisons 
affects the health and safety of farmworkers. 

Senator Mondale. You may proceed, Mr. Chavez. 

Mr. Chavez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



3390 

The real issue is the danger that pesticides present to farmworkers. 
We have come to realize in the union that the issue of pesticide poi- 
soning is more important today than even wages, although wages 
are very low, because we feel, the workers feel, that keeping good 
health is far more important than getting more money for their 
work at this point. 

Two weeks ago, I called on the Federal Mediation and Concilia- 
tion Service to bring the growers and us together again to continue 
the discussions that were broken off in early July. 

I also told them that the union was willing to reconsider the wage 
demands that we had made at that time when the negotiations broke 
off and that we w^ere, by doing that, placing the issue of pesticides 
as the number one issue of our union and that we would not recon- 
sider the basic demands that we made during the negotiating period 
with the employers. 

We find it very difficult to stand by idly and let them continue the 
systematic poisoning of our people. We feel we must speak out and 
we feel some correction must come soon. 

The reason that we became alarmed over pesticides, although we 
suspected poisoning for a number of years, is that recently there 
came to our hands a report from the California State Department of 
Public Health, a survey that the department is conducting now in 
the Tulare County area. 

Many of the workers interviewed were grape pickers. Many of the 
people interviewed were the struck growers. The information is not 
public. We got hold of the information by one of the employees who 
was working with the department of public health in the survey. 

An official of the department was asked why was this information 
being withheld from the public. The statement he made was that the 
subject is too controversial and, therefore, the rest of the findings 
are going to be kept from the public. 

It is the same fight that w^e are in now in two or three counties in 
California with the agricultural commissioner, trying to get the 
records of the pesticides as concerns the spraying of the area and 
the type of poisons being sprayed. We feel that as to the extent we 
have this information we are going to educate our workers and we 
are going to try to find some kind of solution concerning the poi- 
sons. 

The tests conducted by the Public Health Service showed that 
over 80 percent of those workers interviewed have one or more 
symptoms connected with pesticide poisoning. 

The symptoms are identified as excessive fatigue, nervousness, 
insomnia, diarrhea, difficulty in breathing, headaches, skin irrita- 
tions, persistent rashes, nausea, vomiting, double vision, loss of 
fingernails, and nose bleeds. 

The data showed that out of 774 farm workers interviewed, 154 
had one symptom of the symptoms mentioned. 144 had two symp- 
toms. 109 had three symptoms. Eighty-two had four symptoms. 163 
had five or more symptoms. Only 121 showed no symptoms. 

The farmworkers are becoming very concerned, very aware of the 
poisoning, and they are now referring to it in Spanish as la muerte 
andando, walking death. 



3391 

Most striking of all is the long-range effects that the pesticide poi- 
soning have on our kids. We also have a study made by Dr. Mizrahi 
of the Salud Medical Clinic in Tulare County. It is clear to me Dr. 
INIizrahi state that 29 children tested showed that they had a high 
DDT residue in the blood. 

It also showed the cholinesterase levels were low. 

He described in a letter to me that the pesticide poisoning in the 
Valley is reaching an epidemic. Our own legal department in the 
union has been investigating and we have some examples of what we 
are finding as we made a determined effort to learn more about the 
poisoning and we talk to people whose work has been affected by it. 

In Selma, Calif., last year farmworkers were applying pesticides. 
The instructions read one quart of chemicals should be mixed with a 
large quantity of water. 

His employer had other ideas and suggested that he use two 
quarts instead of one. This worker used two quarts instead of one. As 
he began to spray he became ill, he had to be taken to the doctor; he 
was unable to work for several days. 

Since then he has been very sensitive to any area which has been 
infected with pesticides. 

I also may add here that pesticide poisoning is not recognized. 
Our people who are poisoned are not permitted to have coverage 
under the workman's compensation program if they miss less than 1 
week of work. Large numbers of people who are ill are not able to 
have the proper medical attention and do not have any compensation 
while they are gaining their health back. 

Another example : Mrs. Beatrice Roman, working for George A. 
Lucas & Sons, one of the growers that we are striking, this summer 
came into a field that had been sprayed and had a lot of wliite 
powder on the vines as she described it. 

After working a few hours she began to have trouble in breathing, 
developed a sore throat and had difficulty in speaking and stomach 
pains. She left the vineyard and a few days later she felt better. She 
came back to work and she had the same symptoms again. 

We are finding that as people get affected with pesticides it is 
harder and harder for them to be able to work in the fields after the 
first attack. 

Another example: Frances Barajas in the Elmco vineyards, 
another large vineyard we are striking. This spring we came into 
the vineyard where she was working. She ran out of the field out of 
the way of the spray rigs to avoid being sprayed and the foreman 
ordered her back into the field. 

She developed skin rashes, eye irritation and very serious eye 
infection. This party was afraid to testify ; she was afraid she would 
lose her job. 

Mrs. Celestina Perales, working at Elmco, had the same experi- 
ence. In this case when the spray rig was approaching where she 
was working, spraying the same row she was working in, she was 
told by the crew foreman to hunch under the vines until the rig 
went by. This is common to the spray workers while they are work- 
ing. 

We have many reports in the Coachella Valley that this happens 

36-513 O — 70 — pt. 6B 3 



3392 

frequently. She developed skin irritation and eye irritation and also 
trouble with her vision. 

The most recent one we have is Mr. Abelardo Hernandez, a few 
days ago, he ate some grapes and became ill, began to vomit and had 
bleeding from the nose. The foreman refused to take him to the 
doctor. 

We see that when these things happen that the foremen them- 
selves don't know. Many times they think it is something, it is a 
minor incident that is going to pass. So we have reports where the 
foreman refuse to take people to the doctor. 

In this case he did go to the doctor and he was ordered to stay off 
the grapes and the vineyards until he felt better. 

These are a few examples of the very serious problem that we are 
faced with in the grapes today. The union is putting every effort 
forth to the end that we may be able to stop the serious situation 
immediately before it gets out of hand. We have tried to meet with 
the growers on several occasions outside the collective bargaining 
area. 

We have invited them to meet with us separate from collective 
bargaining, separate from recognition, but to meet with us to discuss 
the pesticides. 

In every attempt they have rebuffed us. 

On January 7, I instructed ISIr. Cohen to write a letter to Mr. 
Wall, a representative of the pesticide companies in the area, to try 
to get a meeting with him so that we could better know the full 
range of the pesticides and their effects and also to gain from him 
some knowledge as to how to protect our workers, how to protect the 
people. We were ignored. 

On January 14 of this year, I wrote a letter to the grape growers 
asking them to meet with us again, not a full-scale negotiating meet- 
ing but to meet with us to talk about one thing only, pesticides. We 
did not get an answer to our letter. We didn't get a call from them. 

During recent negotiations we tried to get the employers to under- 
stand the union's position regarding its great fear on the whole 
question of poisoning. After almost 2 weeks of discussion, the nego- 
tiations broke down. AVe said there were two issues. The whole ques- 
tion of wages is one and the pesticides issue, the health and safety 
clause that we were demanding. 

We could not get any positive response from the employers. So 
when I called on the conciliation service 2 weeks ago, I did give in 
on the wage demands but we are holding firm on the question of 
pesticide poisoning. We have not heard from the employers to this 
date. 

We feel that we can do much to protect the workers through con- 
tractual agreement. AVe know that there are certain precautions that 
must be taken if we are going to protect the workers. 

We feel that the issue of poisoning is something that should con- 
cern everyone in the country but something that certainly concerns 
us and all the workers involved. 

We recently renegotiated a contract with the Perelli-Minetti Co. 
in Delano and after several days of negotiations we were able to get 
them, they are the first ones to accept our demands on the health 
and safety. 



3393 

We asked first of all that DDT be banned immediately. We asked 
that the employer submit to the union all the records dealing with 
the types of pesticides, the amounts used, the fields sprayed and date 
sprayed and other pertinent information the same information that 
we want to get from Commissioner Morley of Bakersfield which we 
cannot get. 

That a health and safety committee, a joint committee be set up 
with the union and employers to deal with the health and safety of 
the workers, particularly pesticides. That was done, too. 

We also have in the contract a testing program to determine the 
cholinesterase baseline for the workers and to file the findings so 
that we have a systematic way of tracing the workers, being able to 
determine the baseline, the level, so that from week to week we are 
able to know how many or wliat are the dangers presented to each 
worker on his own levels. 

We also have in the contract an agreement that the employer will 
pay for the tests, about $5 per test. Also in the agreement that all of 
the containers, cans, sacks, and other materials, will be disposed of 
either by burning or by burying and that nothing will be left in the 
fields where someone who does not understand the danger of pesti- 
cides may be injured, especially children. 

We also were able to get in the contract an agreement that the em- 
ployer with the help of the health and safety committee of the 
workers, will provide adequate garments and tools and equipment to 
do the job which will bring the most safety to the workers possible. 

So, our demands of the employers are not really that stringent 
and they can live with the demands that we have made. 

As I said before, we are very concerned with the matter of poison- 
ing of workers. We know that grapes in the supermarkets, as the re- 
port shows, are contaminated with pesticides. 

We know that from all the information that we have that workers 
are seriously afi'ected with the pesticide poisoning. We also know 
that it would be to the advantage of the employer to keep his work- 
ers healthy. 

We also know that it is a very hot political issue and because of 
that we know that some of the agencies are not doing their job. 

It seems to me that the Federal Food and Drug Administration in 
doing their job would have seized the grapes found in the Safeway 
and they would be out in the field to help us in Delano to find a way 
of establishing some sort of protection for the workers. 

We are appreciative of your time. We are here not to condemn 
anyone but we are here essentially to tell all of you that we are not 
going to permit, we are not going to stand idle, we are not going to 
be a part of, the systematic poisoning of hundreds of our people in 
the fields. 

Thank you. 

Senator JNIondale. Thank you, Mr. Chavez. 

ISIr. Cohen, did you have a further statement ? 

Mr. Cohen. No. 

Senator Moxdale. In our first hearings on pesticides the Food and 
Drug Administration statistician who deals with these problems tes- 
tified that in his opinion it was not unreasonable to say that at least 



3394 

800 farmworkers died annually from pesticide poisoning. Another 
80,000 at least were injured in one degree or another because of pesti- 
cide poisoning. 

Based upon your experience with the farmworkers in southern 
California, would you feel that is an exaggerated figure ? 

Mr. Chavez. I don't Senator. If I may for a minute give you how 
I became aware of the pesticide poisoning. I have been with the 
farmworkers, organizing for them almost 20 years. Some years back 
we began to have people come into the union who were complaining 
of things that were very difficult to understand. 

For instance, the very first shock I received was in 1962 when a 
young man came in and told me that he had difficulty, that he felt 
sick, weak, with headaches, but what bothered him the most was 
that he had double vision, he would see two images of the same ob- 
ject. 

We took him to the doctor in Bakersfield. He could not find any- 
thing wrong with him. We took him to an eye specialist who recom- 
mended glasses. He wore the glasses for a while but he still had the 
vision impairment. 

I think this is the first case that really drove home the point to 
me. Since then we have been very anxious. We have a part-time 
clinic in Delano run by volunteer doctors. We have been told things, 
for instance, a week ago last Sunday one of the doctors told me that 
he had found that most of the people who came to the clinic, 
whether ill or coming in for a checkup, ran from a half degree to a 
full degree higher in temperature than normal. 

He also told us that they had more skin irritation problems than 
any others coming to the clinic. So not only recently but for many 
years now we have been concerned. I don't think that the HEW esti- 
mates are inaccurate in any way. 

Senator Mondale. Over the years in this work, is it your impres- 
sion that the danger is getting worse for the farmworker or has the 
situation improved? 

Mr. Chavez. It is becoming worse. We also conducted our own in- 
vestigation among the people. I have noted many of the people who 
have been in the vineyard for long periods of time, 20 or 30 years, 
almost everyone has skin problems in the lower portions of their 
sides and their legs, almost everyone. 

I have talked to many of the Filipino workers who have been 
there the longest. Almost everyone that you talk to and if you exam- 
ine his feet and legs, you will find the skin rashes and the skin prob- 
lems. 

So I don't think it is a mere accident. I think this occurs because 
of their continued exposure to pesticides. 

Senator Mondale. How does a table-grape picker get exposed to 
pesticides in the field? In what way does it get on him? Will you 
describe that for us? 

Mr. Chavez. The pesticioc is sprayed on the vineyard, itself, on 
the leaf and on the fruit. They work in the fields and they handle 
the fruit and they handle the leaves and the vines. 

So they come in contact with it because the pesticides are present 
in the work area. And working 8 to 10 hours a day it will get on 
your clothes and I am sure get onto your skin. 



3395 

In some cases when they have just sprayed the fields the odor 
sometimes tells you quite a bit. 

For instance, I get a headache any time I happen to be driving on 
a county road and an airplane is spraying. That is very common. 
Some of the pesticide will come into the car and I get a headache. I 
know some people cannot stand the smell of the pesticide. 

One of the great problems in the past that we are now able to deal 
with, people felt, that is the workers, that everything on the vine 
was sulphur and they referred to it as sulphur. 

It is only in the last 18 months they began to understand that not 
all the stuff on the grapes is sulphur but a lot of it is DDT and other 
pesticides. 

Senator Mondale. You say the worker will then be exposed to 
these pesticide residues by coming in contact with the leaves, that 
the chemicals will get on his clothes, and in his hair, and that sort of 
thing. 

Is there ever an instance in which the worker is directly sprayed 
by pesticides either through drift or in other ways ? Have there been 
examples of that? 

INIr. Chavez. Sir, there have been examples of directly spraying 
them but I will have Mr. Cohen relate some of those experiences to 
you. 

I would like to say for instance, a community was sprayed a few 
weeks ago, not intentionally, but they were at the end of the field. 
The helicopter made a run and they sprayed right into the commu- 
nity. They were spraying cotton and Jerry can give you that infor- 
mation. 

It was done in the late afternoon and all of the west side, which is 
the community where the workers live, was just one mess of spray, 
of dust. Even the schools were sprayed. Not intentionally, but when 
you are spraying with an airplane it is like using a shotgim, you 
can't confine the spray to the crop. 

A case near El Centro where a plane was spraying cotton and it 
went into an adjacent field that had cucumbers and killed the cuc- 
umbers. 

Mr. Cohen. We have a statement submitted which concerns in- 
stances in the last few months. 

Petra Sisneros was working in Elmco, tipping grape bunches in 
May 1969, when four tractor-driven spray rigs came into the field. 
Without any warning, one of them came right on the spot she was 
working m, spraying her soaking wet and blinding her to the point 
she almost fell under the spray rig. 

Other women workers dragged her away from the spray rig. 

Mr. Gimnara will testify. Mr. Aurelio de la Cruz worked for 
Giumara. On more than one occasion he saw spray rigs spraying- 
ahead of the crew lie was working in. His crew was told to work in 
the sprayed areas shortly after the spraying was concluded. 

At Elmco, right in the strike zone we know about, there are many 
instances where the spray rig sprayed in front of the crew or some- 
times on the people just as this example here. Miss Sisneros at 
Elmco. 

Senator JSIoxdale. Where you have union contracts with the wine 



3396 

grape growers have you included in those contracts stipulations 
which protect the farmworker from pesticide risks. 

Mr. Chavez. In the contract, the first contract that was really ne- 
gotiated this year where the problems came to light and where we 
learned quite a bit more. 

But we talked to all of the other companies that we have a con- 
tract with. We showed them what we have with Perelli-lSIinetti. We 
are in the process of reopening contracts by mutual agreement to ne- 
gotiate on pesticides. We have not encountered any real opposition. 

I think that the table-grape growers are opposed, not that they 
can't live with the clause that we want but I guess because they con- 
sider it an extension of collective bargaining which they are not pre- 
pared to do yet. 

Senator Mondale. As I understand it, then in those fields where 
there is a union contract, steps have been taken to try to protect the 
worker. 

But in the fields where workers are working that have not been 
organized, there is little that you can do, or that is being done, in 
your opinion, to protect the workers from pesticide poisoning. 

Mr. Chavez. There is nothing the workers can do unless they are 
organized. The reason we are doing it at Minetti, the workers are or- 
ganized and they are presenting a united front and they were able 
to convince the Perelli-Minetti people it was needed. The table-grape 
growers won't even talk to us about the problem. 

Senator Mondale, As I gather from testimony by Mr. Cohen, it is 
almost impossible to find out from official government records what 
kind of pesticides are being used by commercial applicators. And, 
the growers themselves refuse to respond where there is no contract. 
Thus, your workers really don't know what is being used, what 
quantity, or what kind of risks they are taking when they work in 
these fields. Is that correct? 

Mr. Chavez. That is correct. That is where the danger lies. We 
are convinced that it is as much to the benefit of the employers as it 
is to the benefit of the workers to put some kind of protection in 
there so that we can protect them. 

Senator ISIondale. I will ask unanimous consent that the full 
statement of Mr. Chavez appear at this point in the record. 

(The prepared statement of Mr. Chavez follows :) 

Preipared Statement of Cesar Chavez, Directok, United Farm 
Workers Organizing Committek 

On August 1st, 1969, after testifying concerning the misuse of economic poi- 
sons by table grape growers, our general counsel, Jerry Cohen, submitted to 
the staff of the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor a laboratory test 
from C. W. England Laboratories in Washington, D.C which indicated that 
table grapes which were purchased by Manuel Vasquez at a Safeway store in 
northeast Washington contained an Aldrin residue of IS parts per million. 
Subsequent to that time Senator George Murphy abused his privilege of sena- 
torial immunity by making false accusations regarding the testimony of the 
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. The innuendo in Senator Mur- 
phy's remarks in the Congressional Record of August 12, 1969, is that the 
farm workers tampered with the grapes. I can assure you that this is false. 

I am confident that our position will be vindicated in this hearing and that 
the reports which have been received concerning the fact that Safeway con- 



3397 

ducted its own independent tests which confirmed our tests and subsequently 
cancelled its contract with Bianco are accurate reports. 

The real issue involved here is the issue of the health and safety not only of 
farm workers but of consumers and how the health and safety of consumers 
and farm workers are affected by the gross misuse of economic poisons. 

The issue of the health and safety of farm workers in California and 
throughout the United States is the single most important issue facing the 
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. In California the agricultural in- 
dustry experiences the highest occupational disease rate. The rate is over 50% 
higher than the second place industry. It is also three times as high as the av- 
erage rate of all industry in California. Growers consistently use the wrong 
kinds of economic poisons in the wrong amounts in the wrong places in reck- 
less disregard of the health of their workers in order to maximize profits. Adv- 
ancing technological changes in agriculture have left the industry far behind 
in dealing with the occupational hazards of workers which arise from the use 
of economic poisons. This problem is further compounded by the fact that com- 
monplace needs such as clean drinking water and adequate toilet facilities are 
rarely available in the fields and are also deficient in many living quarters of 
farm workers, especially of those workers who live in labor camps provided by 
the employer. 

In California an estimated 3,000 children receive medical attention annually 
after having injested pesticides. There are over 300 cases of serious nonfatal 
poisonings annually, most of which occur in agriculture. There are some fatal 
poisonings which occur annually in agriculture. In addition to this, literally 
thousands of workers experience daily symptoms of chemical poisoning which 
include dermatitis, rashes, eye irritation, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, excess 
sweating, headaches, double vision, dizziness, skin irritations, difiiculty in 
breathing, loss of fingernails, nervousness, insomnia, bleeding noses, and diar- 
rhea. 

The misuse of i)esticides is creating grave dangers not only to farmworkers 
but to their children as well. Dr. Lee Mizrahi at the Salud Clinic in Tulare 
Country has recently conducted a study relating to nutrition, parasites and 
pesticide levels. Dr. Mizrahi chose his samples by inviting every fifth family 
who came to his clinic to participate in a free complete study of their chil- 
dren. Sixty families participated to date and 170 children have been tested. 
Dr. Mizrhi has reported to the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 
that though the results of the test are not complete, based on the findings al- 
ready received there are pesticide levels which can only be described as epi- 
demic. 

Thus far, on 29 children tests, 32 of the 84 reported values have fallen out- 
side normal limits. Dr. Mizrahi has informed me that as a practicing physician 
he would be greatly worried if he found 10% of reportedly normal children 
outside normal limits. In this case he is frightened. These farm worker chil- 
dren are suffering from high levels of DDT in their blood and from low cholin- 
esterase levels in their blood plasma. 

Recently the state director of public health. Dr. Thomas Milby, said that 
there is ample evidence of many unreported poisonings in agriculture. Dr. 
Milby is currently conducting an investigation in an attempt to get an accur- 
ate picture of pesticide poisonings among the workers. The state of California 
is not releasing the data from this investigation. As an article in the Fresno 
Bee by Ron Taylor claims this study is headed by Mr. Henry Anderson who 
would not answer questions concerning the factual findings of the study to 
date l»ecau.se '"the subject is too controversial." According to Mr. Taylor's arti- 
cle an undisclosed number of farm workers are reporting symptoms of pesti- 
cide poisoning. Many of these workers do not go to the doctors ordinarily but 
suffer in silence what they feel is an occupational hazard. The adverse effects 
of chemical poisons are so pervasive that they are considered by farm workers 
to be part of their way of life. They are accepted. One of the interviewers who 
is helping the state to conduct this investigation has informed the United 
Farm AVorkers Organizing Committee that of the 774 workers who filled out 
questionnaires which are now in the possession of the state, 469 of the work- 
ers had worked in the grapes and 295 had not worked in the grapes. Among 
the 774 farm workers, the following symptoms caused by pesticide poisonings 
were reported : Eye irritation, 548 : Nausea or vomiting, 141 : unusual fatigue, 
145; unusual perspiration, 159; headaches, 309; dizziness, 115; skin irritation, 



S308 

249; difficulty in breathing, 188; pain in the fingernails (some workers lost 
their fingernails). 52; nervousness and/or insomnia, 122; itching in their ears, 
12 ; nose bleeds, 25 ; burning and sorethroats, 51 ; swollen hands and feet, 7 ; 
loss of hair, 4 ; diarrhea, 2. 

One hundred and fifty-four of the workers reported having one of the above 
symptoms, 144 reported two of the symptoms, 109 reported three, 83 reported 
four, and 163 reported five or more symptoms. Only 121 of the 774 workers 
studied reported none of the above symptoms. This study was limited to a rel- 
atively small country, Tulare, which is immediately north of Delano. 

Dr. Irma West who works in the State Department of Public Health has 
written many articles concerning the occupational hazards of farm workers. 
Some of the examples of injuries are as follows : 

On a large California ranch in the fall of 1965 a group of Mexican-American 
workers and their families were picking berries. None could understand or 
read English. A three-year-old girl and her four-year-old brother were playing 
around an unattended spray rig next to where their mother was working. The 
four-year-old apparently took the cap off a gallon can of 40% tetraethyl phyro- 
phosphate (TEPP, a phosphate ester cholinesterase inhibitor) pesticide left on 
the rig. The three-year-old put her finger in it and sucked it. She vomited im- 
mediately became imconscious. and was dead on arrival at the hospital where 
she was promptly taken. TEPP is the most hazardous of all pesticides in com- 
mon use in agriculture in California. The estimated fatal dose of pure TEPP 
for an adult is one drop orally and one drop dermally. The child weighed 
about 30 pounds. 

Because of engine trouble, an agricultural aircraft pilot attempted a forced 
landing in an unplanted field. The plane rolled into a fence and turned over. 
The hopper of the airplane contained a dust formula of TEPP, another of the 
phosphate ester pesticides. The estimated adult fatal dose of TEPP concen- 
trate is one drop orally or dermally. The pilot was not injured but was cov- 
ered with dust. He walked a distance of 50 feet to a field worker, stated he 
felt fine, and asked for a drink of water. After drinking the water, he began 
to vomit and almost immediately became unconscious. By the time the ambu- 
lance arrived, the pilot was dead and the ambulance driver, the pathologist, 
and the mortician became ill from handling the body. 

During this past summer in the grapes alone and largely in the Delano area 
the following incidents have been brought to the attention of our legal depart- 
ment. 

On May 16th, 1969, Mrs. Dolores Lorta was working for labor contractor 
Manuel Armendariz in a table grape vineyard owned by Agri-Business Invest- 
ent Company. Without warning, an Agri-Business spray rig sprayed the row 
she was working on, and Mrs. Lorta was sprayed all over her body with an 
unknown mixture of chemicals. Shortly thereafter, she experienced difficulty in 
breathing. She told her forelady, who responded that the spraying had nothing 
to do with that ; that she must have had that difficulty before. 

The next day she felt quite sick and large red blotches had appeared on her 
skin. She went to work that day but was unable to continue and hasn't been 
well enough to work since. She has suffered from continuing sores and rashes 
all over her body, headaches, dizziness, loss of weight, and her condition still 
continues. She has received no compensation from her employer as yet, and 
she has had to pay for her medical care herself. 

Mr. and Mrs. Abelardo de Leon, and their teenage children, Juan and Maria, 
worked picking grapes for labor contractor Manuel Armendariz in vineyards 
owned by Agri-Business Investment Company during .July and August of 1969. 
From the start of their work there, Mr. de Leon suffered rashes all over his 
body, which lasted until they quit. Mrs. de Leon began to suffer extremely irri- 
tated and swollen eyes as soon as they started working there and one eye is 
still somewhat swollen. The irritation ceased when she quit, and has not reoc- 
curred though she has returned to work in a different crop since then. Both 
the de Leon children, along with their mother, suffered eye irritation while 
working for Armendariz, and often their eyes would water profusely through- 
out the working day. When this was brought to the attention of Armendariz, 
he laughed and called them cry babies. He did not suggest that medical help 
was available for the family under the workman's compensation program, and 
as a result they had to make do with drugs and home remedies. Though the 
de Leons were not sprayed on directly, there was a heavy white dust on the 



3390 

vines and grapes which they picked. They saw no signs warning of the ill ef- 
fects of this chemical spray, nor did they receive any warning or advice about 
it whatsoever. The de Leon family eventually stopped working for Armendariz 
because of the ill effects they were suffering from the chemical poisons on the 
grapevines. 

Mr. Gregorio Sisneros was engaged in spraying a vineyard in the Selma area 
in 1968. According to directions which came with it, he mixed one quart of 
economic poison with a large quantity of water. But his employer told him to 
add in another quart of poison, and so he did. After spraying this mixture for 
a short while he became ill and had to be taken to a doctor immediately. 
After receiving medical treatment he was confined to his home and unable to 
work for some days. Since then he has been sensitive to chemical spray and 
has become ill several times. 

While working the vineyards of George A. Lucas & Sons this summer, Mrs. 
Beatrice Roman developed trouble breathing, sore throat, diflSculty in speaking, 
and stomach pain. Each day her condition would improve as she left the vine- 
yards, and it would worsen as she began work the following morning. There 
was a heavy white powder on the vines which she was working among. Mrs. 
Roman has worked in other crops without experiencing such illness. She has 
been informed by her physician that it is due to the spray residues on the 
vines. She stopi>ed working for Lucas, because the illness caused by the 
sprays, on August 4, 1969. She has been unable to work more than very little 
since then because of the continuing effects of the illness. 

Mr. Mauro Roman (Beatrice's husband), along with his son, Jose, and a 
neighboring family all worked picking grapes in the vineyards of Lamanuzzi 
and Pantaleo in August 1969. All suffered severe skin rashes over their bodies, 
with cracked and peeling skin. All left this work after several weeks, and im- 
proved sharply as soon as they left. There was a very heavy white powder on 
the vines and grapes they were picking there. 

After working in the vineyards of D. M. Steele for several days, Mr. Juan 
Q. Lopez developed trouble breathing, rashes on his neck and face, numbness 
in his left arm and upper left chest, headache and irritated eyes. There was a 
white powder on the vines. Mr. Lopez's condition began to improve when he 
stopped working in these fields. 

While working picking grapes in a Caric vineyard about 10 days ago, Mr. 
Abelardo Hernandez ate some grapes from the vine. Shortly thereafter, he 
began to vomit and to bleed from the nose. His foreman refused to take him 
to a doctor until other workers finally convinced him to do so. The doctor who 
treated him said his illness ^Vas due to the grapes and the chemicals on them. 
He has suffered from this illness on and off since then. 

During this season, Mrs. Dominga F. Medina has worked in vineyards near 
Richgrove. She has seen spray rigs spraying liquid preparations on the vine- 
yards only a short distance from where she and the other members of her 
crew were working. She has suffered from bloody nose, eye irritation, and 
headache while working in these vineyards. 

Aurelio de La Cruz worked with Giumarra Vineyards in the spring of 1969. 
On more than one occasion he saw spray rigs spraying right ahead of the crew 
he was working in ; his crew was told to work in the sprayed areas shortly 
after the spraying was concluded. He suffered eye irritation and skin rashes 
on these occasions. 

Mr. Claro Runtal suffered very severe rashes and dermatitis on his legs and 
neck while working in vineyards of Richard Bagdasarian from December 1968 
to June 1969. ;Many of the other men in the crew suffered skin irritations dur- 
ing the same period from the chemical dusts which had been applied to the 
vines. 

Juanita Chavera was working in the Elmco vineyards in the spring of 1969 
when she developed, as a result of the spray residue on the vines, skin rash, 
eye irritation, and hands swollen so badly that her ring had to be cut off. Other 
women in the crew including Mrs. Chavera's sister, Linda Ortiz, suffered simi- 
lar symptoms. 

Maria Serna also working in the Elmco vineyards in May 1969, where she 
developed irritated eyes, headaches, and severe dizziness. Her daughter, Alicia 
Ramona, suffered rashes and eye irritation. 

Frances Barajas also worked in the Elmco vineyards this spring. While she 
was working there, a tractor spraying a liquid economic poison came through 



34O0 

the vineyard in which she was working. She ran out of the field because she 
did not want to get sprayed, but a foreman ordered her to go back in and get 
back to work. She later talked to the tractor driver, who said he had been or- 
dered to spray there by one of the Elmco supervisors. While working there she 
developed skin rashes and eye irritations that led to a serious eye infection. 
She has been afraid to complain about the poisons for fear of being fired. 

Rafaela Ayala worked in the Elmco vineyards in the same crew as Mrs. Ba- 
rajas. When the tractor sprayed the field they were working in she immedi- 
ately began to vomit and her eyes became very irritated ; they are still sore. 
She stopped working for Elmco as a result. 

Mrs. Celestina Pereales was working in the Elmco vineyards in May 1968 
when a tractor spray rig approached the row her crew was working in. Her 
supervisor told them to hunch down under the vines while the spray rig 
sprayed them. Not knowing better at the time, she did so. Her eyes became 
red and watery right away, and became persistently irritated, and she has 
had eye trouble ever since. 

Mrs. Josefina C. Moreno was working in a crew leafing vines in the Elmco 
vineyards this spring. A spray rig came through the vineyard one row away 
from where the crew was working, and she and other women got sprayed 
soaking wet, but were put back to work after five minutes. 

Petra Sisneros was working in the Elmco vineyards, tipping grape bunches, 
in May 1969, when four tractor driven spray rigs came into the field. Without 
any warning, one of them came right over the spot she was working in, spray- 
ing her soaking wet and blinding her to the point that she amost fell under 
the spray rig. Other women workers dragged her away from the danger of the 
spray rig. Her supervisor did not take her to a doctor until she became visibly 
sick. Until then she had merely been told to sit in the shade under the vine. 
She was vomiting a great deal by this time. After she was taken to a doctor, 
who gave her an injection and bathed her eyes, she was returned to the vine- 
yards where she had to wait for a ride home until her co-workers were fin- 
ished for the day. She was extremely ill for the next 10 days with vomiting, 
nausea, trembling, dizziness, headache, difficulty in breathing, tightness of 
chest, and difficulty in sleeping. To date she has received no compensation 
from her employer. She is still suffering from the aftereffects of this illness. 
When she asked her supervisor and foreman what kind of chemical she had 
been sprayed with, they claimed they didn't know and said it was not their 
fault she had been sprayed. 

Alfonso Pedraza was also sprayed by an Elmco spray rig while working in 
its vineyards in the summer of 1969. The spray hit him on is back. When he 
saw a doctor three days later, his back was very red and the skin was 
cracked. The rash spread all over his body, and he developed muscle stiffness 
and eye irritation as well. 

The carelessness with which economic poisons are applied in this area is 
such that farm workers are endangered outside the fields as well as within. 
About a month ago, while Petra Ojeda was working in a Tulare County orch- 
ard, the grower's tractor driven spray rigs sprayed her car and the cars of 
other workers which were parked along the road nearby. Mrs. Ojeda's young 
child was in the car asleep, along with food for lunch for the entire family. 
The child was covered by a blanket, but her bottle was covered with spray. 
The entire car was white with the chemical spray. 

The James Morning family didn't even have to leave their home in order to 
be sprayed with economic poisons. In May, 1969, their country home was 
sprayed by an airplane which was applying poison to a nearby field. All six 
members of the family were hit with the spray, causing rashes, cracked skin 
and irritated eyes. 

The United Farm Workers Organizing Committee is attempting to solve this 
pervasive problem by the collective bargaining process. We have recently at- 
tained what is for farm workers an historic breakthrough in our negotiations 
with the Perelli-Minetti Company. We have completed negotiating a compre- 
hensive health and safety clause which covers the subject of economic poisons. 
It includes the following protections : 

HEALTH AND SAFETY 

A. The Health and Safety Committee shall be formed consisting of equal 
numbers of worker's representatives selected by the bargaining unit and P-M 



3401 

representatives. The Health and Safety Committee shall be provided with no- 
tices on the use of pesticides, insecticides, or herbicides, as outlined in Section 
D 1, 2, and 3. 

The Health and Safety Committee shall advise in the formulation of rules 
and practices relating to the health and safety of the workers, including, but 
not limited to, the use of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides ; the use of 
garments, materials, tools and equipment as they may affect the health and 
safety of the workers and sanitation conditions. 

B. The following shall not be used : DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, and Endrin. 
Other chlorinated hydrocarbons shall not be applied without the necessary pre- 
cautions. 

C. The Health and Safety Committee shall recommend the proper and safe 
use of organic phosphates including, but not limited to parathion. The Com- 
pany shall notify the Health and Safety Committee as soon as possible before 
the application of organic phosphate material. Said notice shall contain the in- 
formation set forth in Section D below. The Health and Safety Committee 
shall recommend the length of time during which farm workers will not be 
permitted to enter the treated field following the application of organic phos- 
phate pesticide. If P-M used organic phosphates, it shall pay for the expense 
for all farm workers, applying the phosphates, of one base-line cholinesterase 
test and other additional such tests if recommended by a doctor. The results 
of all said tests shall be immediately given by P-M to the Health and Safety 
Committee. 

D. P-M shall keep the following records and make them available to each 
member of the Health and Safety Committee : 

1) A plan showing the size and location of fields and a list of the crops or 
plants being grown. 

2) Pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides used, including brand names plus 
active ingredients, registration number on the label, and manufacturer's batch 
or lot number. 

a) Dates and time applied or to be applied 

b) Location of crops or plants treated or to be treated. 

c) Amount of each application 

d) Formulation 

e) Method of application 

f) Person who applied the pesticide. 

g) Date of harvest. 

SANITATIOX 

A. There shall be adequate toilet facilities, separate for men and women, in 
the field, readily accessible to workers, that will be maintained in a clean and 
sanitary manner. These may be portable facilities and shall be maintained at 
the ratio of one for every 35 workers. 

B. Each place where there is work being performed shall be provided with 
suitable, cool, potable drinking water convenient to workers. Individual paper 
drinking cups shall be provided. 

C. Workers will have two (2) relief periods of fifteen (15) minutes which 
insofar as practical, shall be in the middle of each work period. 

TOOLS AND PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 

Tools and equipment and protective garments necessary to perform the work 
and/or to safeguard the health of or to prevent injury to a worker's person 
shall be provided, maintained and paid for by P-M. 

Senator IMondale. Senator Murphy. 

Senator INIurphy. I have only a few questions. 

With respect to the incidents that were recounted about the people 
being caught in the spray rigs, is it known what pesticides was 
being sprayed at that time? 

Mr, Cha\t.z. No. We don't know^ because all these cases that have 
been cited have been where we were striking. We can't get the infor- 
mation from them. 

We have tired to go around and get the information from the 



3402 

Countv Agricultural Commissioner who has not given it to us, so we 
have this problem, we don't know. 

Senator Murphy. In other words, you think that there very defi- 
nitely should be the information as to what pesticides are being 
used ? 

Mr. Chavez. I think. Senator Murphy, that if we could get from 
the employers the type of pesticide, when it was sprayed, in what 
area, plus other pertinent information, I think this would be enough 
for us then to be able to educate the workers and let them know 
what is being sprayed and then try to also establish some kind of 
time limit from the time that they are sprayed until the time the 
field would be safe for the workers to go back in. 

Senator Murphy. I hope we can get some of that tomorrow from 
some of the witnesses who are coming in because I am just as inter- 
ested in getting that information as you are. I am just as interested 
in the health of the workers. 

One concern that I liave, one thing that impelled me to ask for 
the reopening of the hearing was the fact that your counsel Jerry 
Cohen stated that aldrin had been found on grapes grown in a cer- 
tain vineyard and the man who had that vineyard said he had not 
used aldrin, he had never used aldrin. 

What was the reason for the discrepancy? I think you can under- 
stand that. I was interested in finding out if he did not put the ald- 
rni on how did the aldrin get on the grapes ? If he says he didn't use 
any but we have proof from a laboratory that there was aldrin, we 
have a right to know how this came about. This was the purpose of 
my asking for the reopening of the hearing. 

The rest of the testimony I have read very carefully, the effects, 
bad effects. There is no question but that the committee will be very 
much interested in looking into that. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chav-ez. Senator Murphy, there are two tests that showed 
there was aldrm m the Safeway grapes. I understand Safeway con- 
ducted its own tests and found that the tests conducted by the Eng- 
land company for us had the same amount of aldrin or somethino- 
very close to it. *^ 

Senator Murphy. They were different amounts. I put all the tests 
1 could get mto the record because I wanted to have them available 
so that we could study them. Some showed there was aldrin, some 
showed there was aldrin in very high degree, some showed there 
were traces of aldrin. 

As I said, my concern is if there is aldrin on the grapes and the 
growers said they didn't use any aldrin, I would like to know what 
the game is. 

Mr. Chavez. Perhaps the pesticide applicator, the contractor- 
many of the growers do not do the spraying themselves but they 
contract with spraying companies— perhaps they are the parties who 
would know, better than the employer. 

A lot of spraying, as you know; is done by commercial applica- 
tors Ihey are tlie ones that really sort of act as watchdogs for the 
employers on the bugs, you know, and many times we know in the 
place we have contracts that the employer does not even have to 



3403 

worry about the bugs because the commercial applicators — ^that is 
part of the service they perform — determine what kind of poison is 
going to be sprayed. 

Maybe in this' case instead of asking the employer we should be 
asking the commercial applicator. 

Senator Murphy. Good. I hope we will be able in these 2 days of 
hearings to find out and be able to ascertain if there is this amoimt 
of poisoning put in food this has to be stopped. There is no question 
about that, 

Mr. CiiA\-Ez. I agree with you, it has to be stopped. 

Senator jMoxdale. Senator Cranston. 

Senator Craxstox. While you could not ascertain the nature of 
the spray that was used in the incident, where workers were 
sprayed, Mr. Cohen, or in other instances where you could not ascer- 
tain the nature of the spray involved, has there been illness follow- 
ing the spraying of workers or other bad after effects? 

3lr. Cohe'x. Yes. Some of the symptoms are developing of imme- 
diate rashes which later may crack open and bleed. Dizziness, in 
some cases double vision, headaches, nausea. 

Senator Craxstox. This has immediately followed people being 
sprayed from planes and otherwise? 

Mr. CoHEx. That is correct. 

Senator Craxstox. Are there any laws or regulations that control 
when spraying can be done? What is done to protect workers and 
others nearby when spraying occurs? 

]Mr. CoiiEx. One of the problems, and I talked about this on Au- 
gust 1st, concerns the current limit that the State employs when for 
instance parathion, which is a nerve gas. is sprayed. 

In our hearing to get the records in January from the Kern Coun- 
try Superior Court, we were involved in a suit with Commissioner 
jNIorley to get those records, JNIr. Lemmon testified that in certain 
cases workers can go into the field 10 to 14 days after parathion is 
sprayed. 

We had access to an article by Mr. Lemmon which indicated in 
one or more cases workers in Delano had become sick 33 days after- 
wards. 

I think currently not enough is known about whether or not the 
grower is following the label instructions. Often they don't. They 
don't know liow parathion breaks down in various weather condi- 
tions. The regulations are not adequate and are not being enforced. 

As long as we don't have access to the records to see what is being 
sprayed, we can't see that they are enforced. 

Senator Craxstox. Is there no law requiring that workers be re- 
moved from a field prior to the use of spray ? 

]Mr. CoHEx. Yes, but there is no way to enforce the law because 
there is no way now to see what the commercial applicators are 
spraying. 

These records are being hidden from us. We don't know if a par- 
ticular gro\yer uses parathion. We don't know when he has used it. 
Allien the sign is put up we don't know when the sign comes down 
if it came down at the proper time. 

One of the deficiencies in the California law now is if the grower 



3404 

uses his own private apparatus to spray the materials he does not 
have to account even to the agricultural commissioner as to what he 
has used or when he used it. 

Senator Cranston. There is no control over the mix, so there can 
be an overdose as you said earlier. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Cohen. That is correct. 

Senator Cranston. Is there any way a grapepicker can know how 
recently a field lias been sprayed at the time he goes into that field? 

]Mr. Cohen. Only after he has been injured. Then he has a right 
to know but there is no way to prevent those injuries. 

Senator Cranston. Are there any steps the workers can take on 
their own initiative to protect themselves other than through con- 
tract negotiation? 

Mr. Chavez. I don't know of any way. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. Would you yield there ? 

In our first hearing on this issue, we had Dr. Johnson, the head of 
HEW's Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, and 
we asked him the same question, what is the role of the Federal Gov- 
ernment in protecting the workers from pesticide and herbicide poi- 
soning ? 

I must confess that I did not understand the answer. Apparently 
the role, if any, is a very negligible one. 

Have you ever seen a Federal agency involved in the protection of 
workers in Southern California from pesticide poisoning? 

Mr. Chavez. No, we have never seen any agency involved. We 
haven't seen or heard or any agency even make an inquiry or even 
suggesting that they want to be involved. 

The union has never had an inquiry from any of the governmen- 
tal departments showing any interest and concern for pesticide 
poisoning of workers, none at all. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Schweiker. 

Senator Schweiker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Have you folks submitted to the committee any of the work of Dr. 
West? I see in your testimony you refer to Dr. West's work and you 
refer to the fact that she has written several articles or a number of 
articles. 

Does the committee have these articles or may we have them if 
you haven't submitted them? 

Mr. Cohen. On August 1, I submitted a copy of one of the arti- 
cles. We do have with us the original of some other articles. We can 
get those xeroxed and submit those after the hearing. 

Senator Schweiker. I think it might be helpful to have them. 

Senator Mondale. It's my understanding that the articles by Dr. 
West, as well as other pertinent materials, haA'e already been made 
part of the record of August 1. 

Senator Schweiker. How long has Dr. West been working in this 
field, approximately ? 

Mr. Cohen. She has been working in the field over 10 years. 

Senator Schweiker. Is she pretty much the leading authority on 
this subject, or one of the few who has done work in this field ? 

Mr. Cohen. She is the only member of the California State De- 



3405 

partment of Public Health that has written extensively about farm- 
worker problems. She is currently in the injury control project of 
the Department of Public Health. She says in a declaration which 
she submitted in one of the cases filed that she has held various med- 
ical positions in the Bureau of Occupational Health for 17 years. 

She has written numerous articles. In this statement she states 
that there are over 600 pesticides in the United States right now 
that are put out under 60,000 different trade names. She has written 
articles about the effect of pesticides on workers. 

She has articles that have specific examples of injuries that oc- 
curred in California fields. I would be happy to give the informa- 
tion to the staff. They can sift through it to decide what they want. 

Senator Schweiker. I would like to pursue a question asked ear- 
lier about notice of spraying, a California law or Federal law 
pertaining to what anybody engaged in this occupation must do. 

Do I understand correctly that there are regulations governing 
these which you say are not being followed? Or are there not ade- 
quate regulations ? Which is your basic position ? 

Mr. CoHEx. Let me explain the legal framework we have to deal 
with. For example, if a grower has to spray parathion he is sup- 
posed to put up a notice as to when a field becomes safe. 

There are two problems. The first problem is that if the commer- 
cial applicator has applied the parathion, those records that account 
for how he has applied it, when he has applied it, go to the county 
agricultural commissioner. 

For over a year now we have been involved in a battle with the 
county agricultural commissioner to obtain those records. 

From the point of view of the worker, you don't have a record as 
to when the stuff was sprayed, you don't know if the particular site 
is complying with the regulations because, say, the sign goes up on 
July 1 and it comes down 10 days later, if you don't know the date 
when that parathion was put on, we don't know if the sign came 
down too fast. 

If the grower chooses to do his own spraying, in California today 
he does not have to account to the agricultural commissioner, he does 
not have to fill out a form. 

Senator Schweiker. He is not accountable in any way? 

^Ir. Cohen. He has to put the sign up but he does not have to ac- 
count to the Commissioner as to what he used or wlien he used it. 
There is no way of checking it to see. 

If he put up a sign throughout the month of May we can't go to 
the commissioner's office to find out what he used. We don't know if 
he had a legal duty to put that sign up because he is not accoimtable 
to anybody. 

Senator Schweiker. To get this spray, does he have to comply 
with any regulations or is it openly available to him ? 

Mr. Cohen. There are permit systems. He has to apply for per- 
mits. Interestingly enough in the case of aldrin, we approached the 
agricultural commission of Riverside County and he said it is not 
on the injurious or restrictive materials list. " 

What we find when we go and ask to look at the permits is that 
growers will often checkoff the most or many of the pesticides which 



3406 

give their men the right for that year to use those pesticides. Just 
because a grower has applied to use a certain pesticide does not ind- 
dicate whether in fact he will use it and when he does use it if he 
does use it. 

Senator Schweiker. I gather from what you say there are regula- 
tions that there must be some warnings given to workers when 
spraying occurs. 

Are you saying in most cases warnings are not given, or is it more 
often than not that they do give warnings ? 

What is the general practice now giving warnings, such as in the 
cases he cited here in his testimony about spray rigs coming in un- 
expectedly ? 

Mr. Cohen. In the Delano area we don't see any signs at all. We 
have no way of checking whether or not there should be signs be- 
cause we don't have access to the records indicating what the grow- 
ers have used. 

Senator Schweiker, Is it your point that there has to be better 
enforcement of State laws or that Federal laws are needed ? How do 
you think the general situation could be cleared up more easily ? 

Mr. Chavez. I think, of course, the best way of enforcing the 
whole pesticide issue is through collective bargaining. This ten 
would have the workers and employers dealing with the immediate 
problem right at the place of employment. In fact, I think that until 
that happens we won't have real effective enforcement because our 
experience has been throughout the years that it does not really mat- 
ter what kind of legislation is passed, to get it enforced when it gets 
down to the enforcement at the ranch level it is very difficult. We 
have in many instances another regulation. 

So while some Federal legislation would be helpful, certainly, 
once that is achieved the whole problem will be who is gomg to en- 
force it, how is it going to be done. 

Senator Schweiker. In your testimony you cite one example of 
collective bargaining where you have entered in a health and safety 
agreement. Is this the only one to date, or are there others ? 

Mr. Chavez. This is the model one, the one that we think will give 
the workers maximum protection. We have in the other contracts 
some protection, especially dealing with prottective garments. But in 
the Perelli-Minetti agreement that one is effective because we also 
got the company to agree not to use certain chemicals which is I 
think the biggest breakthrough. 

Senator Schweiker. You do have some other contracts with some 
protection in them? 

Mr. Chavez. Yes, sir. 

Senator Schweiker. How many other contracts do you have, 
roughly ? 

Mr. Cha\^z. About 50 ranches covering about eight other employ- 
ers. 

Senator Scha\teiker. That is all, ]\Ir. Chairman. 

Senator JNIondale. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chavez, I want to extend a warm word of 
welcome to you for your appearance here before the committee. I 
think each and every time you have come before this committee or 



3407 

other committees in the House of Representatives or Senate, we cer- 
tainly <^ain immeasurably a better understanding of the problems of 
the many hundreds of thousands of people that you represent. I 
think it gives us a better insight into the problems of housing, 
health, and education of great numbers of Spanish speaking people 
in not only Delano, in California, but in other great areas and sec- 
tions of our country. 

I know you are here on a matter which is of great importance and 
significance today, the question of the pesticides, but just before get- 
ting into that, I would like to ask you, I know you have had a very 
difficult health problem, you have been recovering and gaining 
strength and I am wondering personally how are you feeling now? 
Have you recovered your strength ? Are you feeling better ? 

Mr. Ch.u'ez. Sufficiently enough to be here and to do some travel- 
ing. I am not completely well, but I feel much better. 

Senator Kennedy. I think, just personally, you have been a great 
inspiration to many people. At a time when there is such tension on 
extreme measures and violence and disorder, I think you have really 
reflected in your own personal conduct the highest standards of in- 
tegrity, and I think this adds immeasurably to the kind of represen- 
tations you have made before the committees of the House of Repre- 
sentative and Senate as it does add to the impact of your words 
whenever you speak. 

I want to say how glad I am that you are here today. 

As I understand the terms of your earlier response to some of the 
inquiries which were made, you feel that this whole issue of the 
question of the pesticides would be immeasurably reduced if you 
were able to enter into collective bargaining agreements with many 
of the growers themselves. However, I notice that some States have 
passed laws which would restrict the use of DDT, such as Arizona 
and INlichigan. I understand further that even the State of Califor- 
nia has i)assed legislation in the State Senate which prohibits the 
use of DDT by 1972. I don't believe that it has passed the legisla- 
ture completely. 

I am wondering if you feel that this will be really time enough, 
even if it is able to pass the legislature of California in terms of the 
lower house, still if the Californians have to wait and the American 
public has to wait for prohibition against DDT, whether you repre- 
sent that this does really constitute danger to the consuming public ? 

Mr. Chavez. I think such a danger must be met immediately, I 
don't see that the State legislature in California is going to ban 
DDT. There is a lot of political opposition to it. It seems to me that 
if we wait much longer we are all going to be in trouble, not only 
the farmworkers and consumers, but on questions like DDT, al- 
though I am not a scientist by a long shot and I know very little 
about it, I do know that if you start using DDT you are going to 
affect the whole environment. 

You see what is happening in places far away from California. 
We know that California is the biggest user of DDT, and has been 
through the years. We know that even if some legislation is passed 
it is going to be difficult to enforce it because the whole tradition of 
labor enforcement or, rather, labor enforcement in the field, has been 
almost nil. We see it today in our strikes. 

36-513 O — 70 — pt. 6B 4 



3408 

Although we welcome legislation we can't expect it is going to end 
the problem even if legislation banning DDT would be passed. We 
think the direct way of dealing with it would be by the employees 
and employers getting together and having some agreement. Then 
the union can enforce the regulation. What happens with the prob- 
lem when the employees do not have a stick is that we then have to 
go to the Federal Food and Drug Administration. We get no re- 
course. In California, we have to go to the agricultural commissioner 
who, instead of making those records public, won't do it and we 
have groups in the county who can go to the local judges and get a 
restraming order keeping the commissioner from giving us the rec- 
ords. It becomes a whole political mess. 

So we never get to the job that has to be done. It seems to me that 
not only for the protection of the workers but the protection of the 
whole environment something has to be done and done right away. 
For some strange reason we have more concern for animals than we 
do for human beings, and especially the plight of farmworkers. We 
have heard reports where the agricultural commissioner gets very 
upset because DDT is sprayed in the vicinity where cattle are graz- 
ing. We have never known that today he gets upset because workers 
are sprayed while they are working. I think we are running out of 
time. 

The other big problem is that it seems to me that they — are using 
a lot more spray and pesticide now than they have in the past. 
While I don't have concrete evidence we see in the early mornings of 
the day when the planes are spraying and we see those airfields, 
those makeshift airfields, cut in the ranches, you know, in greater 
and greater numbers. 

It seems to me we are in a never-ending fight with the pesticides. 
The more we spray, the more resistance they create and the more we 
have to spray. It seems to me at times that this committee ought to 
make a real detailed study of the whole problem. I am sure you are 
going to find that the danger is very imminent. 

Senator Kennedy. Assuming, therefore, that certainly one of the 
keys would be collective bargaining, and that you did make some 
kind of agreement with the Perelli-Minetti Company; did they feel 
that your request for this kind of model agreement in terms of pro- 
tection of the health would establish standards which were prohibi- 
tive to them in terms of being economically viable? Did they think 
your requests were unreasonable? 

Mr. Chavez. No, they didn't. Again it was the question of the 
danger to the workers who were exposed to them. Once they were 
able to see that it was very great they made up their minds it was 
something profitable instead of something they could live with. We 
had a lot of discussion but not really opposition to this once we were 
able to show them that workers were being affected directly. 

We had in the contract, we not only got a ban on DDT, but we 
got a ban on some of the other hard chemicals that are in the DDT 
family. If they can do it I am sure everybody else can. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you had any kind of indication of inter- 
est by otlier growers, as well, that they would follow what has been 
established in the Perelli-Minetta understanding? 



3409 

Mr. CHA\rEz. We called on the whole table-grape industry about 2 
weeks ago. AVe asked them to resume negotiations. As you recall, 
when the negotiations broke the two main issues were wages and 
pesticides. I stated to them through the press that we were willing 
to reconsider the wage demand. We wanted a $2 minimum. We were 
willing to reconsider that, but that we were not going to reconsider 
the whole question of safety for workers. 

We hoped this would be enough of an incentive for them to join 
us in negotiations. What we did, really, was that we contacted all 
the workers and we took votes on whether they agreed with us, with 
the proposal we were asking, whether pesticides were the most im- 
portant. Every one agrees because where grapes are concerned there 
is danger. The workers agreed so we made the proposals to the em- 
ployers. Even with that kind of porposal we haven't heard from 
them yet. They should be concerned. 

I think they are not concerned because they are not used to being 
made responsible for those things they do on the farm that would 
help their workers. It is foreign to them. No one can tell them what 
to do on the farm. I think the workers at least have the right to tell 
them jointly to decide how they are going to approach the pesti- 
cide-poisoning problem. 

Senator Kennedy. You indicate in your testimony that individu- 
als have been affected by the use of pesticides — even have died from 
it. I am wondering, are there any remedies or recourse which the 
families or the individuals can take to recover — from either growers 
or the users of pesticides — because of this ? 

Mr. Chavez. None that we know of. There are a few, about three 
farm workers that filed suit against their employers to see if they 
could check the danger that way, but there is no way by which a 
farmworker can go out to the employer and demand protection. Not 
only that, but as they get into the field this type of injury is not ac- 
cepted yet, so they don't qualify for workmen's compensation, if 
they have not missed more than 1 week either for the medical bene- 
fits or the compensation. Workers have been in the field for a num- 
ber of weeks and they can't qualify for those benefits, however small 
they are. There is nothing they can do. 

Senator Kennedy. So they are not able to qualify for workmen's 
compensation; they are not able to pursue their rights against the 
growers themselves; they just have to take it as part of the problems 
of working in the fields for growers that use pesticides, is that 
right? 

Mr. Chavez. Unless they are successful in their attempt to orga- 
nize and when that comes they will have some remedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Your interests are in terms of the protection 
of the workers themselves from the kinds of poisoning which has af- 
fected them and which you document in your testimony, as well as 
being able to protect the consumers in the results of these pesticides 
on their health? 

Mr. Chavez. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. You feel this could be done through the proc- 
ess of collective bargaining. You have submitted what has been your 
agreement with the Perelli-Minetti Company which will certainly 



3410 

make public the kinds of action that these growers are taking in 
using these pesticides? 

Mr. Chavez. That is correct. We feeel that if we are able to protect 
the workers that the byproduct of that will be protection for the 
consumers. We know there is pesticide on the grapes. Our experience 
and tests have proved, we have had several tests done throughout 
the country and it is there. We feel tliat we must protect the working 
person and that is how we can get to protecting the consumer. 

Senator Kexxedy. Even with the possibilitv of some States pass- 
ing legislation which would affect it, you feel that really the effec- 
tive way of getting this done is by permitting the unions themselves 
bargaining collectively in this area, and to be able to publish the 
kinds of information which would provide very clear evidence as to 
exactly wliat pesticides are being used, wlien they are being used, and 
that this will provide the consuming public of this land with addi- 
tional protection which they are not getting at the present time ? 

Mr. CnA\^z. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy, we are pretty much in the same predicament 
that the mine workers were when they were organizing. Mine safety 
was a big issue with them. JNIine safety did not really come until the 
union was strong enough to enforce that safety. Although there were 
a lot of hearings on mine safety it wasn't until the workers had the 
strength to enforce it that they could really get down to deal with 
the basis of it. I think we are in the same position here. 

Senator Kennedy. The things pointed out, for example, the Mine 
Safety, Fair Labor Standards Act, so many pieces of legislation 
have been written in by the Congress to protect the workers them- 
selves, with the exception, for example, of the Coal Mine Safety bill 
which IS before us on the floor, and hopefully by the time it passes 
it will also have a provision in there to protect \he individuals, the 
workers themselves, that when they have complaints, for example, in 
terms of health and safety that they can report these complaints be- 
cause they are the ones who come in contact and know more about it 
without having recriminations against them. 

I think the points you make here that the workers in the field 
have the best information, the best understanding, the knowledge of 
what IS really being used in terms of these pesticides, other kinds of 
chemicals which are sprayed on them, that can be a source of great 
strength and protection for the consumers of these products ? 

Mr. Chavez. One of the things in legislation tliat makes it very 
difficult to protect the worker is to get that worker to make the com- 
plaint. If he is not protected then he will lose his job and most 
workers are not going to complain because they are afraid of losino- 
their jobs. This is where we haA^e to work. ' '^ 

Senator Kennedy. I want to thank you very much for your testi- 
mony and comments, INIr. Chavez. They have been most helpful 

Mr. Chavez. Thank you. ^ ' 

Senator Mondale. I have one last question : Do you sense that in 
addition to problems that you referred to thus far in terms of 
worker protection from pesticide poisoning, that there is evidence 
that many m the medical profession do not know how to accurately 
identify pesticide poisoning? I think you mentioned some time back 



3411 

that for one person who was obviously poisoned the physician had 
prescribed new glasses. Is there evidence that the medical profession 
might not know in many cases how to identify pesticide poisoning? 

Mr. Chavez. The limited experience that we have had with the 
medical profession in this type of case indicates that they don't 
know how to deal with it yet. For instance, there has to be a pro- 
gram that is going to first of all determine what is the cholinesterase 
level of the blood of workers. That is not being done and it will not 
])e done because the workers are poor and they can't have tests made. 
There aren't any facilities. If the worker should be infected with 
TB, there are facilities to deal with that. If he should be poisoned, 
there are absolutely no facilities, no knowledge. So we take workers 
in to doctors repeatedly. What we get is that they are most usually 
asked to stay home and rest for a couple of days and they will be 
better. They' will probably give them a shot or some pills. No one 
really knows at this point how to deal with it. There is really not 
that 'involvement or concern. We hope that through hearings and 
other people becoming aware we will be able to reach the individu- 
al's problems. 

Senator Moxdale. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Kexnedy. Could you tell us how your movement for or- 
ganizing is going ? Will you give us a resmne ? 

Mr. Chavez. It is going well considering all the opposition that 
we have. For instance, the Pentagon has become the number one 
strikebreaker. They are taking up the slack that is being created in 
the market by the boycott. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand they say that the troops over in 
Vietnam are beginning to like grapes a little better now that the 
boycott is being more successful. I don't know what the American 
taxpayers are paying to send grapes over there. I know they are 
paying a good deal more since your grape strike. 

Mr. CHA^^z. They are feeding the boys there about eight pounds 
per man. 

We also see that the grapes are quite an item in the black market. 
We have reports they are selling for $42 a box in Saigon. The grow- 
ers are getting about $3.50 a box for them. 

Senator Kennedy. Are these California grapes that are going on 
the black market in Saigon. 

Mr. Cha\'ez. Yes. We don't know how they get there by they are on 
the black market. One grower, Jerry will testify, was speaking at a 
meeting of the growers. Tlie other was bemoaning the fact that he 
was not getting part of that action, he was only getting $3.50 a box. 

Senator Kennedy. Where are they getting the grapes? Are you 
suggesting they are coming from military stocks of some kind? 

Mr. CHA^•Ez. We don't know how they are getting there. We do 
know that they are finding their way into the black market. Some 
fellows over there write to us. We have a boycott going over there 
by some of our friends. They are very active and they keep report- 
ing to us. In several cases they turn the grapes back to the cafeteria. 
That of course is a very difficult problem when you have to take on 
the growers and then j^ou have to take on the Army, the Marine 
Corps, the Coast Guard, and the Navy. 



3412 

Senator Cranston. Perhaps you need an Operation Intercept for 
grapes. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chavez, in terms of attempting to con- 
tinue your efforts, in terms of this development of bargaining with 
these growers, getting an understanding, a further understanding of 
your aims and aspirations, this continues to go forward, does it? 

Mr. Cha\tez. It continues to go forward at a regular speed. There 
is a lot of interest not only in strikers — you see, the longer we strug- 
gle in Delano the more we help the cause throughout the country for 
the farmworkers. A few years ago few people knew outside the 
farmworkers what we were doing. I think there are only a few who 
don't know now. Also, as the story comes out of Delano, as the 
movement progresses, we are able to attract more and more partici- 
pation from the other segments of the community, including some 
real awareness now in ]\lexico among the people who come across the 
side of the border to begin to do something themselves so they will 
not be used as strikebreakers. 

I hope that the employers will come to their senses. We are sure 
sooner or later they will have to recognize the union. The sooner I 
think it will be the better for everyone. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you get better understanding from the 
Labor Department about the enforcement of certain laws and regu- 
lations in terms of strikebreakers themselves, to restrict the entrance 
of green carders in areas where there are strikes? Are you getting 
any better understanding or sympathy? 

Mr. Chavez. None at all. We have more wetbacks in California in 
the strike zone now than we ever had before. Large numbers of them 
are breaking strikes. No possible way we can enforce that. In the 
first place, we can't go into the fields, we can't go into the camps. 

Secondly, the Immigration Service is not enforcing it. The border 
patrol is not doing its job. We know they are there. There are union 
people working in every crew in the land. It is our purpose to have 
them there so we can get the information. They know who the wets 
are. They know their names or the names that they are using. It 
makes no difference. We give the information to the border patrol 
and they don't do anything. In fact, they will go out and investigate 
our picket line. Very seldom will they go into the fields. 

The same thing with the question of green carders. It is just a 
farce. They have not done anything. I don't think they are about to 
do anything. 

On the whole question of the company union, the episode in 
Delano was organized by JNIr. Guimarra and some of the other grow- 
ers. We have irrefutable evidence they provided money, provided the 
technical know-how for organizing, and held meetings in their own 
offices, and did the actual recruiting of the people they put in charge 
of the union. All this information was discovered partly from the 
information that the permanent labor investigator was able to 
obtain. We have been with that case now for almost a year. Nothing 
has happened. Nothing is about to happen. 

Senator Kennedy. Of course you have the 72-hour pass provi- 
sions, too, white carders, without any kind of enforcement. Do you 
find — certainly I do — that the Congress and the Senate in voting on 
the Bracero question made a national judgment to really proscribe 



3413 

what had been effectively slave wages and slave labor in this country 
at one time 3 or 4 years ago, and still it continues by the kind of 
loopholes you understand and speak so well about in terms of the 
green carders, the white carders, the breakdown 

Mr. Chavez. And no-carders. 

Senator Kennedy. And no-carders. And still this continues and 
still we have no action. 

Mr. Chavez. The said thing is that the employers think that they 
find a looj)hole to break a strike. In the final analysis they are just 
postponing the day when they will pay for that because they are 
depending too much on that kind of labor to do their work, break a 
strike, and to continue harvesting. What they are doing is discourag- 
ing the American workmen from continuing in the field. Sooner or 
later this other program will be stopped and they are going to be in 
a fix to get a work force. It prevents the union from coming in and 
helping them stabilize the work force that is going to be there to 
provide the work that they need when they need it. 

I think they are working against themselves. It is difficult to 
them to think in terms of the 20th Century when they are a couple 
of centuries behind in terms of labor relations. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. 

Senator JNIgndale. I want you to know that there is possibly some 
evidence that the boycott may not be succcessful in all its intended 
purposes. I came across a story the other day, a true story. A mother 
and her 3-year-old daughter went shopping at a D.C. supermarket. 
The 3-year-old looked up at the grapes and said, "Mommie, can we 
buy some boycotts?" 

Mr, Chavez. The longer it lasts, the more people will come off 
grapes. If I were an employer I would be signing a contract today. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you, Mr. Chavez. 

Mr. Chavez. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mondale. Our next witness is Dr. Windlan of the C. W. 
England Laboratories. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD M. WINDLAN, PH. D., DIRECTOR, THE 
C. W. ENGLAND LABORATORIES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. Windlan. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mondale. Dr. Windlan, we appreciate your coming here 
this morning. I think it is fair to state for the record that you did 
not volunteer to be a witness. You indicated that you would be will- 
ing to testify. You thought the initial report in August which you 
prepared was adequate, but you nevertheless agreed to be here. 

With that understanding, if you will permit the committee to ask 
such questions as they feel have a bearing on your tests, we would be 
most grateful. 

Dr. Windlan. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Will you tell us in your own language which 
tests you conducted on table grapes, the dates, and the circumstances 
surrounding them. We will submit for the record, at this point, the 
test reports and analysis called Certificate of Analysis on each of 
those products. 

(The material referred to follows:) 



3414 



($) 



SAFENA/AY 



STORES. IIMCORPORATED 



6700 Columlii^i P.irk K,..>(t. Landovcr. MiirvlanH Li07s5 



September 17, 1969 



Senator Walter F. Mondale 

Chai rtnan 

Subcomnlttee on Migratory Labor 

Room 443 

Old Senate Office Building 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Mondale: 

Thank you for your letter of September 9th requesting 
information concerning our Company's tests as related to 
pesticide residues on table grapes. 

For your information, we are attaching reports and other 
data dealing with the laboratory tests which we undertook on 
August 1, 1969 concerning the above product. We have also 
outlined the actions taken in chronological order to further 
clarify our situation. 

Two of our Company representatives met with Mr. Boren Chertkov 
on Friday, September 12th, in the offices of the National 
Association of Food Chains, and relayed the attached information 
to him. 

Again, thank you for your letter and we hope that the enclosed 
data will be of assistance to you. 

Best regards. 

Sincerely, 

Basil Winsteaa 

Vice President & Div 



BMW/es 
Attachments 



3415 



August 1st - Grapes identified as purchased at Safeway introduced into hearings. 

Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Washington, D. C. Division, notified 
two laboratories to sample test the grapes that had been received 
by Safeway. (C. W. England Laboratories, Eastawai Research 
Latoratories) 

August 2nd - Product samples of grapes were selected by the above two laboratories. 

August 6th - C. W. England reported preliminary results via telephone. Results 

indicated chemicals present which California Department of Agriculture 
reported had not been used. Laboratory requested to re-check results 
and tests. 

August 7th - Strasburger and Siegel, Incorporated contacted and requested to sample 

test the product. 

August 8th - Division Office received telegram with information from California 

Department of Agriculture saying that presence of non-toxic sulphur 
could be confused with other elements. 

All three laboratories contacted by phone with the above information 
relayed to them along with request to re-check results. 

Company notified supplier to temporarily suspend shipments of product until 
test results clarified. 

August 9th - Phone report from Eastawai on tentative test results. 

August 12th - Food and Drug Administration report published. 

August 14th - Written report from C. W. England (attached dated August 8th). 

Phone report from Strasburger and Siegle (attached written report 
dated August 15th) . 

August 15th - Eastawai phone report. (Attached written report dated August 15th) 

August 19th - Company notified supplier to resume shipments. 

August 20th - Written' notification to all laboratories requesting clarification of 

test results as related to article which appeared in Journal of Agricultural 
and Food Chemistry , Volume 15 entitled, "Identification of the Aldrin 
Artifact" by J. R. Pearson, F. D. Aldrick and A. W. Stone. 
(Letters and article attached) 

September 10th - Response to the August 20th letter by Strasburger and Siegel. 
(Attached) 

No response to-date from C. W. England Laboratories or Eastawai 
Research Laboratories 



3416 



Vl*anu> M. vriimi^ 



r.D.. niRMcmii 



: LAto'RK^M-v: (I- l 1 t«i 



TIIK C \V, K!V<iI.ANn f ,/VBOKATORIES, INC. 

Connullantt and AnQlyttf to tkt Dairy and Food Industrut 

Waitr and Food Anaty»t$ ■ Pe$ticidt Rtiidut Anal$ata 

BaeUrioloijical - Chtmical - Phytieal 



CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 

(A.O.A.C. and A.P.H.A. AiWthodi; 

vuguat 1, 1769 
Thonpson Seedlecr Grapes | 

United F'j:.-. Jorkers - Organizing Committee AFL/CIO, 9A5 Street, K'l, iiocxn 207, 

W'lahington, D.C. 20001 
July 30, 196? 

KWOtT 



THO'iPSON SEEDLESS uR.\PES 

(Rich»jd Bagarian - Mecca, California) 



0.11 ppn 
1 .OJt ppn 



SD4AZINE 
ALDRIN 



THOMPSON 3EEDffioS OR-.TES 

(Blanco Fruit Corpraratlon - Chellchella Valley, 
Theral & Kecca, California) 



0.27 ppn 3IKAZINE. 
1 .31 ppn BHC 
18 ppm AIDRIH . 



ppBi - Parts per million. 

All rsBUlts are in tenna of Product. 

All results are accavpllabed by use of gaa ehrcBiatography. 



THE C. W. ENGUMD LABORATORIES, INC. 
per Harold 1'.. Wlndlan 



HMU/jmp 



3417 



STRASBURGER & SIEGEL, INC. 

CHEMISTS AND FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS 

BACTERIOLOGISTS 
1403 EUTAW PLACE BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21217 

Au;\urt 15, l^^t^ 

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 

(A. O. A. C AND A. P. H. A. METHODS) 

Laboratory No. 12388 

Sample of Crane •^ (Sec Bolo:.-) 

Received from Tafew.-.y Stores, Inc. l.aiitIov(M- , Md. 

Marked Sair.nlnd by M.S. 8/7/69 (Seo Below) 

REPORT 



Tel: 523-5518 - 5519 



2 lb. Cnnrositc Samnle tr.kcn 'ron 10 bo;^Gr., re r re sent inf. a shirment of 3000 
boxes (26 lbs. each) 

Sarplc of: ThoiT>"san Tc'dless Gra^i n - 26 lb. net \:t. 

Anthony Br^r.d 

California Fruits Gro-.-Ts f. Shippers 
Bi-.nco Fru< t Cer-). 
Main Office, Frorno, Calif. 



Chlorinutcd I'-sticido Pesaduo-^ by 
Electron Capture Gas Cbronnto '.ra^hy 



Kclthane - 0.20 n-i^ 
]vn - 0, 1 1 --^m 

Othir Chlorinated 
PcKticidi- rr<5idueB - None 



Or^ano; phosphate Pesticide Pesidues by 
Ihermionic Detector Gas Chronatograpby 



J^y^^t^^>^, 



STRASBURGER &. SIEGEL. Inc. 



i^^.rlf> y^^-^.--f ,^W. 



Analysts ' 



3418 



jbsicowsi 



RESEARCH LABORATORIES 

lrgCORPOR*TED 

234 E. 25* STREET BALTIMORE. MARYLANO 21218 



TOXICOLOGY DIVISION 



I Cod. 301 B89-78';< 
869-1609 



LABORATORY NO. 
SAMPLE OF 
RECEIVED FROM 



DATE OF RECEIPT 



A. C^JECT: 



15 August 1969 

CERTIFICATE OF AIIALYSIS 

SF02086901 

Red, Green & Black grapes. 

Safeway Stores, Inc. 

6 700 Colucibia Pari: Road 

Landover, Maryland 20785 

Karchour.G at Cabin E-finch Road. 

Mr. Ler CorscntinD, Public Relations Manager. 

0/.July69 



RlcrOHT 



To dtitcrn:.no the r>e.<^ticj.do content in oach of the throe grape 
saaplco firovidcd. 



VLC - All (3) thioG grcifri .=. a: .pics wcra positive for chlorinated 

pesticide ro3.i,d'.ioR. 
G C - Positive for Aldi-in r-.r.cl Dieldrin. 

Tot^l PG£t-.\cjae tv.j}.Cu'j: in ucd grapes -^ 16.8 pfxa. 

Total Pt'Cti-jjrio residue in Green granes = 17.6 ppt>. 

Total Pcj.tic;;clQ residue in Black gnvrja o IS.l pp-n. 

These results are in gross violation' of accepted standards. 



C. PROCEDUP; 



_T7-1I'T I^'xER CUV.C:'OTOGVh!?}n : 



a. 25 grjs of each of thi grape varieties v/ore placed i^^o a 
flask of suitable siae. 

b. To each flask v.-as added 1000 ml of Hexano saturated with 
H,N.- diaethyi fornanida. 

c. Each of the flasks ware stoppered with aaran covered rubber 
stoppers and shaken on a nschanical shaker for S hours, 

d. Th3 cuper-natant liquid t.as then drawn off, noasurcd, and 
evaporated under vacuun to Oryness. 



e. Tho residue was then ru-^'i.s; 
chronatogrr.pheU. 

D. STAr^APO niFpF^'V.T:^0!J 



?-nd 



Maxinua allovjoble hygienic .-•.t.mLlr.rdn ns c::tc:bli.-.h'„d by the 
Acericnn Conference of Govcrr.runtal industrial Jivgior.istT <=oi- 
opccifica agricultural cacz.T.ul'cios are 0,0.1 ,0.25" end 0.S7 pr.-a 



3419 



LABORATORY NO. SF02086901 

by weight for Dieldrin and 0, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.75 ppn by weight 
for Aldrin. 

E. REFERENCES 

a. Industrial Hygienic and Toxicology, Second Revised Edition, 
Vol.2, pgs 1356 thru 1359. 

b. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official 
Agricultural Chemists, Tenth Edition, with official revisions. 

c. Gas Chrooatographic Analysis of Drugs & Pesticides by Bcn-jamin 
Grendcinowicz, pgs. 408 - 512 



Respectfully .oubiTiitted, 
Director of Laboratories 



3420 



\i. MiNPi^N. i*H.i>.. niHiMTnn 



(^® 



lt*c«lved from 
Ditc Received 




TlIK C AV. KNCJI.ANn I-AHOUATOKIICH 

ron»ri(/uii(ii and Ar\nlys(> (o Iht Dnir\i anrf Food lndu%hie» 

H'oirr and Food Anahjsrs - Pttlicidt Residue AnalfBet 

BacUriologieal - Chemical - Physical 



2TIO HI,AnKN"«Jni*KO Kf>.VI>. .V. K. 
■WASIIIXJTO.N, n. <■. iJOOIH 

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 

(A.O.A.C. and A. PH. A. Methods) 



AuLniot 8, 1969 



Grapea 



SiTc-jay Stores, Inc. - Procaoo iorc.liiii-iisin-^ Dop^rtnent, 1501 Ccbi:» Ix 
Lajiuo\'Or, I- rrl-tv.! 207ii} - Attontlo:'.: tr, Allc: 

Au::ast 4, 1969 „CB«»T ' 

REPORT 



OHIO';:'" 



Tho::o3on TccAlesy Cirapes 0.65 Tirn /Vl.-irir;, 

(/ijitlionj' riaiico brand) 0.03 tpn .)l,].:/.sirio 

riacl: nrai.'-fi 

(t.rr.honv i\H.riC:Q hrana) 0.03 f-.p-a .Mv'rJ.u 

Red Grapes 

(Anthoi:-,' J.iai-.c:. bran.l) O.ai ppn Alrr:"n 

Castyo Red Gi-apca 0.03 ppju jUilrir. 



ppn - Parts jci- tiilllon. 

All results are in ter.-:S of IVoJact. 

All results are aoconipllshcd by use of gaa elroiatosraphy. 

The extract from the TlionpLJon S^-ciUoas Gropes was processed 
usir.g a second ir.cthod (paper cb.ronatography) . 'liiiL; method 
also shows the prescnco oi' Aldrin. 

Tiii; c. w. E:;GL/un3 L'ii.o:i.vro;^ir.3, irc. 
7 



'pcsr I!-j?cld ". Wifidlon 



Hlm'/jnp 



3421 



(^ 



TIIK C. W. ENOI.ANn I.AnORATORIKf=» 

Confullantt and Anttlynlit to the Dairy and Food Industries 
^-^C> Water and Food Analyei - Pesticide Residue Analyse* 

V^A Baeltriological - Chemical - Pkytical 



CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 

(A.O.A.C. and A.P.H.A. Methods] 



August 8, 1969 
Grapes 

Safu-jay Storeo, Inc. - Pro&co V.eTah?j)6/,.3in-: Deyt., 1501 C-tbin Br3.nc'. nc'-.-x, 
Lcndover, ilarylMd CO?"? - Attn: hi'. Allon Frr.,.c;L3 

/.UG:H3t 6, 1969 BCBOBT 

REPORT 



Oin/iVT!'/- T"'njJ"T ' W ^UTp^lT^ 



Thoxpson .'^.■.~d3.c::s Gr&r.ea 0.3?- pp'i /J'U'in 

(fron ..ail oai-ii) 0.04. PP^i Si ..-iiine 



ppn - i nrts per niilliou. 

All results ara in terns of ?r(5fluct. 

All results are B.cocjpllahcd by tso of ^_a.s cliromstorjrapliy. 



TIE C. W. E.IGLM^D L'.DOr/iTCRIEG, IIJC, 
/ 






\^Ji: e^l^^:"*^^ 



per Harold I'l, WirKilan 

la-M/jmp 



3422 

Senate Mondale. Before you do so, will you give us a little of 
your background and experience in this field ? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. Yes, sir. 

My name is Harold Milton Windlan. I have a degree from the 
University of Georgia. I have both my bachelor of science and my 
master of science degrees from the University of Georgia. I have a 
doctor of philosophy degree from Cornell University. I have been in 
the field of chemical analysis or analysis of food for the past 14 
years. 

I received my doctorate from Cornell in 1955, and I have been in 
my present employment for 10 years. I started there in September 
of 1959. 

We have over the years analyzed practically every kind of food 
that is known, and for the past approximately 7 years we have done 
a fantastic amount of work in pesticide residue analysis. Of course, 
our first entry in the field was back in the days of pesticides in milk 
locally. From that we have analyzed all kinds of feeds, foods, 
animal parts, and various and sundry samples. I would hesitate to 
even estimate the number of samples but it has been in the thou- 
sands. 

Senator Mondale. So for several years it has been your chief or 
sole function: to test, and make these kinds of analyses, in the food 
area? 

Dr. Windlan. It has been one of our major tasks, correct. 

Senator Mondale. Will you then tell us about the first analysis of 
grapes brought to you by the farmworkers ? 

Dr. Windlan. Yes. 

A representative of the United Farm Workers brought two sam- 
ples of Thompson seedless grapes to our laboratory on the afternoon 
of July 30, 1969. The grapes were identified as being from Mecca, 
Calif., one from the Bagarian Orchard or Vineyard, and the other 
from the Bianco Fruit Corp. From that I personally took the grapes 
and immediately started the analytical work because they were insis- 
tent to have this on a given day. It was a tough one, timewise, but 
the time was sufficient. 

With due process we got to them. We promised a result on August 
1, and the result was given August 1. 

Senator Mondale. What did that analysis disclose ? 

Dr. Windlan. It disclosed that one sample of grapes was very 
high in aldrin. It had more BHC on it than I would like to see. It 
had some simazine on it. 

Senator Mondale. Do you know what are the FDA permissible 
standards prescribed in the aldrin field ? 

Dr. Windlan. In the aldrin field, according to the results, or 
according to the literature that I see, it is 0.1 part per million. 

Senator Mondale. This first test came out what ? 

Dr. Windlan. Eighteen parts per million. 

Senator Mondale. As I understand it, you don't know where the 
sample was obtained, what was done to it, all you know is what hap- 
pened after it was put in your hands, the survey made and the anal- 
ysis is as you have found it? 

Dr. Windlan. That is absolutely correct. I did not know anything 



3423 

about the history of the grapes or the intended use of the analytical 
results 

Senator I^Iondale. There has been some suggestion on occasion of 
aldrin being confused with sulfur. Can you tell us whether, based on 
your professional knowledge, your result setting forth this aldrin is 
such that we could be certain, at least in your judgment, that there is 
no such confusion? 

Dr. WixDLAN. In my judgment there is no such confusion. My 
reasons are, number one, the results that were reported on this report 
dated August 1 were accomplished using recognized techniques as 
published by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. Our final 
results were obtained using gas chromatography. Gas chromatogra- 
phy is a highly sensitive method. When samples are processed using 
this technique only certain compounds will come through. 

Second, the residue or the amount of material that was left over 
from this particular injection in our gas chromatography was sub- 
jected to a second method of analysis, to wit, paper chromatography, 
and it does have a migration or an RF value that is exactly the 
same as aldrin. 

Now I would be the first to say that, yes, we do know other pesti- 
cides are present on these grapes and there were others present, 
period. We did not attempt to identify them. 

Senator Mondale. When you used the paper chromatography test 
was that for the purpose of making certain that there was not con- 
fusion as between sulfur and aldrin? 
Dr. WixDLAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator JNIondale. Is this the recommended test in this field? 
Dr. WixDLAN. I guess today the more sophisticated test would be 
thin layer chromatography. I do not happen to have the equipment. 
I have run thousands of paper chromatograms so we elected paper. 
Both methods appear in the FDA pesticide manual. 

Senator Moxdale. It is your judgment, based on your professional 
background, you are satisfied that what you tests disclosed were 
aldrin and not sulfur? 

Dr. WixDLAN. I am satisfied that the aldrin reported on test 
reports was in fact aldrin. 

Senator INIgx'dale. Will you give us the background on the second 
test which I understand was performed at the request of Safeway 
Stores ? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator INIoxdale. And tell us how you gathered the sample, from 
what sources, and what those tests disclosed. 

Dr. WixDLAx. Safeway Stores requested that we visit their ware- 
house in Landover, Md., and sample the grapes they had in the ware- 
house for pesticide residue analysis. On Saturday morning, I believe 
August 2 — the date may be off a day or so, but it was a Saturday 
morning — I went to the warehouse, we went through the grapes. 
They had four different kinds of grapes. They had a red grape, they 
had a second kind of red grape which is a Castys Red. You could 
see the difference in the grapes. I did not know one variety from the 
other, personally. They had a real dark black grpae, and of course 
the Thompson seedless grape. They had many flats of each grape. 

36-513 O— 70— pt. 6B 5 



3424 

I immediately surveyed the situation and estimated in my own 
mind how many grapes were in the warehouse. From this I immedi- 
ately in my mind took a rough square root of that figure and 
decided this was the number of boxes that I would sample. I would 
actually remove some grapes from each of the boxes. This is what I 
did. 

The Thompson seeldess grapes, they had a lot of them in the 
warehouse that day, I don't know how many but if I remember cor- 
rectly, I think there were something in the neighborhood of 1,000 
boxes. I sampled a minimum of 30 boxes. In other words, I put my 
fingers in actually 30 boxes of grapes and took grapes out of each 
box. 

I took this out to the lab on Saturday. We are not officially open 
on Saturday. I put them in the refrigerator. On ^Monday morning I 
started the analytical work. We took a cross section of the cross sec- 
tion because, again, you start oft' with not 2 pounds of grapes but 
you start off with something in the neighborhood of 100 grams of 
grapes. Our analyses were set up on 50 grams of grapes, which is 
roughly 2 ounces. We rendered a report dated August 8 on the sam- 
ples that were obtained. 

Senator Moxdale. What did that analysis disclose in respect to 
aldrin ? 

Dr. WixDLAX. With respect to aldrin, it showed that the Thomp- 
son seedless grapes again were on the high side, not drastically high, 
but the black grapes and the two red grapes were well within toler- 
ance. 

Senator INIondale. I see your analysis says that the Anthony 
Bianco brand was on the Thompson seedless grapes. How did you 
determine that ? 

Dr. WiNDLAx. This was the label on the box. 

Senator Moxdale. Did you also make a precautionary survey to 
determine that you were not confusing aldrin with sulfur in this 
case? 

Dr. Wix'dlax. Not in this case, no, sir. 

Senator INIoxdale. You performed two tests for Safeway, one on 
the second of August, the other on the 6th. You took some from the 
warehouse in the first case and some from the rail cars in the second. 
Is that correct? 

Dr. WiXDLAx. The first test reported was on samples received 
August 4 was from the warehouse. The one on samples received 
August 6 was from the rail car. 

Senator INIoxdale. The first survey showed 0.65 parts of aldrin, 
that is on the Thompson seedless. 

Dr. WixDLAX. Yes. 

Senator Moxdale. On August 6 your survey showed 0.32 parts of 
aldrin on Thompson seedless found in the rail cars, is that correct? 

Dr. WixDLAX'. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Moxdale. Do you have a copy of your August 8 report? 

Dr. WixDLAx. Yes, sir. 

Senator Moxdale. I have an analysis that says Aiigust 8 and date 
received August 4. 

Dr. WiNDLAN. Yes, sir. 



3425 

Senator INIoxdale. On the bottom of that you said that these 
grapes were j^rocessed using a second method, paper chromatagra- 
phy. Then you did use it. 

Dr. WixDLAX. In that survey I did use it. 

Senator IMondale. On the August 6 one you did not ? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. I did not. 

Senator jNIoxdale. On August 6 you simply used gas chromatogra- 
phy? 

Dr. WiXDLAX. Gas chromatography only. 

Senator Moxdale. On the date received, August 4, what that 
means was that you recei^'ed the grapes probably on August 2, you 
are not quite sure, it Avas a Saturday? 

Dr. AVixDLAX'. I am positive it was on a Saturday. 

Senator JNIoxdale. They were put in refrigeration and your office 
o])ened on August 4? 

Dr. WixDLAX'. That is the reason for the date of August 4. The 
work commenced on them then even though I personally obtained 
grapes on the Saturday prior. 

Senator Moxdale. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kexxedy. I have no questions. 

Senator Moxdale. Senator Murphy. 

Senator JNIurphy. I don't have any questions. I am not question- 
ing the results of the laboratory tests. 

Dr. AVixDLAx\ Thank you. Senator Murphy. 

Senator MtT.piiY. I wonder if you might have any explanation as 
to why the content would vary from the same vineyards, the same 
shipment, the same boxes, the same flats, the same types of grapes, 
that one would have a 0.32 part per million aldrin and in some other 
cases it dropped down to 0.03. Would conditions change that if they 
were sprayed similarly? 

Dr. WixDLAx. Senator INIurphy, I am strictly an analytical chem- 
ist. Anything I would say would be from a layman's point of view. 
I personally have grapes in my back yard and" I spray my grapes. I 
spray them with pressure equipment. It is small. I know I can look 
at a bunch of grapes on the vine and say that looks beautiful. I say, 
"I will sock some spray to it."' I don't think the commercial sprayer 
will do this but the same type of thing can happen because this is 
equipment that is putting out gallons of material. I think it is quite 
easy for the sjn-ayer to put out what I would call in a layman's term 
a slug of liquid material as compared to a heavy fog mist which I 
think is the desirable thing. 

Senator Mukpijy. How long would the evidence of aldrin remain 
on the grapes after they have been sprayed? 

Dr. WixDLAx. Senator JNIurphy, again this would be conjecture. I 
do not know. 

Senator Murphy. I am not a chemist, myself. I don't know either. 
1 have no further questions. Thank you very much. 

Senator jNIoxdale. Senator Cranston. 

Senator Craxstox. In addition to pesticides, are herbicides used? 
Do you have any knowledge as to any danger involved ? 

Dr. WixDLAx. No, sir, I do not. Again I am strictly an analytical 
chemist and I am not familiar with that. 



3426 

Senator Cranston. Since you are unable to answer Senator Mur- 
phy's question about how long pesticides are dangerous on grapes, 
how can we go about getting that information, in your opinon ? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. I think in my opinion the proper thing to do 
would be to actually spray grapes with known concentrations of the 
various and sundry pesticides by themselves, also in conjunction one 
pesticide with the other, and actually store these under typical con- 
ditions and analyze them over a period of weeks, possibly even 
months, after harvest with the laiowledge of date of application, 
with a good record of weather conditions prior to harvest, and then 
we can have some factual evidence, I think, and I think some of this 
evidence is available if we can put any reliability into the actual 
application of pesticides to grapes today. This I can not answer one 
way or the other. 

Senator ]Murphy. Did anybody say they would like to find out 
whether there was one pesticide or another on these particular 
grapes, or were you just asked to test them generally ? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. I was asked to make a general test for the 

Senator Cranston. Do you have any information as to what can 
be done to clean grapes after they have been sprayed, or if there are 
lasting effects if they are not treated? 

Dr. W1NDL.VN. Personally, at home we wash them in water, but I 
know we are kidding ourselves. This is all we do. 

Senator Cranston. Do you consider that adequate? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. No, sir. I didn't eat many grapes this year, thank 
you. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Schweiker. 

Senator Sch^veiker. Thank you, INIr. Chairman. 

Doctor, I would like to go back to your first set of tests. You tested 
samples from two different vineyards. Is that correct ? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. This is the way they were identified to us, Senator. 

Senator Schweiker. One, you said, had 18 parts per million of 
aldrin. 

Dr. WiNDLAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Schweiker. That was by Bianco. 

Dr. WiNDLAN. Yes. 

Senator Schweiker. The other had what ? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. One had 1.4. 

Senator Schweiker. "What is the accepted tolerance? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. 0.1. 

Senator Schweiker. In both cases they were over the accepted tol- 
erance. 

Dr. WiNDLAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Schweiker. Your second series of tests, again in reading 
the results as a layman, do I understand that in your report dated 
15th of August all three grape samples were substantially over the 
level? Is that correct? 

Dr. WiNDLAN. No, sir. The report dated 

Senator Schweiker. I am sorry, I have the wrong sheet. 

You tell me again what your results were on the second. 

Dr. WiNDLAN. On the second test we took a test on the grapes 
from the warehouse, the reporting date August 8, the sample 



3427 

received as August 4. Thompson seedless grapes had 0.65 parts per 
million aldrin, which is over the tolerance. The other three varieties 
of grapes were under tolerance. 

Senator Schweikee. The ones that were 0.65 

Dr. WixDLAN (continuing). Were Thompson seedless grapes. 

Senator Schweiker. From where? 

Dr. WixDLAX. From the Anthony Bianco brand. 

Senator Schweiker. Were all those you tested in the second series 
of tests from Bianco, or were they different ? 

Dr. WixDLAX. The red grapes were not identified as being a 
Bianco product. There was no label as to the location of the grape. 
The only label was the kind of grape. 

Senator Schweiker. Were you instructed in your original request 
to just test Bianco grapes or take a cross section ? 

Dr. WixDLAx. At Safeway we were told to take a cross section of 
tlie grapes in the warehouse. 

Senator Schweiker. Regardless of where they were located ? 

Dr. WixDLAX'. Yes, sir. 

Senator INIox-^dai^. I am told that Safeway, which has cooperated 
with this, told us that all these grapes were from Bianco. That is 
what they told us. 

Dr. WiXDLAX^. I cannot vouch for that. On the fourth grape, the 
Castys Red, I don't know where the}" were. 

Senator Schweiker. Currently is Safeway still buying Bianco 
grapes or not ? 

Senator Mox'dale. We have a statement from them which we in- 
cluded in the record. I will ask counsel to point out what the situa- 
tion is. 

Mr. CiiERTiiOv. One of the exhibits supplied by Safeway shows that 
on August 8 the company notified the suppliers that they had sus- 
pended shijjments. On August 19 shipments were resumed. 

Senator Schweiker. Those are all the questions I have. 

Senator ]Moxdale. One final question, Dr. Windlan. As I under- 
stand it, Safeway selected you, and asked you to come out and take 
these samples? 

Dr. Wix^DLAX'. Yes, sir. 

Senator JMox'dale. They did so on two occasions with results 
which your certificates set forth? 

Dr. WixDLAX'. Yes, sir. 

Senator Moxdale. Have you often been used by Safeway for food 
analysis ? 

Dr. WixDLAx. I have been used by Safeway considerably for food 
analysis work. This is my first entry into pesticide on grapes for 
Safeway. 

Senator Moxdale. But Safeway has often used your laboratory? 

Dr. Wix'dlax'. We have a contract with the ice cream department 
of Safeway. We do all of their laboratory work. We do work for the 
milk department of Safeway. The coffee department for Safewav 
has been more or less split in half. They had what they called their 
table products division. We were doing all their work but they have 
since abandoned that division and we no longer work for them. ^ 

Senator Murphy. I am interested in another question, if I may. 



3428 

Dr. Windlan. In doing all the work for Safeway, do you find the 
presence of injurious pesticides in other areas, for instance in lettuce 
and field vegetables, besides grapes? 

Dr. Windlan. Senator Murphy, we have never investigated their 
lettuce or any of these items for pesticide residues. 

Senator INIurphy. Thank you. 

Senator INIoxdale. Thank you very much. Dr. Windlan. We are 
most appreciative of you for cooperating with the committee. 

Dr. Windlan. I hope I have been able to shed some light on it. 
We feel we have done the best job we could, and these are the an- 
swers we gave. 

Senator Mondale. We are most grateful. 

Dr. Windlan. Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. Our final panel this morning is composed of 
representatives from the Food and Drug Administration. 

We appreciate your presence here. I understand you have a pre- 
pared statement. 

STATEMENTS OF DR. H. L. LEY, JR., COMMISSIONER, FOOD' AND 
DRUG ADMINISTRATION; J. KENNETH KIRK, ASSOCIATE COM- 
MISSIONER FOR COMPLIANCE; DARRYL E. BROWN, SUPER- 
VISORY CHEMIST, NEW YORK DISTRICT; ALVIN L. GOTTLIEB, 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF 
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, FOOD, DRUG, AND^ EN- 
VIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION; AND JERRY BURKE, ACTING 
HEAD, HOLOGENATED COMPOUNDS SECTION, RESIDUE CHEM- 
ISTRY BRANCH, DIVISION OF PESTICIDES, BUREAU OF SCIENCE 

Dr. Ley. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The panel members here with me today, going from my extreme 
left, are INIr. Darryl Brown, who is Supervisory Chemist of the New 
York City District of the Food and Drug Administration. On my 
immediate left, INIr. Kenneth Kirk, Associate Commissioner for 
Compliance. 

On my right Mr. Alvin Gottlieb, Deputy Assistant General Coun- 
sel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in the 
food and drug area. I provided for the reporter appropriate names 
and titles. 

]Mr. Chairman, immediately following the hearings before your 
subcommittee on August 1, 1969, the Food and Drug Administration 
made a survey of table grapes on the retail market to determine if 
unsafe pesticide residues were present. 

Forty-eight samples were collected as follows: 12 sami:)les of 
grapes were collected from retail stores in each of four metropolitan 
areas— Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and the Baltimore- 
Washington, D.C. area. 

We specifically requested that samples be collected from the Safe- 
way Store and the Giant Supermarket here in Washington, D.C, 
from which a United Farm Workers representative informed us he 
had purchased the grapes for the analysis reported by jNIr. Jerome 
Cohen to your subcommittee on August 1. We were able to obtain a 



3429 

sample at the indicated Safeway Store, but we did not find a Giant 
Supermarket at the address given to us. We did, however, obtain a 
sample from another Giant Supermarket further out on the named 
street. These samples were collected on the afternoon of August 1, 
1969. 

In addition to these 48 samples, our San Francisco district col- 
lected 1'2 samples of grapes from packers or shippers in the San 
Joaquin Valley of California. Our Chicago district also collected an 
additional 12 samples from produce houses and our Los Angeles dis- 
trict collected three more samples from packers in Mecca, Calif. 

All of these samples were collected during the period from August 
1 to August 6, 1969. They were promptly analyzed for pesticides by 
our district laboratories in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, 
New York, and Baltimore. 

The gas liquid chromatographic analytical procedure used in this 
survey detects and measures about 60 pesticide chemicals, includ- 
ing aldrin, dieldrin, kelthane, endrin, DDT and its analogs, tedion, 
heptachlor, heptachlor expoxide, ethion, lindane, parathion, methyl 
parathion. and diazinon. Only residues of kelthane, DDT compounds 
ethion, tedion, dieldrin, and diazinon were found in the samples. All 
residues were substantially below tolerances. No residues of aldrin 
were found. 

AYe submit for the record the results of this survey showing the 
grower or packer, the area where samples were collected and the an- 
alytical findings : exhibit A. 

Since that survey, we have continued our normal pesticide residue 
surAeilhmce work on raw agriculture products. As part of this pro- 
gram, our San Francisco District has, as of September 23, 1969, col- 
lected and completed the examination of 12 additional samples of 
grapes from packers or shippers in the San Joaquin Valley of Cali- 
fornia. 

These samples have been examined for pesticides using the same 
method as mentioned before. None of these samples were found to 
contain pesticide residues over tolerance, in fact nine of the samples 
were free of any residue detectable by the method employed. The 
residues on the other three samples were substantially' below toler- 
ance. AYe submit for the record the results of these analyses also ; ex- 
hibit B. 

INIr. Chairman, you requested that I discuss the legal framework 
under which we regulate pesticide residues in or on foods and how a 
residue tolerance is established. 

Regulation of the use of pesticides is carried out by several agen- 
cies. The responsibility for registration of pesticides and other eco- 
nomic poisons is placed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
These products may not be legally shipped in interstate commerce 
without prior registration as required by the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. To be registered, the pesticide must 
be shown to be safe when used as directed and effective for the pur- 
pose claimed on the label. 

Under the pesticide chemicals amendment to the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, ran agricultural commodities bearing or 
containing residues of pesticides and pest control products, not gen- 



3430 

erally recognized as safe by qualified experts, are classed as adulter- 
ated unless such residues are within the limits of previously estab- 
lished safe tolerances, which may even be zero. 

Such tolerances are established only after the USDA has certified 
that the pesticide chemical is useful to agriculture when employed as 
proposed in the petition. Also, the petitioner must present FDA 
with experimental evidence on toxicity to establish what residues are 
present and that such residues will be safe. He must show that the 
tolerances can be met under the practical conditions of pesticide 
usage. 

The petitioner must also specify the conditions of use on the label- 
ing for the pesticide. Exemptions from the requirement of a toler- 
ance are also authorized if not inconsistent with the public health. 
Raw agricultural products are defined to include all foods in their 
raw or natural state. 

The industry or firm promoting the use of the pesticide chemical 
is responsible for obtaining and submitting proof that any residue 
remaining on food is safe for the consumer of that food. The Food 
and Drug Administration is responsible for the scientific judgment 
concerning the safety of a tolerance. In arriving at a decision that a 
proposed tolerance is safe, Food and Drug Scientists use all avail- 
able information, in addition to that supplied in the petition. 

Senator Moxdale. Will you yield ? 

You say that in arriving at the decision that a proposed tolerance is 
safe. Food and Drug scientists use all of the available information in 
establishing that standard. Is that correct ? 

Dr. Ley. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Yet later on you say in determining whether in 
this case grapes should be seized for the existence of poisonous pesti- 
cide residue, in effect, you disregarded all the evidence that showed 
pesticide poisons and accepted your own surveys which showed there 
is no poison. 

Why would you be so selective in establishing a tolerance level, 
and so willing to disregard other evidence when it comes to protec- 
tion of the consumers? 

Dr. Ley. In pressing for regulatory action such as seizure, the 
agency in keeping with the usual techniques of all regulatory agen- 
cies has insisted on the use to support its action of laboratory' data 
derived from its own laboratories or confirmed by its own laborato- 
ries if it is first called to our attention by an outside laboratory. 

Senator ^Mondale. It is your position that you do not consider 
outside laboratories' tests when they are inconsistent with your own? 

Dr. Ley. If, INIr. Chairman, the result of an outside laboratory 
such as one of those mentioned here today has results that are not 
confirmed in four other major FDA laboratories with extensive ex- 
perience in pesticide analysis we reserve the right to operate on the 
basis of our own data. 

Senator Mondale. In this case there were six surveys, I believe. 
Four of them found pesticides, two of them did not, vou chose to 
believe the last two and ignore the first four. How do you justify 
that? 

Dr. Ley. Mr. Chairman, we have had some considerable discussion 



3431 

earlier with one of the laboratories in regard to pesticide levels in 
another produce, specifically, cheese. In that particular case that 
laboratory and we differed in our results. Our personnel visited that 
laboratory. In reviewing the official analytical procedure that that 
laboratory was allegedly using, there were deviations from the pro- 
cedure in the laboratory of the outside laboratory sufficient, in our 
opinion, to invalidate and make incorrect the results of the analysis. 

Senator ]Moxdale. In plain language, you don't think they are a 
competent source ? 

Dr. Ley. I did not say that, nor do I wish to imply it. 

Senator Moxdale. Then why would you not give it some weight? 

Dr. Ley. AVe have given it weight, ISIr. Chairman. 

Senator Moxdale. How much? 

Dr. Ley. In terms of comparing that result with some 60 other 
analyses from our own laboratories and four separate laboratories. 

Senator ^Moxdale. What did the England Laboratory fail to do? 
What tests did they fail to take which in your opinion disqualified 
that as a source that should be considered ? 

Dr. Ley. I am speaking now, for example, of the cheese. 

Senator Moxdale. We are talking about grapes this morning. 

Dr. Ley. I recognize that, sir. Let me then request that Mr. 
Burke, who visited the England laboratories and discussed the ana- 
lytical procedures, come up. 

This, jNIr. Chairman, is :Mr. Jerry Burke, of the Residue Chemis- 
try Branch, Division of Pesticides of our Bureau of Science. 

^Ir. Burke. INIr. Chairman, on the 12th of August I discussed 
with Dr. Windlan of the England laboratories some of the proce- 
dures he used in the analyses of the first grape samples he had re- 
ceived. I understand he received two samples of grapes, one of 
which he liad reported findings of approximately 18 parts per mil- 
lion of aldrin. Dr. Windlan said he had personally analyzed the 
samples and furnished me a brief written description of the proce- 
dures he had used. He said he had used the methodology prescribed 

In examining his written notes I saw several discrepancies in the 
procedure for separating the pesticide residue from the coextracted 
sample material. And then finally liis interpretation of his gas chro- 
matographic and his paper chromatographic determinations. The 
procedures m residue chemistry can be followed fairly straightfor- 
wardly until you reach the point at arriving at the identity of the 
residue in question. Gas chromomatography provides a tentative 
identification for a large number of pesticide chemicals but this 
identification is not absolute. It must be confirmed by other tests or 
test. The experience of the analyst plays a great role here. I feel in 
the case of the England Labs, Dr. Windlan misinterpreted the data 
he had. 

Senator Moxdale. How many years have you been testing xrraDe 
pesticides? " & & i- 

Mr. Burke. Mr. Chairman, I have been in the FDA method devel- 
opment laboratories for 40 years. 

Senator Moxdale. So your experience and Dr. Windlan's are 
about the same number in years, maybe a few more for Dr Wind- 
lan. Is that correct? 



3432 

Mr. Burke. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Did you analyze the Strasburger and Siegel 
test in the same way ? Did you go down there and go over their test- 
ing? 

Mr. Burke. I am only aware of the one analysis. 

Senator Mondale. You went to check the credibility of the analy- 
sis which showed pesticides, but you did not go and check the one 
which didn't show pesticides. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Burke. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. Would there be any basis for the assumption 
you might be trying to discredit one test and confirm the other ? 

Dr. Ley. None whatsoever, Mr. Chairman, because we were ima- 
ware of the other analysis. 

Senator INIondale. The Strasburger and Siegel one ? 

Dr. Ley. At that time. 

Senator INIondale. Were you aware of the Eastawai Labs tests ? 

Dr. Ley. No, we were not. 

Senator Mondale. You may proceed. 

Senator Cranston. May I ask a question. 

In regard to the 12 samples picked up from the packers and grow- 
ers that you referred to, what instructions were given to the employ- 
ees that went out to pick up those samples ? 

]VIr. Kirk. We instructed each of the districts involved to make a 
retail survey very quickly, don't get commercial material in ware- 
houses and that sort of thing, but we wanted the goods as they were 
being marketed to the consumer. The only special instructions which 
we gave were to our Baltimore district to insure that they covered 
the Safeway store and the Giant market. 

Senator Cranston. I am referring to the 12 samples picked up 
from packers and growers. 

Mr. Kirk. The San Francisco one? 

Senator Cranston. Yes. 

]Mr. Kirk. That was a routine survey by the district. They are re- 
quired under our program to run samples from time to time on the 
produce of their own area to determine whether or not there are res- 
idue problems. 

Senator Cranston. AVhat instructions did those who went out to 
pick up the samples have in regard to no advance warning to those 
in charge that they were picking them up and the purpose of the 
pickup ? 

Mr. Kirk. Our program always calls for no adxance warning. 

Senator Cranston. When the samples are picked up, do you know 
that the employees do not give any choice to the packer or grower in 
regard to what is picked up and do not serve notice on them as to 
the purpose of the pickup? 

Mr. Kirk. That is correct, sir. However, if we have any suspicion 
that a particular packer or grower may have a pesticide problem, 
then we would intensify our etl'orts on his part. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you. 

Senator INIondale. One further question to Mr. Burke. 

Would it be fair to say that while you have raised doubts about 
certain analysis methods by the England Laboratories, that you are 



3433 

not saying that there could not have been aldrin in those grapes, is 
that correct? 

Mr. Burke. I can't say that there was no aldrin on the grapes but 
I can say that the residue, the major residue, on the grapes was not 
aldrin, based on the information that I was shown by Dr. Windlan. 

Senator ]\Iurphy. INlay I ask a question there, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator ISIondale. In just a moment. 

Did you analyze those grapes yourself ? 

Mr. Burke. No, sir, I didn't. 

Senator Moxdale. You heard Dr. Windlan testify based on his 
background, his experience, that there was no doubt in his mind that 
there was aldrin residue on those grapes in the amount that he certi- 
fied ? Is it your testimony that he might not know what he is talking 
about? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. Burke. It is my testimony that his analysis could be in error. 

Senator Moxdale. Could be in error. 

jNIr. Burke. In my opinion it is. 

Senator jMondale. And that it might be in error is a judgment on 
your i^art. 

Mr. Burke. That it might be an error is a judgment on my part. 

Senator ]\Ioxdale. Senator Murphy. 

Senator Murphy. I want to clarify this point. If I recall, you said 
you went over the notes of Dr. Windlan and that you discovered, or 
thought you discovered, places where he made an error in reading 
the results of his testing. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Burke. That is correct. 

Senator ]Murphy. In other words, that he did all the testing pro- 
perly but in his compilation of the notes in your judgment he made 
an error that would have led him to the results which disagree with 
the report of the other labs? 

Mr. Burke. I would have to clarify that a bit. Dr. Windlan said 
he followed the procedures in FDA's pesticide manual from which 
I noted several deviations. The crux of the issue is his interpretation 
of the gas chromatographic and paper chromatographic evidence. 

Senator ]Murphy. Thank you very much. 

Senator Moxdale. I think we will ask Dr. Windlan, because of 
the serious nature of your criticism, about his testimony, in fairness 
to him he ought to be permitted to respond in writing to the charges 
that you have made. 

Now, getting back to the Eastawai Labs and the Strasburger and 
Siegel Labs, when did you find out they had similarly prepared 
analyses for Safeway? 

INIr. Kirk. I was advised through our CPE office that a member of 
your staff liad learned that the Safeway Stores had had some analy- 
ses run for them at about the time of your first hearing. We had had 
no information on that at all, so I immediately undertook to try to 
find out the facts. I got in touch with Safeway. 

Senator INIoxdale. When was that? 

]Mr. Kirk. I got in touch with Safeway just before the 5th of Sep- 
tember. On the 5th of September a ]Mr. Pond and a JNIr. Francis 
from Safeway came into my office to tell me what I had inquired 
about. They told me of the England Laboratory results which you 



3434 

just heard of this morning. They told me of the Eastawai Labora- 
tory results. They did not have with them a report from Eastawai. 
They also told me of the work by Mr. Cohen, I believe it was, of 
Strasburger and Siegel in Baltimore. 

Senator Mondale. That was about 3 weeks ago, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kirk. A little more, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Did you then send FDA officials to the labora- 
tories as you did the other? 

Mr. Kirk. No, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Why did you pick the one and not the other 
two? 

Mr. Kirk. Of course, the first flag to us when we saw that analyti- 
cal report was the fact that they were reporting 18 p.p.m. of aldrin, 
and they showed no dieldrin whatsoever. Now that is completely at 
variance with our experience with aldrin applied to a raw agricul- 
tural commodity which is exposed to the elements. Normally, and we 
expect this, aldrin will convert gradually to dieldrin and we will 
find dieldrin along with aldrin when we make this kind of analysis. 

Senator Mondale. Now Eastawai found both. They found aldrin 
and these other properties. On the basis of that, then, did you con- 
clude that that survey was probably in error ? 

Mv. Kirk. You are referring to the Eastawai ? 

Senator Mondale. Right. 

Mr. Kirk. I did not get the report from them. 

Senator Mondale. You were briefed on the report. 

Mr. Kirk. I was told that they found generally 16 to 19 p.p.m. But 
keep in mind, sir 

Senator Mondale. They also found the other properties to which 
you made reference. Does that convince you that that Eastawai sur- 
vey is the one 

Mr. Kirk. All I know about the Eastawai survey is that I was 
told they found this. Frankly, in the face of all the work which the 
Food and Drug Administration has done on these grapes, and we 
have done a lot of work, we had it done in different laboratories by 
different chemists, all, however, using the FDA methods, and when 
they tell me with all that work they did not find any aldrin and our 
San Francisco district did not report to us a problem out there from 
the standpoint of pesticide residues or misuse of pesticides — and I 
use the term advisedly from the standpoint of putting it on too close 
to harvest, using too much, that sort of thing, I am not talking 
about the other sides of the misuse problem — I concluded that we 
did not have a situation where we had grapes on the market which 
were illegal under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

Senator INIgndale. Let me be sure I understand your testimony. 
The farmworkers took an independent sample to the England Labo- 
ratories. The results came up with a heavy concentration of aldrin. 

Dr. Ley. Alone. 

Senator Mondale. Then Safeway, selecting their own laborator\% 
went twice to the England Laboratories, and both times they 
came back with high concentrations of aldrin. They also selected 
a laboratory of their own choosing, Eastawai Laboratories, which 
came back with high concentrations of aldrin. They went to a third 



3435 

laboratory, Strasburger and Siegle, which didn't show any aldrin 
residues. 

Mr. Kirk. That is right. 

Senator Mondale. On the basis of that survey and your other 
surveys you decided to disregard completely the first- four surveys 
that showed aldrin, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kirk. Keep in mind that after the first report of the 18 p.p.m., 
we had Mr. Burke go to this laboratory. As a matter of fact, I 
arranged for that trip because I wanted to find out whether 
there was anything wrong. Actually, if such a report had come 
into one of our districts I would have had the sample checked in 
another laboratory because I would have asked, where is the 
dieldrin, what is wrong, is somebody reading kelthane instead of 
aldrin. 

Senator Mondale. AVhy didn't you check the Eastawai test? I 
don't underetand. 

Mr. Kirk. I didn't have any question but what our results were 
right. These were all from the same lots, remember. 

Senator INIoxdale. That is the answer I wanted to hear. That is 
what I was afraid of. We do not know whether all grapes checked 
were from the same lot. 

Dr. Ley. ]Mr. Chairman, may I add one further comment. How- 
ever, in cross-checking between two different laboratories one of the 
basic principles of such validation is that both laboratories analyze 
the same specimen. We will be pleased to do check analysis on 
the same specimen with any one of these laboratories. There is 
no question about this. But T point out that in view of the 
divei-sity of results from the four laboratories involved in the 
Safeway analysis that we chose to utilize our own laboratory 
workere and our own laboratory capabilities to resolve the question. 
It is this type of information obtained by people who have had 
long experience in pesticide analysis that we must use to sub- 
stantiate any legal action which we take. 

Senator Moxdale. Proceed. 

Dr. Ley. In general, a petition for a tolerance for a pesticide is 
required to contain certain basic information : 

1. It must contain information showing the identity, composition, 
chemicial name, and common name. 

2. It must set forth the conditions of use including directions, 
limitations, and restrictions. 

3. ISIethods of analyses must be described including validation 
studies, accuracy checks and applicabiility to the total toxic 
residue. The methods must be practical for regulartory control use. 

4. The petition must contain residue data reflecting the most 
strenuous conditions of use (maximum dosage and number of 
applications), the major geographical production areas and in 
certain cases data on the processed food. 

5. It must contain acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies 
in animals, covering different species, different dosages, and different 
spans of time. The extent and complexity of these studies will 
depend on the type of compounds involved and the magnitude of 
residue on edible cix>ps. 

6. Reproduction tests spanning two or three generations and 



3436 

three different dosage levels are required in setting tolerances on all 
but "negligible residues" of pesticides. 

Pesticide tolerances are set forth in the Code of Federal Regula- 
tions, Title 21, Part 120. 

It is thus obvious that the requirements for setting a tolerance 
for a pesticide are most stringent. These data requirements are 
subject to contmued review by FDA. New scientific data and 
advances in the evaluation of safety data are considered. Data 
requirements are changed when indicated. Tolerance setting is not 
a static process. 

New pesticide chemicals, formulations, and other methods of 
insect control are constantly being developed. New tolerances are 
required and existing tolerances must be re\'iewed in terms of 
current good agricultural practice and need in keeping with 
the policy that residue tolerances should not be higher than 
what result from the amount of pesticide necessary for safe 
and effective use. 

For example, FDA has recently published an order to reduce 
DDT tolerances. This action was initiated by a finding that 
good agricultural practices would permit lower tolerances: in fact, 
analysis of a large number of samples over the past several 
years showed that the level of DDT found on most fniits and 
vegetables is far below the T-ppm tolerance for that pesticide. 
Residue tolerances of aldrin, dieldrin, captan, folpet, and TDE also 
have been reduced recently. 

If the review of the petition and all other .available data 
shows that the requested or proposed tolerance for a residue is 
safe, then the tolerance is established by promulgation of a regulation. 
It should be emphasized that the tolerance is set at the lowest level 
resulting from that use of the pesticide which will accomplish 
the intended effect, even though a larger amount of the residue 
may have been shown to be safe to the consumer as gauged by 
the animal feeding studies. There must be a substantial margin 
of safety between the largest amount of the residue that produces 
no effect in the test animals and the amount which may remain on 
the food crop. 

Obviously the establishment of safe residue tolerances does not, 
in itself, protect the consumer. Effort must be expended to enforce 
the tolerances to ensure that the regulations are being followed. 
FDA has for many years carried out an active program in this 
area of consumer protection. 

Our inspectors visit growers, county agriculture agents, pesticide 
dealers, packing sheds, and pesticide applicators. They are alert 
for any indication of pesticide misuse. They collect samples of 
crops, both pre- and post-harvest, for laboratory analysis. 

A number of States also are active in policing both pesticide 
usage and residues on crops. We exchange information with these 
State officials so that all possible steps can be promptly taken to 
remedy any situation where over tolerance residues are found. 

Any food product which is, or has been, in intestate commerce 
and which is found to contain an illegal residue is subject to 
seizure and condemnation. The persons responsible for shipping 
such food are also subject to criminal prosecution. 



3437 

In our surveillance and control activities, during the period from 
July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969, we examined 12,398 samples of 
foodstuffs, both domestic and import, for pesticides. ]\Iore than 
half of the samples did contain residues of pesticide chemicals, 
the majortiy of these residues were well below tolerance levels. 
However, 27 shipments were seized in domestic commerce and 135 
import shipments were detained at the port of entry, because of 
illegal residues. 

In addition to these surveillance activities, we also conduct 
"market basket" or total diet studies. These can be characterized 
as the final check on the tolerance system. 

In these studies, samples of a variety of foods are purchased 
at retail stores in five different regions over the country. The 
proportion of individual food items used in these studies was 
developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is based 
on the diet of a 16 to 19-year-old male, the biggest eater in the 
entire population. 

The quantity of this diet is approximately double that of the 
average individual, as I am sure parents of teenagers will attest. 
The samples of food are prepared as for consumption and then 
analyzed for pesticide residues. 

Throughout the 4 years of this study, the dietary intake of pesticide 
chemicals has been below the acceptable daily intake established by 
the FAO/AVHO Expert Committees, and below those intake levels 
anticipated by our scientists when considering proposals for 
tolerances. 

FDA is also engaged in continuing research in developing 
better analytical methodology for pesticides. As we stated earlier, 
when a new chemical is introduced, a specific method for its 
detection is required. This single specific method may be adequate 
to determine the amount of that chemiical on a given food at a 
given time after application, but we are often not in a position 
to know which of the many chemicals may have been used on a 
food crop. 

Therefore, we do not know what specific method to apply. The 
problem is further compounded by actions which may convert 
the original chemical to other compounds after application. As 
an example, aldrin starts converting to dieldrin shortly after 
application. 

Sometimes these altered compounds are more important from a 
toxicity viewpoint than the original chemical. Our chemists, 
therefore, need methods to measure any of these chemicals present. 

Our research efforts have been thus directed toward the multi- 
residue methods or those wliich measure many different chemicals 
simultaneously. This is the method that you have already heard 
discussed today. 

In this multiresidue methodology, FDA chemists have be^n 
leaders. The ideal method would be a univei-sal one which would 
detect and measure all of the original pesticide chemicals and all 
the significant alteration products which may have formed. The 
scientists have not, of course, achieved thiis ideal, but they have 
made considerable progress. 

Contrary to a popular misconception, gas liquid chromatography 



3438 

is not a simple operation where the sample is placed in a machine 
by a technician and the answer comes out in a ready-to-use form. 

Using the gas liquid chromatography, multiresidue methodology, 
a chemist with proper training, experience and equipment can 
analyze a sample of any of a large variety of foods and simultane- 
ously obtain a high degree of accuracy in identifying about 60 
different residue chemicals and measuring them quantitatively, all 
in the span of several hours. The information from the gas liquid 
chromatography equipment does not automatically identify the 
pesticide residue. 

It is essential that this data be evaluated by an experienced and 
competent analyst to establish a tentative identification so he can 
deermine what further tests are necessary to confirm the identity. 
The method produces reliable results. There are many parameters, 
which must be fully understood and well controlled, otherwise the 
results can be misleading or misinterpreted. 

Senator Mondale. Will you yield for a minute? 

Dr. Let. Certainly. 

Senator Mondale. I assume these last few paragraphs have been 
directed at the inconsistency between your results and those of 
the others that show pesticides residues. Is it your judgment here 
that there couldn't have been aldrin on the grapes tested three times 
by the England Laboratories? Is that your testimony? 

Dr. Ley. I can only accept the word of the best expert we have 
here in Washington on this technology. 

Senator Mondale. As I recall, he said it was his judgment that 
there wasn't, but he doesn't know. His testimony goes to the 
testing methods as he saw them. 

Now let us go to the next point. Is it your judgment that the 
Eastawai tests which showed aldrin residues are similarly to 
be rejected? 

Dr. Let. In the view of the consistent finding from four separate 
FDA laboratories, each one of which has spent a very large part of 
its time in pesticide analysis, I would question, subject to further 
review, the results from Eastawai. 

Senator Mondale. That is based on the fact that your people 
said one thing and his survey said another. There has been no 
check on the Eastawai Laboratories to determine whether or not 
it was handled according to your version of what should be done, 
is that correct? 

Dr. Let. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. In light of the fact that Eastawai's tests, 
a reputable laboratory, showed these high residues far in excess of 
your tolerance level, why didn't you check and determine if it was 
from the same sample, whether there was a mistake, or whether 
in fact there were dangerous levels of aldrin? I don't quite under- 
stand how you finally disregarded the Eastawai test. 

Dr. Let. Mr, Kirk dealt with most of this work in coordination 
in the field. I prefer he answer that question. 

Mr. Kirk. We were talking, sir, about the Eastawai which, 
by the way, I never saw a report on until this morning. 

Senator Mondale. You were briefed on it. 



3439 

Mr. Kirk. I was given a figure that they had a total of so much 
aldrin. 

Senator Mondale. Did you ask for the report when you were told 
about it? 

Mr. Kirk. No. 

Senator Mondale. Weren't you interested? 

Mr. Kirk. Not at that stage. 

Senator ISIondale. At what stage do you get concerned about 
evidence of poisonous residues on food ? 

Mr. Kirk. I am always concerned. 

Senator Mondale. Then why didn't you ask for a copy of the 
report ? 

Mr. Kirk. They had given me the figures that the man said 
he found. Let me say, sir, that we had run a survey of all of these 
samples including grapes from the same area, grapes from the 
same packers. We had information from our west coast office. 

Senator Mondale. We have been all through that. I am trying 
to find out why you reject the Eastawai Laboratories as not even 
worthy of checking, as you did with 

Mr. Kirk. I had already asked Mr. Burke to go to the England 
Laboratory. His report to me was that he did not believe that 
the England Laboratory report 

Senator Mondale. We are talking about Eastawai? 

Mr. Kirk. Yes 

Senator Mondale. Why didn't you go to Eastawai? 

Mr. Kirk. Those are two things. Then we had the Strasburger 
and Siegel report which said they didn't find it. I was not 
surprised because it confirmed ours, a laboratory I have known of 
for 30 years in this business. 

Senator Mondale. Why didn't you send somebody to Eastawai 
Laboratory to determine whether thy knew what they were 
talking about? 

Mr. Kirk. I didn't think it was worth while to take the time. 

Senator Murphy. Is it your business to test laboratories or to 
test food? 

Dr. Let. To test foods. 

Senator IMondale. I didn't get the subtle distinction there. 

Senator Cranston. Going back to your testimony on the preceding 
page, you said, "The samples of food are prepared as for consump- 
tion and analyzed for pesticide residue." Wliat do you mean by 
samples of food prepared for consumption? 

Dr. Ley. This would mean that if the food is normally washed 
before cooking they would be treated exactly as though they were in 
a housewife's kitchen. In many cases some of the residue on the 
product will be poured off or discarded in the washing of the 
product. 

Senator Cranston. Before you conducted your test on the grapes, 
you washed them? 

Dr. Ley. No. This is tlie total diet studies only. Senator Cranston, 
and it is quite a different subject from the 60 samples which I 
earlier mentioned. Those samples are not prewashed or treated 
before analysis. 

36-513 O— 70— pt. 6B 6 



3440 

Senator Cranston. On the tests you have been talking about 
here, did you wash them prior to the testing? 

Dr. Ley. In none of the 60 was there treatment or washing 
applied to the grape samples. The restrictions here in terms of 
the total diet study I think are obvious. We are trying to get a 
measure of the amount of pesticide actually consumed by the 
families eating these foods. 

Senator Cranston. When you go about doing that in those 
cases how do you determine how thoroughly the average housewife 
is going to wash them? What procedures do you follow in doing 
the washing? 

Dr. Let. This is a very difficult item to standardize in any way. 
Some housewives will wash vigorously and others will just dunk. 

Senator Cranston. How do you wash them? 

Dr. Let. I think that the best answer here is that we use a 
moderate approach, a dunking. We don't try to scrape the entire 
skin off the vegetable or fruit. 

Senator Mondale. Proceed. 

Dr. Let. Mr. Chairman, you asked about FDA's actions after 
learning about some tests on grapes conducted for Safeway Stores. 

The information that such tests had been conducted came to us 
from a member of your staff and we investigated. We were informed 
by representatives of Safeway, early in September, that they had 
some samples analyzed following the August 1 hearing. We were 
informed verbally of the reported results of the analyses and 
were furnished, by Safeway, with a copy of two reports from the 
C. W. England Laboratory, Washington, D.C., identified as the 
results on grape samples submitted by Safeway to that laboratory. 

There was a wide range in the findings on the various samples 
as given to us by the Safeway representatives. The range was 
from one laboratory reporting "no aldrin or dieldrin, 0.11 p.p.m. 
DDT and a trace of some identity nondetermined pesticides," to 
another laboratory reporting 16.8 to 19.1 p.p.m. aldrin and 
dieldrin residue. 

These varied results were reportedly obtained on grapes from 
the same lots in possession of Safeway. We, of course, cannot 
vouch for the accuracy of any of these reports. FDA has found 
no samples of grapes which bore residues confirmatory of the 
aldrin-dieldrin findings of the commercial laboratories mentioned. 

We had no information until this morning about Safeway 
canceling orders on table grapes because of finding high levels of 
pesticides. 

We have, as previously stated, continued our surveillance program 
of examining samples of various raw agriculture products, including 
grapes. To date, we have not encountered any residues in grapes 
which exceed the established safe tolerances. 

In 334 samples of grapes, FDA has examined in the past 2% 
fiscal years, no illegal residues of aldrin have been reported, nor 
were any found in the surveys mentioned earlier. If we should 
find grapes or any other food containing an unsafe pesticide residue, 
we would take the appropriate steps to remove that product 
from the channels of consumer commerce. 

(Exhibits A and B accompanying the prepared statement follow :) 



3441 



SURVEY ON GRAPES 

Resiudes Found Parts Per Million 

Sample,* And Grower or Packer Kel- DDT DDE Diel- Dia- Echion Tedion 

Date Collected thane drin zinon 

1. Chicago District - Retail Markets 

116-470C El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Cal. t* - - - 
8-6-69 

116-471C El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Cal. T T T - 
8-6-69 

117-216C Unkown 0.11 T T - 

8-6-69 

117-217C Table of Grapes, Table of T - - T T 0.08 

8-6-69 Grapes, Cal. 

117-949C El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Cal. 0.17 - - - 
8-6-69 

117-950C El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Cal. 0.66 - - - - - - 

8-6-69 

J.18-093C El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Cal. 0.86 - - - - - - 

8-4-69 

118-094C El Rancho Farms, Arvin, Cal. 0.17 - - - - - - 

8-4-69 

118-095C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. - T T - T - - 

8-6-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

118-096C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 0.31 - - 

8-6-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

■ 118-164C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. T - - - 

8-4-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

118-165C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. x - - • '- 

8-4-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 



T* Trace, Indicates Less Than 0.01 PPM 



3442 



Residues Found Parts Per Million 



Satnple # And Grower or Packer 

Date Collected 

2. New York District - Retail Markets 

196-569C The William Moseslan Corp. 

8-5-69 Lament, Cal. 

196-570C John J. Kovacevich, Inc. 

8-5-69 Arvin, Cal. 

222-182C John J. Kovacevich, Ind. 

8-4-69 Arvin, Cal. 

222-183C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

8-4-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 

222-184C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

8-4-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 

222-185C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

8-4-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 

222-186C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

8-4-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 

222-187C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

8-5-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 

222-188C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

8-5-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 

222-189C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

8-5-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 

222-190C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

.8-5-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 

222-191C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

'8-5-69 Bakersfleld, Cal. 



Kel- DDT DDE Diel- 
thane drin 



Dia- Ethion Tedion 
zlnon 



0.05 
0.19 
0.07 
0.03 
0.17 
0.04 
0.12 
0.04 



3443 



Sample # And 
Date Collected 



Grower and Packer 



3. Los Angeles District - Retail Markets 

165-728C Leo Gagosian 

8-1-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

165-729C Guedera Farms 

8-1-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

165-730C Giumarra Vineyards, Corp. 

8-1-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

166-761C The William Mosesian Corp. 

8-1-69 Lament, Cal. 

166-762C Sabovich Bros. 

8-1-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

166-763C I.T.O. Packing Co. 

8-1-69 Reedley, Cal. 

166-764C Leo Gagosian 

8-1-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

166-765C Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 

8-1-69 Bakersfield, Cal. 

166-766C J. W. Heldcom 

8-4-69 Parlier, Cal. 

166-767C Demesio C. Carranza 

8-4-69 Thermal, Cal. 

,168-027C Muzinch Farms 

8-1-69 Wheeler Ridge, Cal. 

.168-028C Elmo Vineyards, Inc. 

8-1-69 Visalia, Cal. 



Residues Found Parts Per Million 



Kel- DDT DDE Diel- Dia- Ethion Tedion 
thane drin zinon 



0.52 

0.78 0.02 - 

0.89 



0.11 0.03 - 



0.23 



T Trace, Indicates Less Than 0.01 PPM 



3444 



Residues Found Parts Per Million 



Sample # And Grower or Packer 
Date Collected 



Kel- DDT DDE Diel- Dia- Ethion Tedion 
thane drin zinon 



4. Baltimore District - Retail Markets 



095-121C 
8-1-69 



The William Mosesian Corp. 
Lament, Cal. 



Giant Food Store, 4900 Annapolis Road, 
Bladensburg, Maryland 



095-122C 
8-4-69 



James Macchiaroli Fruit Co. 
Higley, Arizona 



095-1230 
8-4-69 



James Macchiaroli Fruit Co. 
Higley, Arizona 



095-796C 
8-4-69 



Bianco Fruit Corp. 
Fresno, Cal. 



0.24 



095-797C 
8-4-69 



David Freedman & Co. , Inc. 
Thermal, Cal. 



095-798C 
8-4-69 



Bianco Fruit Corp. 
Fresno, Cal. 



0.46 T 0.01 



095-799C 
8-4-69 



David Freedman & Co. , Inc. 
Thermal, Cal. 



095-989C 
8-4-69 



James Macchiaroli Fruit Co. 
Higley, Arizona 



095-990C 
8-4-69 



James Macchiaroli Fruit Co. 
Higley, Arizona 



095-991C 
8-5-69 



The William Mosesian Corp. 
Lamont , Cal . 



095-992C 
8-5-69 



Heggblade, Margulers Co. 
San Francisco, Cal. 



096-080C 
8-1-69 



Bianco Fruit Corp. 
Fresno, Cal. 



0.35 T T - - 

Safeway Store, 1730 Hamlin Street, N. E. 

Washington, D. C. 



T Trace, Indicates Less Than 0.01 PPM 



3445 



Residues Found Parts Per Million 



Sample # And Grower or Packer 
Date Collected 



Kel- DDT DDE Diel- Dia- Ethion Tedion 
thane drin zlnon 



5. San Francisco District - Packer Level 



INV 211-644C 
8-4-69 



Russo Brothers, Arvin, Cal. 0.13 



INV 211-645C 
8-4-69 



Logrecco & Sons 
Bakersfield, Cal. 



0.40 0.03 0.01 



INV 211-646C 
8-4-69 



Marko Zaninovich 
Earlimart, Cal. 



IMV 211-647C 
8-4-69 



Marko Zaninovich 
Earlimart, Cal. 



INV 211-648C 
8-4-69 



Pagliarulo Fruit Co. 
Delano, Cal. 



INV 211-649C 
8-4-69 



Pagliarulo Fruit Co. 
Delano, Cal. 



INV 211-650C 
8-4-69 



A. Caratan & Sons 
Delano, Cal. 



0.08 0.44 



INV 211-651C 

8-4-69 



A. Caratan & Sons 
Delano, Cal. 



INV 211-652C 
8-4-69 



Agri -Business Investment 
Co. , Ducor, Cal. 



INV 211-653C 
8-4-69 



Agri-Business Investment 
Co. , Ducor, Cal. 



INV 211-654C 
8-5-69 



United Packing Co 
Parlier, Cal. 



INV 211-655C 
8-5-69 



L. R. Hamilton 
Reedley, Cal. 



0.43 0.04 0.02 



3446 



Sample # And Shipper 
Date Collected 



6. ChicaRO Dlatrict - Produce Bouaca 


T 


- 




118*061C 
8-4-69 


Gluaarra Vlneyarda Corp. 
Bakerafleld, Cal. 


- 


118-062C 
8-4-69 


ParaoMunt Cltrua Aaan. 
San Fernando, Cal, 


T 


- 


- 


118-063C 
8-4-69 


El Rancho Fanaa 
Arvlo, Cal. 


0.24 


- 


- 


118-064C 
8-4-69 


paraaount Cltrua Assn. 
San Fernando, Cal, 


T 


- 


- 


118-06SC 
8-4-69 


Paramount Cltrua Aaan. 
San Fernando, Cal. 


- 


T 


- 


118-066C 
8-4-69 


Gluaarra Vlnayarda Corp. 
Bakeraflcld. Cal. 


0.26 


T 


T 


118-50 IC 
8-4-69 


Logrecco Broa. 
Arvln, Cal. 


T 


T 


T 


118-S02C 
8-4-69 


Logrecco Broa. 
Arvin, Cal. 


0.48 


- 


- 


118-503C 
8-4-69 


Gluaarra Vineyard Corp. 
Bakerafleld, Cal. 


0.15 


0.04 


T 


118-504C 
8-4-69 


El Kancho Fanaa 
AraAn, Cal. 


0.39 


T 


T 


118-50SC 
8-4-69 


ITO Packing Co. 
leedley, Cal. 


- 


- 


- 


118-S06C 
8-4-69 


Sabovlch Broa. 
Bakarafleld, Cal. 


0.23 


- 


- 



Kealduea Found - Varta Per Million 



Kel- DDT DDE Dlel- Dla- Ethlon Tedlon 
thane drln slnon 



0.17 

0.10 

0.12 0.18 

0.11 

0.50 



T^leaa than 0.01 



Sample t And Grower/Packer 
Date Collected 



3447 



Residues Pound - Parts Per Million 

Kel- DDT ODE Diel- Dia- Ethion Tedion 
thane drin zlnon 



7. Los Angeles District - Grower/Packer Level 

168-029C Richard Bagdasarian, Inc. 

8-4-29 Mecca, Cal. 

168-030C Double V Ranch 

8-4-69 Mecca, Cal. 

168-031C Wllliaa K. Young Ranch 

8-4-69 Mecca, Cal. 



Tolerances: on grapes 



Kelthane 

DDT 

DDE 

Dleldrin 

DiaelDon 

Kthion 

Tedion 



5.0 ppa 

7.0 ppn 

Hone (aetabolite of DDT) 

0.1 ppa 

0.75 ppa 

2.0 ppa 

5.0 ppa 



3448 



tXHIBIT B 



San Francisco District S a r-.eillance of 
Pesticides on Grapes 



Sanole # and 
Date Collected 



Grower or Shipper 



Parts Per Million 
Residues Found 



Inv. 211-629C 
8/7/69 



Morris Fruit 
Fresno, California 
Fresno County 



Kelthane 0.28 



Inv. 211-631C 
8/11/69 



Glumarra Vineyards 
Bakersfield, California 
Kern County 



DDT 0.13 
DDt 0.02 
Kelthane 0.25 



Inv. 211-639C 
8/20/69 



W. C, Hanson 
txeter, California 
Tulare County 



None 



Inv. 210-461C 
8/26/69 



L. Sarti Farms 

Lodi, Calif. 

San Joaquin County 



None 



Inv. 210-462C 
8/26/69 



Reynolds Neiling 

Lodi, Calif. 

San Joaquin County 



None 



Inv. 210-463C 
8/26/69 



GrafflgW Pwl£_Co. 

Lodi, Calif, 

San Joaquin County 



None 



Inv. 211-605C 
8/27/69 



W. C. Hanson 
txeter, California 
Tulare County 



None 



Inv. 211-606C 
9/3/69 



Tom Buratovich 
Dinuba, California 
Tulare County 



None 



Inv. 211-761C 
9/9/69 



L. R. Hamilton 
Reedlcy, Calif. 
Fresno County 



None 



Inv. 211-762C 
9/9/69 



Tom Buratovich 
Dinuba, California 
Tulare County 



None 



Inv. 211-763C 
9/10/69 



Inv. 212-167C 
9/16/69 



Nash-DeCamp 
Exeter, Calif. 
Tulare County 

Ballantine Produce Co. 

Sanger, Calif. 
Fresno County 



None 



Ethion-0.06 



3449 



Established Tolerances for pesticides found 

Ethion - 2.0 ppm 
Kel thane - 5.0 ppm 
DDT - 7.0 ppm 
DDE - None (Metabolite of DDT) 



3450 

Dr. Ley. Many people in the area of Michigan and Illinois 
are well aware of other actions we have taken within the past 
year to remove food from interstate commerce which contained 
excessive amounts of residue. 

Senator Cranston. What procedures do you take when you find 
illegal residues on products? 

Dr. Ley. Senator Cranston, assuming these foods have moved 
in interstate commerce, which is essential for us to exercise our 
authority, we would then move to seize the product. We might 
not have to seize the product because in many cases the grower 
or producer or distributor will move to voluntarily remove that 
product from the market and destroy it. In the cases where 
we have a contest, we must take action to seize. Seizure may be 
contested. The nature of the data supporting our seizure is of 
course critical to the success or failure of our case. 

Senator Cranston. Do you take criminal actions against those 
responsible for putting them on the market if they have violated the 
law? 

Dr. Ley. It depends on the facts. Senator Cranston. Obviously 
if there are repeated violations by a particular individual or firm 
we may move strongly to place that individual or firm under 
additional penalty. In many cases the high residues may have 
resulted from, as nearly as we can tell, and it happened only 
once, a misapplication of the pesticide. We would not be inclined 
under those circumstances to take criminal action against the 
grower or producer. 

Senator Cranston. How many violations do you normally accept 
from a particular source before you take criminal action? 

Dr. Ley. Against the individual ? Mr. Kirk, you have a better feel 
than I do about it. 

Mr. Kirk. It would not be a question of numbers. As Dr. Ley 
says, an isolated case where you have no reason to believe that 
there was a deliberate undertaking to misuse the pesticide, you 
would not recommend a criminal action. But, you could have a 
situation where it repeats and particularly if after the first one, 
you have demonstrated why and the man just kept on doing it, 
you would feel a responsibility for referring this to the Department 
of Justice for criminal action. It is not a numbers situation, however. 
As I say, if it were a real deliberate operation, one would be too 
many. 

Senator Cranston, You refer to 27 shipments being seized in 
domestic commerce. Was any criminal action taken in any one of 
those cases? 

Mr. Kirk. There were two criminal actions during the year. I 
didn't make a notation of what they were, whether they were the 
result of seizures or not. 

Senator Cranston. You don't know whether criminal action 
was taken in regard to any one of those 27 ? 

Mr. Kirk. Not specifically, but we did take one criminal action in 
1 year and one in another. 

Senator Cranston. In relation to what products were those 
actions taken? 



3451 

Mr. Kirk. One was a lettuce case, that I recall. I don't remember 
the other one. I can get that for the record if you like. 
Senator Cranston. I wish you would. 
(The information follows:) 

Attachment A 
Criminal Actions Involving Pesticides 

Fiscal year 1969 

Product : Cabbage. 

Defendant : Jones K. Andrews, Sparta, North Carolina. 
Pesticide and quantity found : Toxaphene — 17.6 to 40.1 ppm*. 
Legal tolerance : 7 ppm. 

1. Defendant charged in 4 counts with introducing into interstate commerce, 
4 different shipments of a raw agricultural product (cabbage) bearing a pesti- 
cide chemical which was in excess of the established tolerance. 

2. Defendant pleaded guilty to 4 counts. 

3. Defendant fined $1,000, on each of the counts with payment of $3,000 
suspended for two years upon payment of the other $1,000 and upon con- 
ditions that defendant complies with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and 
Regulations. 

4. There were no seizures of the products involved in this prosecution. Two of 
the shipments were distributed before the analyses were completed. The other 
two shipments were embargoed and destroyd under the sui^ervision of State 
authorities. 

Fiscal year 1968 

Product : Lettuce. 

Defendant: Western Growers Distrs., Inc., Glendale, Arizona. 
Pesticide and quantity found : Toxaphene — 14.6 to 40.0 ppm ; Parathion — 
1.08 to 3.1 ppm. 

Legal tolerance : 7 ppm and 1 ppm. 

1. Defendant charged in 3 counts with introducing into interstate commerce 
3 different shipments of a raw agricultural product (lettuce) bearing pesticide 
chemicals in excess of established tolerances. 

2. Defendant pleaded "not guilty" to the charges on 6-17-68 but changed the 
plea to "nolo contendere" on one count on 6-9-69. 

3. Defendant fined $300 on the one count and the other two counts were 
dismissed by the Court. 

4. Seizure was made on 1150 cartons of the lettuce shipped as charged in 
count I and on 953 cartons shipped as charged in count III. The lettuce in- 
volved in Count II had been distributed by the time the analysis was completed. 



Senator ISIondale. A good deal of our time this morning has 
been consumed on the conflicting laboratory reports. The broader 
issue before this committee, however, is the health and safety of 
the workers, the fannworkers who deal with these pesticides. A 
month and a half ago, when we had HEW officials testimony here, 
your statistician testified that in his opinion at least as many 
as 800 people a year may die from pesticides. He further estimated that 
at least as many as 80 a year may be seriously injured. 

This morning Mr. Chavez testified that through innumerable 
specific examples that came from the Department of Health in the 
State of California, from surveys which doctors in and around 
Delano developed, and from the union's experience from what they 
have seen, it is well established that pesticides are a dangerous risk 
to the health of workers in the field. This is a risk far more than 



• ppm = parts per million 



3452 

I think the U.S. Government has known, and I think far more also 
than the Senate and the Congress have known. 

We have, therefore, a rather widespread pattern m which farm- 
workers are exposed to the use of pesticides, sometimes negligently, 
sometimes inadvertently, perhaps on occasion I assume rather 
deliberately, which may take their lives, which may seriously 
affect their health, and which may cause long periods of ilhiess. 

What powers are being exercised at the Federal level to protect 
farmworkers as human beings against this problem? Bear m 
mind that Mr. Chavez testified that he could never recall a 
Federal official ever being seen participating in any efforts m 
and around Southern California, where his workers are, concerned 
in any way with protecting farmworkers. 

I recall this issue came up at the last hearing and there seems to be 
some uncertainty. Perhaps you can enlighten us. 

Dr. Ley. Mr. Chairman, the major issue as I have listened 
to the testimony this morning is an issue of occupational health of 
farm workers in this country. 

Senator Mondale. That is correct. 

Dr. Ley. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
has at this time no real authority in this field. Specifically, we m 
FDA are not involved in this particular area. However, there is 
pending before the Congress at this time the occupational safety 
and health bill which would cover farmworkers. 

I have been informed that hearings have been completed m the 
House and they are scheduled in the Senate. 

Senator Mondale. Would you say at this point, then, that the 
Public Health Service, Department of HEW, has no meaningful 
involvement in the protection of farmworkers from pesticide poison- 
ing? , . 

Dr. Ley. We are concerned, but we have no real authority at this 

time to become involved. 

Senator Mondale. To the extent that you are concerned, it is 
rather academic. There is nothing you can do about it? 

Dr. Ley. We do many additional data collecting activities within 
the Department. 

Senator Mondale. And that has been helpful. We have heard 
from vour statistician. But even there he said that the data 
collecting methods were wholly inadequate and it was only in a 
few small surveys that he has "been able to take on the spot checks 
that permitted him to even develop the figures he had. He said 
that he assumed that most injuries or deaths were not reported. 

Dr. Ley. This I agree, Mr. Chairman, is the case. We do not have 
a compulsory reporting system for this type of injury as we do 
for infectious disease. So that our reports are only a sample of 
what actually exists. 

Now in addition to the major issue this morning, that of oc- 
cupational exposure to pescicides, I would like to remind the 
committee that I think there are two other major areas in which 
pesticide injury may also occur. Accidental poisoning particularly 
from- discarding imJDroperly the containers used to transport pesti- 
cides, and lastly, those cases where pesticides may be used for 



3453 

intentional purposes, that is, suicide. We do become involved 
somewhat in the accidental poisoning area when a pesticide container 
may contaminate food in transit. We move vigorously to remove 
that contaminated food from the market. 

Senator Mondale. Suppose you find, for example, that a pesticide 
is being used in a way that endangers the lives and health of 
farmworkers. Is it your testimony this morning that there is 
nothing you can do with that information? 

Dr. Ley. Legally, as far as we in FDA are concerned, I do 
not believe there are any steps that we can take directly. Mr. Kirk 
reminds me that we do have one step which we can take and have 
taken where we find repeated reports of a type of injury which 
could be prevented by better instructions to the user of pesticides 
on the label of the container we can recommend that labeling be 
changed to reflect the health hazard we have identified. 

Senator Mondale. Would you say at this point the available 
Federal legislation and local legislation is substantially adequate to 
protect the farmworker from pesticide poisoning by exposure ? 

Dr. Let. I would much prefer to present for the record the 
staitements of Dr. Egeberg, Assistant Secretary for Health and 
Scientific Affairs, and ]Mr. Charles C. Johnson, Administrator, 
Consumer Protection and Environments' Health Services, in testi- 
fying on H.R. 13373. I believe these statements set forth the 
Department's views best. 

Senator ^Mondale. We would appreciate having them, and we 
will put them in the record, but what is your opinion? We have 
a lot of reports to read. What do you think? Do you think it is 
adequate ? 

(The prepared statements referred to above follow:) 

Peepabed Statement of Roger O. Egeberg, M.D., Assistant Secretary for 
Health and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of Health, Education, 
AND Welfare, Before the Select Subcommittee on Education and 
Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, September 18, 1969 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity 
to testify in support of H.R. 13373, "The Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1969." This important and necessary legislation has the wholehearted sup- 
port of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for a number of 
reasons which I should like to discuss briefly. 

May I say that while I am still rather new to my duties as Assistant Sec- 
retary for Health — and I am rapidly learning just how extensive and chal- 
lenging those duties are — I am no stranger to the broad complex field of occu- 
pational health. A good part of my professional career, both in research and in 
directing programs of health care and training, has brought me into very 
close contact with the health and safety hazards of workers. Right up 
until last year, I had a continuing and I think productive interest in the 
origins, effects, and control of a fungus disease that affect agricultural work- 
ers throughout the Southwestern States and elsewhere in the world. 

This is a disease that usually begins in the respiratory system, but that can 
and sometimes does spread throughout the body. If that happens, about half of 
the patients will die of the disease — it is called eocioidomycosis. Fortunately 
death is comparatively rare, and the occurrence of this particular occupational 
disease is declining. It nevertheless remains an important health problem in 
the Southwestern United States. 

But even more compelling evidence of the needless tragedy of occupational 
injury and death was brought home to me through my experience as Medical 
Director of the Los Angeles County Hospital. You cannot be involved in run- 



3454 

ning a large, public hospital in a major metropolitan area without seeing, al- 
most on a daily basis, the stark, cruel evidence of our failure to come to 
grips with the health and safety hazards that threaten millions of American 
workers. 

Maimed and broken bodies, poisoned lungs and kidneys, workers burned, 
blinded, or gravely injured in some other way — these are among the regular 
daily fare of hospitals in every part of the country. 

I don't want to dwell on unpleasant details. You know them as well as I, 
though we may have learned about them in different ways. 

We are exijeriencing a continuing national tragedy of occupational injury, 
disease, and death. The scope of this tragedy, the number of its victims, we 
can only guess at, and acknowledge that our guess is probably low. There are 
an estimated 14,000 work-related deaths each year, but I cannot help thinking 
that if we really had the power to see how many people are killed each year 
because of the work they do — those whose deaths are mistakenly assigned to 
some other cause — we would come up with a much larger figure, how much 
larger I frankly don't know. I wish I did, because if we could really tabulate 
the full extent of death, illness, and injury caused by the exercise of the right 
to earn a living, I think all of us would be appalled. 

Appalled and ashamed, and resolved as a nation to do whatever is within 
our power to put an end to the needless price in human suffering, not to 
mention economic waste, that society pays for occupational hazards. 

Mr. Chairman, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1969 represents 
an enlightened and urgently needed step toward control of the occupational 
health and safety spectre that is abroad in this land. Enactment of this 
legislation would provide the tools without which little real progress can be 
made toward improving occupational health and safety conditions in this coun- 
try. 

Its major tool, the establishment and enforcement of standards, is essential 
to progress in this field. Until meaningful standards are adopted with the 
force of law, I fear we cannot look for the kind and extent of health and 
safety protection that the American i>eople have every right to demand. 

Let me just say at this point that all of us are aware of the very sig- 
nificant strides toward improved working conditions that have been made 
by many segments of industry, by agencies of government at the Federal, 
State, and local levels, by organized labor, and by many others who are 
deeply committed to the control of occupational hazards. This is by no means ' 
a barren field of endeavor ; it is a very fertile one, and I think it is highly im- 
portant that the Administration Bill now before this committee proposes to 
build on what has been accomplished rather than to undercut important work 
that has been going on for decades. 

Moreover, the Bill recognizes that setting and enforcing standards, no 
matter how appropriate and sound they may be, will not by itself solve this 
country's problems in occupational health and safety. We badly need better and 
more complete knowledge of occupational hazards, particularly of those in- 
sidious hazards whose effects may not be observable for many years. We need 
a continuing flow of knowledge as the basis for standard-changing, for we can- 
not assume that any health or safety standard can ever be good for all time. 

Furthermore, it will take a great many more people to launch a meaningful 
attack on the problems of occupational safety and health. These people, par- 
ticularly at the State and local level, will have to be trained, and the Ad- 
ministration Bill would make it possible for the Department of Labor and the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to support that training. 

I think it is unnecessary for me to itemize the provisions of H.R. 13373. The 
important thing is that they constitute a very sound marriage of the respon- 
sibilities and capabilities of the two Federal Departments most directly con- 
cerned, the new National Occupational Safety and Health Board that would 
be established under the law, the State agencies whose role would be greatly 
strengthened by enactment of the Bill, and the private sector whose contribution 
to this field would be recognized and encouraged, as indeed it mu.st be. 

Let me conclude by saying this : The Department to which I have lately come, 
and primarily the Public Health Service, has long endeavoi'ed to improve the 
status of occupational health in this country. Our efforts have been modest, but 
productive. We look forward to the opportunity that the i>ending legislation 
will give us to take part in a greatly expanded and strengthened effort on be- 
half of the health and safety of America's working population. The new au- 



3455 

thorities this legislation would provide us — to participate in the development 
of meaningful standards, to carry out and support needed research, to train 
needed manpower — these und the additional resiwnsibilities that would be ours 
under this legislation will give us the tools we need to do the urgent task that 
is to be done. 

On behalf of the Department of Health. Education, and Welfare I urge 
favorable consideration of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1969 
so that our country can redouble the vital work of controlling the unnecessary 
and intolerable hazards that are too often part of the working environment. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions or, if you pi-efer, Mr. Chairman, 
to ask Mr. Johnson and Dr. Ley to continue this presentation with a more de- 
tailed discussion of our activities and the legislation before your committee. 



Prepared Statement of Charles C. Johnson, Jr., Administrator, Consumer 
Protection and Environmental Health Service, Public Health Service, 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Before the Select Sub- 
committee ON Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of 
Represe n t atives 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I welcome this opportunity 
to offer the support of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for 
enactment of H.R. 13373, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1969. 

As President Nixon pointed out in his August 6 message to the Congress, 
this Act "will go beyond the limited 'accident' orientation of the past, giving 
greater attention to health considerations, which are often difficult to perceive 
and which have often been overlooked." The President has expressed it 
succinctly. 

Occupational health hazards have been too long neglected. But as our per- 
ception of these problems has increased, so has the demand for whatever 
changes are necessary to provide adequate protection for workers. Passage of 
H.R. 13373 will enable us to respond to this demand. 

There are 80 million Americans who go to work each day. Their on-the-job 
environment is of vital concern to the Consumer Protection and Environmental 
Health Service. The Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health in our Environ- 
mental Control Administration is continually developing new information about 
job-related diseases and methods of control. But there must be a means to 
translate this knowledge into effective action to protect the health of workers. 
Let me describe for you, if I may, Mr. Chairman, some of the elements 
of the occupational setting that we recognize today. There are, in reality, two 
facets of the problem : 

One the one hand, we still have with us old problems — health hazards that 
in some cases go back as far as the Bronze age. Lead, zinc, mercury, silica 
sand, carbon tetrachloride, carbon monoxide, and many other industrial 
exposures have been well studietl, and there is sufficient knowledge available to 
control them. But still they offer threats to workers. Control procedures break 
down, are ignored, or are allowed to deteriorate. Our occupational health people 
recently re.studied lead and zinc smelters in one State, and found that con- 
trols instituted almost 20 years ago had deteriorated to the point where they 
were little better than those they had replaced. In oher words, we have en- 
tered the Space Age without really solving some of the problms that first 
became widespread at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. 

At the same time, technology has created a whole new kind of work environ- 
ment, with a whole new set of hazards and potential hazards. In this new 
world, the threats themselves are little understood and control technology, in 
many cases, is not perfected. 

For example, high energy sources, such as lasers, which just a few years ago 
were tools of the scientist, are now commonplace in industry. 

Berllium, a highly toxic metal which was used in the manufacture of 
fluore&H?ent light bulbs until chronic beryllium poisoning was recognized as a 
health hazard to workers, is now finding new applications, primarily in the 
atomic energy field and the space effort. 

Xew processes and massive, high-speed, frequently automated, industrial 
machines have created possibilities for accidental injury that go far be- 
yond the worker's capability for self-protection. 

36-513 O— 70— pt. 6B 7 



3456 

It is patently impossible for the worker to take responsibility for his own 
health and safety in this complex world of physical and chemical hazards which 
are little understood even by the experts. 

The fact is that man has created a new environment but he has not created 
a new man. We are the products of a slow evolutionary process, and we still 
have the same physical characteristics that our caveman ancestors had. We 
still need clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and are still helpless ] 
against unseen or uncontrollable hazards in the environment We have de- 
veloped no second sight that tells us when an invisible beam or a seemingly 
harmless vapor is doing insidious damage to our health. 

Certainly every worker needs to be made aware of the hazards he con- 
fronts in the workplace and educated to exercise caution — to "watch his step," 
to wear earplugs and a hard hat and safety shoes were required. 

But we must also create a working environment in which such a person, 
exercising reasonable care, can be assured that sudden death or the slow 
process of industrial diseases will not be the wages of his work. 

Certainly the occupational respiratory diseases, in terms of severity, repre- 
sent one of the our most important occupational health problems, and one in 
which adequate controls would pay big dividends, both in reduction of human 
suffering and in dollars and cents savings to the workers affected, to industry, 
and to the taxpayer. 

Three and a half million American workers are exposed to asbestos in their 
jobs. They face a dual threat: not only are they subject to the lung scarring 
pneumoconiosis of their trade, asbestosis, but they are endangered by lung can- 
cer associated with the inhalation of asbestos fibers. Recent studies of asbestos 
insulators showed that one of every 5 deaths in this group were caused by lung 
cancer — 7 times the expected rate. Half of the men who had worked in the 
trade had X-ray evidence of asbestosis. One in every 10 deaths were caused 
by mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung pleura, so rare that it strikes only 1 
in 10,000 in the general working ix)pulation. 

Black lung, or coal miners' pneumoconiosis, is a term which has become very , 
familiar to us in the past few months. This disease — which the British call 
simply "chronic bronchitis" — is caused by the inhalation of soft coal dust. It 
is a progressive, crippling lung disease, often complicated by emphysema in 
the later stages. The death rate from respiratory diseases in soft coal min- 
ers is 5 times that of the general working population. 

There are other industries whose workers run an extremely high risk of 
respiratory disease. Uranium mining, for example, presents a very serious 
problem. Of the 6,000 men who have been uranium miners, an estimated 600 
to 1,100 will die of lung cancer within the next 20 years because of radiation 
exposure on the job. 

Over 3,000 eases of silicosis are reported yearly from exposure to free 
silica — the major ingredient of all rocks, soils, sands and clay. 

For years, we had the comfortable illusion that byssinosis, the lung disease 
caused by inhaling cotton dust, was not a problem for American textile work- j 
ers. Even though British workers using American cotton came down with this 
crippling lung disease, we relied on a limited X-ray survey done years ago I 
which did not reveal a byssinosis problem. Now, our scientists are discovering! 
that America's 230,000 cotton textile workers are also threatened by this ' 
respiratory disease. 

Tale, diatomite, carborundum, sugar cane fiber, even dust from moldy silage 
all prcxiuce their own form of lung damage, wherever dust control and worker 
protection are inadequate. 

Our National record in preventing occupational respiratory disease is not a 
good one. We have allowed too many productive people to become disabled, 
and finally to die prematurely, because we have not paid attention to con-i 
trolling the dust, fumes, and vapors to which they are exposed. 

We know by now, Mr. Chairman, that the chronic inhalation of any foreign' 
material — cigarette smoke, polluted air, coal dust, or asbestos fibers and 
many others — can harm the lungs and cause disease. Since we also know that, 
for the most part, occupational respiratory diseases are preventable diseases, 
I believe we have a clear responsibility to take action to prevent them. 

Up to now, unfortunately, there has been no systematic, sustained attack 
on either the job-related respiratory diseases or a variety of other occupational 
hazards. 

It is true that during World Wars I and II, there were peaks of activity 



3457 

in connection with health hazards in the war industries. In the late 40's and 
early 50's, the Congress stimulated an expansion of State activities by ear- 
marking categorical funds from the general grant-in-aid program for the de- 
velopment of State industrial hygiene programs. 

Since then, however, we have lost ground. Many of the State programs 
which were quite active in the early 50's have been reduced to little more than 
token operations. There are still a number of highly effective State occupa- 
tional health programs, but the majority require expansion and improvement. 

The Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health recently analyzed the status 
of occupational health programs of State and local govei-nments and reviewed 
State occupational health legislation. I submit these reports for the record. 

Deficiencies in the State programs are largely related to lack of funds, 
low salary scales, and lack of administrative and legislative supix)rt. The 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1969 can provide the means to correct 
these shortcomings and establish an effective Federal-State partnership for 
the control of occupational health hazards. 

In addition, 'Sir. Chairman, H.R. 13373 will establish a mechanism at the 
national level for developing occupational health and safety standards and as- 
suring uniform enforcement. 

Under the Act, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is charged 
with the responsibility to conduct the research, experiments, and demon- 
strations which will assist in producing criteria that will enable the National 
Occupational Safety and Health Board to formulate safety and health 
standards. 

As I indicated earlier, our Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health is al- 
ready engaged in this kind of research. Studies currently underway relate 
to occupational hazards of asbestos, beryllium, coal, uranium, and noise. We 
have also had experience in developing criteria for standards. Last December, 
for example, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare recom- 
mended an interim standard for bituminous coal dust to the Secretary of In- 
terior. We are now developing a method for prescribing criteria to be used in 
recommending an interim standard for exposure to asbestos. 

Such criteria, however, cannot protect a single worker from job-related 
diseases unless standards are promulgated and effectively enforced. This is 
what H.R. 13373 is designed to do. 

Another responsibility of the Department of Health. Education, and Wel- 
fare under H.R. 13373 is to conduct a comprehensive study and evaluation of 
occupational health problems and to transmit a report, with recommenda- 
tions, to the President and the Congress. 

This type of study is critically needed to give us better information than 
we have now on the incidence of occupational disease, to pinpoint problem 
areas, and to help us establish priorities in attacking these problems. 

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare also would have the 
responsibility under H.R. 13373 to conduct educational programs to provide an 
adequate supply of qualified personnel to carry out the purposes of this Act. 

At the present time, there is a serious shortage of personnel in all areas of 
occupational health. There is an immediate need for approximately 28,000 
additional industrial hygienists, physicians, nurses, and scientists to protect 
adequately the Nation's workforce. 

TABLE I.— OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH MANPOWER 
Category Needed Available Deficit 

Industrial hygienists— all sectors 

Industrial physicians— all sectors 

Industrial nurses— all sectors ._ 

Occupational health scientists... 

Total _ 52,935 24,835 28,100 

Estimates for manpower needs in the several States are based on criteria 
using (a) data obtained from Statewide and city wide surveys, (b) analysis 
of on-going programs, and (c) the distribution of the working i>opulation in four 
Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) c-ategories. 

We must stimulate programs to develop an adequate supply of manpower 
for inspection and control activities in the field of occupational safety and 
health. 



2, 335 


1,335 


1,000 


6, 000 


2,900 


3,100 


35, 000 


19, 000 


16, 000 


9,600 


1,600 


8,000 



3458 

The Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health has already developed a plan 
for an in-service training program to give recent college graduates an in- 
tensive course in occupational safety and health, including formal classroom 
instruction and on-the-job experience. This will enable the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare to meet its immediate need for personnel to 
carry out its responsibilities under the Act. 

In considering the overall need for occupational health personnel, it is clear 
that if we are to use fully our pre.sent professionals, they must be freed from 
the sub-professional work which now consumes much of their time and energy. 
Para-professionals should be used to extend the effectiveness of the pro- 
fession of industrial hygiene and occupational health nursing. Technicians 
should be trained to take samples, monitor the effects of operation engineering 
controls, and conduct routine laboratory analyses. 

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to touch upon the major provisions of H.R. 
1337 that relate to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This 
Department has been concerned with occupational hazai'ds since the Office of 
Industrial Hygiene was established within the Public Health Service in 1914. 
In all the years that have i>assed since then, we have learned much about 
the health problems that exist in the workplace; we have also learned that 
we need a more effective instrument to attack these problems. The Occupa- 
tional Safety and Health Act of 1969 will enable the Nation to get on with 
this important task. 

My colleagues and I will be happy to respond to any questions you may 
have. 

Dr. Let. There is a continuing evolution, Mr. Chairman, in my 
opinion, in the protection of workers in this country, "We have 
seen several stages in bridgeworkers, tunnelworkers, mineworkers, 
and I believe that on the basis of some of the comments here this 
morning there may be reason for the committee to consider additional 
steps in this area. But I am not aware of the total problem. I would 
be foolish to provide any more than a very mere comment of 
this sort. 

Senator INIondale. We had testimony some time back that where, 
for example, your people would see evidence of pesticide exposure 
farmworkers, that you could advise the Department of Agriculture 
which does have authority to issue cease and desist orders or, I 
gather, bring criminal prosecutions under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, Rodenticide Act. 

Has that ever been done, or don't we understand that correctly? 

Dr. Ley. Perhaps the person best equipped to answer would be 
our general counsel, JSIr. Gottlieb. 

Mr. Gottlieb. As I understand the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Eodenticide Act, when they find a violation they can have 
the product seized or bring a criminal prosecution. 

Senator Mondale. Are you suggesting that there is a cease and 
desist possibility but are there certain remedies existing in the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture that could be used to protect farmworkers where 
they are exposed to pesticide poisoning? 

Mr. Gottlieb. I am not that familiar with the statute, Mr. Chair- 
man. I do know that the Department of Agriculture exercises 
control over the labeling of the insecticide, which includes bearing 
of cautions and warnings "^hey are charged by the statute to con- 
cern themselves with injury to humans. AVhether that is limited 
to applicators or extends as far as bystander, I really do not know. 

Senator Mondale. Are you suggesting that there is a question 
of whether humans includes farmworkers? 

Mr. Gottlieb. No, you have to read the statute in its whole 
context. 



3459 

Senator Mondale. Would you respond to this question in writing 
to the subcommittee? You might take a look at it, and tell us 
what the situation is, because there seems to be a conflict. One of 
our witnesses said that there was this responsibility in the Department 
of Agriculture, and that the Public Health Service could and 
should be notified. You might refer to the statement by Mr. Gordon 
before this subcommittee on August 1, where he makes this point. 

(The information referred to follows:) 

Protection of Workers Against Pesticides 

The President's Science Advisory Committee on "Use of Pesticides" in 1963 
recognized that there was a need for greater coordination between the various 
agencies and in its report recommended that the Seci'etaries of Agriculture, In- 
terior, and Health, Education, and Welfare review and define their respective 
roles. The Committee also recommended that health functions relating to pesti- 
cides be vested in DHEW. Pursuant to this report and its i-ecommendations, a 
Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Agriculture, the De- 
partment of the Interior, and the Department of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare was entered into in 1964 in order to effectively coordinate the functions of 
the three Departments. (Copy of the Memorandum is attached). The Public 
Health Service of the Department of HEW in accord with the Agreement, was 
assigned the responsibility to review labels submitted to the Depai-tment of 
Agriculture and advise the USDA on health aspects associated with the use 
of pesticide chemicals such as warnings against undue exposure to the popu- 
lation, especially in household applications and to field workers. The FDA 
of the DHEW continued the review of intended uses of i)esticides which might 
result in food contamination and the establishment of safe tolerances. 

The agreement in general calls for exchange of information between the 
three Departments on uses of pesticides. Specifically, it requires USDA to 
furnish to the other two Departments, on a weekly basis, a listing of all pro- 
posals affecting registration and requires DHEW to furnish a weekly listing 
of all proposals affecting tolerances. Procedures and time limitations were 
specified for the lodging of objections. When objections are lodged, two weeks 
are provided for Departmental representatives to reach agreement. If this fails, 
the matter is referred to the Secretary of the DeiJartment responsible for final 
action in the situation and he is then responsible for making the final de- 
termination. The other Departments are also to receive advance notification of 
such final determination. 

In July 1968, the function of reviewing pesticide labels for matters related 
to health as well as other health related activities was transferred to the FDA 
from the Communicable Disease Center of the Public Health Service. 

In April 1969, Secretary Finch announced the creation of ar. HEW Com- 
mission on Pesticides and their Relationship to Environmental Health. The 
members of the Commission were charged to explore the field of enAironmental 
pollution and its consequent risks to the health of the people of this country, 
and to make specific recommendations for action. The Commission has made 
its review and submittetl its recommendations. Their first recommendation was 
that a new interagency agreement be written between DHEW-USDA-USDI 
to tighten the control of registration and to develop cooperative approaches to 
the control of health hazards and environmental pollution. The Commission's 
second recommendation was to strengthen coordination of i)esticide activities 
within DHEW. Implementation of these recommendations is under con- 
sideration, as indicated in the attached statement bv Secretary Finch on No- 
vember 12, 1969. 



Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of Agriculture, the 
Department of the Interior, and the Department of Health, Education. 
and Welfare on Interdepartmental Coordination of Activities Relating 
to Pesticides 



purpose 



Coordination of activities of the three departments pertaining to pesticides 
with special reference to registration and the setting of tolerances to give 



3460 

effect to the pertinent recommendations of the May 15, 1963, report of the 
President's Science Advisory Committee on "Use of Pesticides." 

EXISTING DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES 

The following responsibilities of the respective departments relate to the 
registration of pesticides and the setting of tolerances for pesticide residues : 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Conserving beneficial 
wild birds, mammals, fish and their food organisms and habitat, with regard 
to pesticides. 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Public Health Service. 
Protecting and improving the health of man in regard to pesticides. 

Food and Drug Administration. Establishing tolerances for i>esticides in or 
on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. 

Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. Providing for the 
safe and effective use of pesticides, including the registration thereof. 

1. Infoi'Ttiation 

Each department undertakes to keeiJ each of the other departments fully 
informed of developments in knowledge on this subject from research or other 
sources which may come into its possession. Additionally, the Deixirtment of 
Agriculture undertakes to furnish to the other two departments on a weekly 
basis a listing of all proposals affecting registration and re-registration, and 
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare undertakes to furnish to the 
other two departments on a weekly basis a listing of all proposals affecting 
tolerances. Upon request, the Departments of Agriculture and Health, Educa- 
tion, and Welfare respectively will furnish to the other departments full in- 
formation about any pending action on registration or the setting of a tolerance. 

2. Procedure 

(a) Each department will designate a scientist to act on behalf of such de- 
partment in carrying out the terms of this agreement. The weekly listings 
from the Departments of Agriculture and Health, Education, and Welfare and 
any additional information relating thereto will be directed to these representa- 
tives. 

(b) The departmental representative will review the weekly listings of 
actions pending. If there is reason to question any of the items on that list, this 
will be communicated to the originating department within one week stating 
the specific reason for need for further review. 

(c) Upon receipt of such request the originating department will furnish the 
necessary information and make the necessary arrangements for further re- 
view and will withhold final action on the matter for an additional three week.s. 

(d) If one department concludes that the proix)sal should be rejected in 
whole or in part, this view shall be expressed in writing and shall be sup- 
ported by appropriate scientific evidence. Upon being notified, the department 
responsible for final action will take the initiative to work out a basis for 
agreement. 

(e) In the event agreement is not reached among the department repre- 
sentatives within two weeks of the initial objection, the matter will then be 
referred directly to the Secretary of the department responsible for final action 
with such information, views, and recommendations as the three department 
representatives deem appropriate. 

(f) The Secretary of the department charged with final action may then 
avail himself of whatever administrative and scientific review procedures seem 
appropriate under the circumstances. The other two departments will be noti- 
fied in advance of the proposed final determination of the issues. 

(g) The department representatives will jointly make a quarterly report 
concerning their activities to the secretaries of the three departments. 

(h) The deiKirtmental representatives are authorized to review questions 
involving existing patterns of use of pesticides or tolerances upon which they 
have reason to believe that critical questions exist. 

S. Conference 

At least once each year the departmental representatives will arrange a 
general conference to discuss research needs, research program and policy, and 
the application of research findings in action programs, including public in- 
formation relating to pesticides. 



3461 

4. Federal Pest Control Review Board 

The Federal Pest Control Review Board may be asked from time to time 
to consider broad questions on policies relating to pesticides involving the in- 
terrelationships of control programs, research, registration, tolerances, and 
general departmental recommendations to the public. 

Date April 8, 1964. 
Date March 27, 1964. 
Date April 3, 1964. 

Orville L. Freeman, 
Secretary, Department of Agriculture. 

Stewart L. Udall, 
Secretary, Department of the Interior. 
Anthony J. Celebrezze, 
Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 



Principal Department Representatr'es to Administer Agreement on 
Interdepartmental Coordination of Certain Pesticides 

activities 

Department of Agriculture. Dr. Robert J. Anderson, Associate Adminis- 
trator, Agricultural Research Service, Room 302-A Administration Building, 
Telephone : 111-3658. 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Principal Department Repre- 
sentative : Dr. Richard A. Priudle, Director, BDPEC, Room 2006, DHEW So. 
Bldg., Telephone: 13-23191. 

Temp. Mr. Frank ;McFarland, FDA Petition Control Branch, Bureau of 
Science, Telephone : 13-24524. Associate Department Representative for Food 
and Drug Administration Matters, Mr. J. Kenneth Kirk, Assistant Commissioner 
for Compliance, Food and Drug Administration, Room 3354, HEW North 
Building, Telephone : 13-23012. 

Dr. Richard A. Prindle, As.sociate Department Representative for Public 
Health Service Matters: Dr. Robert J. Anderson, Chief, BDPEC, Public 
Health Service, Room 2006. HEW South Building, Telephone: 13-23191. 

Department of tlie Interior. Dr. Raymond E. Johnson, Associate Director, 
Research, Bureau of Sport, Fisheries, and Wildlife, Room 3248 Interior 
Building, Telephone : 183-5313. 

Mr. Gottlieb, The statute Mr. Chairman, is a creature of the 
Congress. The Congress determines how the statute shall be applied. 

Now if the Congress in its report, for example, with respect to 
the Federal Insecticide', Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which I 
am not suggesting is the case, but if it did say that the injury which 
the Department shall be concerned with shall be limited to that 
described by testimony presented to the committee, whatever it 
was, that is what the courts will determine to be the parameters of 
the exercise of power by the agency. 

Senator ]Moxdale. I appreciate that you have to obey the law, and 
you don't have authority which isn't yours. Where the statute is 
vague, you have to look at the total context. That is understood. 
Rut what is your opinion of whether there is a role here played 
by HEW in reporting violations. I gather this is something you 
would like to look at further and, if you would, would you be 
kind enough to advise the committee as to what the opinion of 
the Department is as it relates to whetlier you do or do not have 
a role in helping to protect farmworkers? 

Mr. Gottlieb. I would be glad to. Mr. Chairman. 

(The information referred to follows:) 



3462 

DHEW Role in Helping to Protect Farm Workers From Pesticide Hazards 

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is concerned over the 
possibility of injury or hazard to the public by a number of products, in- 
cluding pesticides. Occupational hazards to farm workers, applicators, etc., in- 
volving i)ersticides, are not presently encompassed in the statutory authority of 
the Department. It is pointed out that regardless of any lack of statutory 
authority, when and if any hazardous condition or practice which could imperil 
human health is observed by our staff, such would be brought to the attention 
of appropriate officials or persons. The Department does, in carrying out its 
responsibilities set forth in the USDA-USDI-DHEW Interdeixirtmeutal agree- 
ment, make recommendations for label warnings designed to promote the 
safe use of pesticides. The results of these studies may provide valuable in- 
formation on the hazards of pesticides to farm workers 

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare also pursues energetic 
educational programs directed toward lay citizens and health professionals, the 
first one on safe use of pesticides and the other on pesticide poisoning : its 
diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. These programs are carried out through 
personal contact, speaking engagements, audiovisual materials (films, TV spots), 
printed material, and formal class instruction. In addition, whenever an actual 
poisoning comes to the Department's attention, details are published in the 
morbidity-mortality repoi't as a reminder to the health profession. This is the 
Department's present role in dealing with pesticide hazards to farm workers. 



[News Release, November 12, 1969] 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of the 
Secretary Washington, D.C. 20201 

All statements and reports issued today are embargoed until the question 
and answer session of the news conference. 
November 12, 1969. 

Statement of Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare 
ON the Commission on Pesticides 

This April, I announced the creation of an HEW Commission on Pesticides. 
Dr. Emil Mrak, former Chancellor of the University of California at Davis 
and an internationally recognized food scientist, accepted the position of 
Commission Chairman. He put together a distinguished committee of experts 
from a wide selection of disciplines and immediately set to work. The Com- 
mission had the full support of a backux) team of staff experts from HEW 
agencies, and from the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. You have a 
list of the Commission members. At this time I wish to express my gratitude 
for their devotion and dedication. 

In the course of their review, they examined scientific reports on over 600 
active pesticidal chemicals which are in use in this country and which are 
formulated in more than 60,000 ways. 

Commission members were charged to bring back specific recommendations 
for action and they did. Several weeks of editing and printing time remain 
before the full Commission Report can be published. 

I have chosen at this time to release the sijecific recommendations made by 
the Commission and to discuss the action we are taking and which we pro- 
pose to take. 

The Commission's first recommendation was that a new interagency agree- 
ment be written between this deiwirtment and the departments of Agriculture 
and Interior to tighten control of registration and develop cooperative approaches 
to the control of health hazards and environmental pollution. As it now stands 
the legal authority to register i)esticides is vested in the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, but we are working toward a new agreement that would preclude the 
registration of any i^sticide on which either the Secretary of HEW or of the 
Interior is not fully satisfied. I have discussed this matter with Secretary 
Hardin and with Secretary Hickel and I feel that a cooperative agreement 
ensuring full consideration and attention to the health and environmental 
impact of pesticides will be accomplished without asking for new legislation. 
As a step in this direction, I will refer the Commission's Reiwrt to the Environ- 
mental Quality Council. I have had discussions on this with Dr. Lee Du- 



3463 

Bridge, and he assures me it will be on the agenda at the group's next meeting 
on November 20. 

The Commission members did not hesitate to take a candid look at this de- 
partment and their second recommendation to us was to strengthen our de- 
partmental coordination. The plain fact is that the responsibility for ac- 
tivities relating to the health hazards of i>esticides has been widely scattered 
throughout HEW. Efforts to draw HEW ijesticide functions together have 
been underway, and I have directed Assistant Secretary Roger O. Egeberg 
to review HEW research and regulatory programs for pesticides to be sure 
that we have a consolidated and unified effort. 

We come now to the specific chemical that stimulated us to call the Com- 
mission together initially. The finding of excessive concentrations of DDT 
in coho salmon caused us to launch this study into the use of iiesticides, their 
effect upon food safety, and the adequacy of our knowledge of their effects 
upon human health. 

While DDT certainly has saved many lives in many countries, nevertheless 
it is the conclusion of the CommLssion that the use of DDT and DDD be 
restricted within two years to those uses essential to the preservation of 
human health or welfare and approved unanimously by the Secretaries of 
HEW, Agriculture, and Interior. 

It should be emphasized, nonetheless, that despite the restrictions we will 
set on its usage, unavoidable residues of DDT will continue to be found in 
the ecological chain for a period of years. We will liave to set up reasonable 
methods to make use of our food supply without undue hazard to human 
health, but in full recognition of the DDT it may already contain. 

One of the basic research problems that the Commission has brought to 
our attention is that both industry and public agencies tend to focus research 
attention on the new and exiierimental. Industry does this because its efforts 
must be geared to proving the safety of a pesticide so that it can be placed 
on the market. Government research tends this way because it must be pre- 
pared to exercise judgment as to the safety of the newly offered products. 

However, it is a recommendation of the Commission that more research 
be directefl toward gaining a further understanding of the ecological dy- 
namics and public health implications of DDT even though we will be using 
much less of it. As the persistent pesticide most widely distributed in the en- 
vironment it is worthy of our continued study. 

There are several other pesticides and families of compounds that are per- 
sistent and that can cause environmental contamination. The Commission has 
specifically i>ointed them out and suggested restricted usage, in the fourth 
recommendation. Registration of labels and clearances for usage of all of these 
pesticides, including DDT, are resxwnsibilities of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
I have di.scussetl the Commission Report with Secretary Hardin and will make 
every effort to implement these recommendations. 

Inherent in all of these decisions is the extremely difficult problem of 
measuring hazards to human health. The whole matter of transferring results 
of animal experiments to prediction of human effects still relies heavily on the 
intuitive judgment of skilled observers. We do feel that prudent steps must be 
taken to minimize human exix)sure to chemicals that demonstrate undesirable 
responses in the laboratory at any level. There should be continuing review 
and adjustment of pesticide residue tolerances. 

We must protect the health and welfare of the public. That is the basic 
charge of this Department. But it is not in the best interest of the public to 
permit unduly precipitate or restrictive action based only on anxiey. The in- 
discriminate setting of zero tolerances for widely distributed pesticides could 
have a disastrous effect upon our national sui>i>ly of essential foods. 

This has been stated by the Commission, which further suggests that 
pesticide tolerances might be measured against graded standards that take 
into consideration both the need for public health protection and the need 
for producing an adequate and wholesome food supply. Existing law requires 
us to take both factors into account in establishing iJesticide tolerances. 

This recommendation appears to be the most realistic basis for a sound 
and sensible policy to be followed by this department in meeting its public 
health responsibilities. We are instructing the affected agencies in HEW to 
study this recommendation and advise me as to appropriate implementation. 
We will also announce soon the makeup of a Pesticide Advisory Committee 
to assist our staff. This group, as was the Commission, will be drawn from 
professional, industrial and academic specialists in related fields. Judging 
from the work of the Commission, it should be of great assistance to us in 



3464 

identifying gaps in research that need to be closed, and in evaluating the 
complex risks and benefits that must be considered in establishing tolerances 
and standards for pesticide usage. 

To enable us to proceed with this policy of reevaluation it is important that 
we interpret the Delaney amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act specifically as it was enacted. This amendment requires the removal from 
interstate commerce of any food additive shown to be capable of inducing 
cancer when fed to experimental animals. The Delaney Amendment was 
conceived in high purpose and has served a useful function. The Department's 
General Counsel has pointed out that the Delaney Amendment does not 
apply to pesticide chemical residues in raw agricultural commodities or in 
foods processed from lawful crops. Not does it apply to the unavoidable 
environmental contamination of foods. The unbelievably sophisticated and 
sensitive measuring devices now in the skilled hands of our laboratory tech- 
nicians can measure one twentieth part of one unit in a billion. Measurement 
techniques have improved 1000 fold since the Delaney Amendment was en- 
acted eleven years ago. If the Delaney Amendment, as it now written, were 
to be strictly enforced for pesticide residues it would convert us to a nation 
of vegetarians. Much of our red meat, many dairy products, some eggs, 
fowl and fish — all parts of basic food groups deemed necessary to a balanced 
diet — would be outlawed because of very small pesticide residues from the 
ecological chain. 

The Commission has made a number of somewhat technical recommenda- 
tions having to do with the pooling of our information, the development of 
pesticide protection teams and increasing support for research into pesticides 
and their relationship to human health and the environment. They have 
drawn attention to vast gaps in our basic knowledge. We must establish 
priorities for this research and mobilize the scientific talents of the nation 
to fill in this needed information. 

We especially need support for programs to better evaluate the benefits of 
specific pesticides and their relation to alernative methods of pest control. 
We need to develop less hazardous pest control techniques that are highly 
specific and leave a minimum of persistent chemicals in the environment. There 
is inherent a basic need for an improved understanding of the relationship 
of man to his environment, and a very real need to improve our techniques 
for predicting the effects of chemicals on man himself. 

We can feed in bred laboratory rats doses of chemical many times the 
usual human exposure and some of the animals may develop tmnors. We 
cannot translate this information to man with certainty, therefore we must 
continue to improve our animal predicting systems, so that they will have 
more and more relevance to man. 

The Commission suggested that we sharpen our legislative and administra- 
tive policies concerning labeling and advertising practices, the granting of 
experimental labels, and on the very important and too often neglected matter 
of the safe handling and disposal of pesticides. They also suggest the moni- 
toring and control of effluents from plants manufacturing, formulating or 
using pesticides. They have specifically suggested that the current Model 
Pesticides Law that we suggest to states and local communities be expanded 
to properly cover the disposal of surplus pesticides and used containers. We 
we will be drafting administrative changes and model legislation to conform 
to these very practical suggestions. This will be done in consultation with 
the Council of State Governments. And we will make a greater effort to 
obtain state and local adoption of the model law. 

Our responsibility is to the American people, but the problem of environ- 
mental pesticide pollution is global. It requires international cooperation to 
solve problems of these dimensions. Canada, Great Britain, Sweden and many 
other nations have shown an awareness of the hazards to man's environment 
and are fellow workers in this field. We have cooperated in the training of 
technical personnel from other countries, and we must increase our partici- 
pation in international cooperative efforts to abate contamination. 

In this discussion of administrative and legislative proposals we may forget 
that it is not your government that manufactures and markets pesticides. It 
is private industry. The chemical firms that manufacture and formulate 
pesticides carry the burden of proving their safety and efBcaey before any 
such chemical can be marketed. The Commission found in its study that 
55% of the funds spent nationally for agricultural research is spent by private 
industry. It further estimates that there is an investment of around $6 



3465 

million in research and development before a new pesticide reaches the 
market. 

It is right that we ask industry to provide us with pesticides that are 
highly specific in their action, targeted to do only one job with a minimum of 
persistence in the environment and few, if any, side effects on non-target 
species. But when we do this we are also asking industry to look at a smaller 
market, and a larger cost 

There is still little doubt that our actions will discourage investments in this 
field unless we provide some incentives for this very important job. We will 
be meeting with industry leaders, to consider a wide-range of suggestions. 
It is important that all of us who are involved, government and industry 
alike, work together toward solving the essential problems of our environ- 
ment and we intend to pursue the matter of industry cooperation vigorously. 

In conclusion, you may well ask "Where are we now? How much do we 
know about pesticides? How much do we know about their effect on man and 
his environment?" 

I can tell you that with the report of this Commission we have made a 
sound beginning. The Commission's study shows that we, as a nation, have a 
tremendous need for ecological research on a large scale, We have an under- 
standing of the methods of evaluating safety and establishing safety standards 
from certain types of injuries, but we need to learn more about the basic 
metabolic processes of the human animal. 

We have to know more about the effects of the chemicals we use. We 
welcome the cooperation of industry in the search for alternatives to some 
of the pesticides we now employ. 

Overall, pesticides have been of great benefit to mankind through controlling 
diseases and by increasing his food supply. It is essential that their intelli- 
gent use not be accompanied by unintentioned hazards to man or to his 
wholesome environment. Continued research and continued evaluation of man's 
ecology can provide us the necessary guidance. 

Senator Mondale. "Wlien you were notified about a month ago 
of these conflicting laboratory reports by Safeway, we called and 
asked for copies of the reports. You refused to give them to us. 
AVhy was that? 

Mr. Kirk. Mr. Chertkov called me one evening and we discussed 
it. He said he just got through talking to the Safeway people. 
He said he understood I had the reports and he would like to get 
them. I explained that I did not have all of the reports. I only 
had the two England Laboratoiy reports. I told him that we had 
looked into the England work on the first one and we had concluded 
that we had serious question, let us put it that way, that the labora- 
tory had correctly interpreted the results. I told him that I had never 
heard of the Eastawai Laboratories until this incident arose, that 
I did know of the other laboratory and had known of its work for 
years. I did not have all of the reports. They were essentially 
Safeway property, presumably Safeway paid for them. They had 
all three of them or all four, as you want to call them. I asked 
him if he had asked Safeway for them. I don't recall exactly 
what he said, but I don't think he said yes or said no. 

Senator Moxdale. What bothers me, maybe you can respond to 
this, is that FDA's report said there were no pesticides on any 
grapes. 

Mr. Kirk. That is right. 

Senator Moxdale. But you knew, or did shortly thereafter, 
that there were four samples taken in this area which showed high 
aldrin residues. How does the public protect itself? We couldn't get 
the information from you. You would not give it to us. 



3466 

Mr. Kirk. I had no hestitation in giving the information to him, 
sir. I gave him exactly the figures that they had given me. 

Senator Mondale. Let me put it this way, if we had not found 
out about it through the underground, this committee would have 
been left with only one bit of information, yours, that there 
is no problem at all. I take it that it is only through inadvertence 
that we know there is this question. 

I wonder how Congress does its work when it must rely upon 
that kind of circuitous, unauthorized source of information. 

Mr. Kirk. Well, sir, I didn't know about these Safeway reports 
until a representative of your committee got in touch with Dr. 
Meyer of the CPE office, and he got in touch with me. 

Senator Mondale. He did not know either. 

Mr. Kirk. I received a call from Dr. Meyer which said that 
he had been told that your committee people had learned of some 
results by Safeway. He asked me to find out about them, and I did. 

Senator Mondale. There is an old principle of law that when you 
are trying a lawsuit and there is relevant information that you 
know about, which is essential to proper factual determination, 
even if it is contrary to your case, you have a duty to disclose 
it, that silence is not neutral at that point. 

I don't want to be critical but I think we could have had a little 
more help from you than we got. 

One final question : Did you review all three samples prepared by 
the England laboratories? 

Mr. Burke. No, sir. I only saw the gas chromatographic record 
from one sample and the paper chromatographic record from one 
sample. 

Senator Mondale. Is that the first sample? 

Mr. Burke. I assume it was because we were talking specifically 
about aldrin. I can't absolutely say it was, though. 

Senator Mondale. So tha* the last two you did not review at all? 

Mr. Burke. No, sir. 

Senator Mondale. Did you talk with Dr. Windlan about some 
of your criticisms of his methods? 

Mr. Burke. No. I didn't say directly to him that I disagreed 
with him on such and such points. I think he gathered though, that 
I was a little bit amazed at some of his conclusions. 

Senator Mondale. Did you tell him which techniques vou ob- 
jected to? -I J 

Mr. Burke. No. I didn't tell him anything directly. I think he 
would have to conclude from my questions what I was thinking. 

Senator Mondale. He could have concluded that? 

Mr. Burke. He may have. 

Senator Mondale. It might have been that later tests incorporated 
your criticisms? 

Mr. Burke. I don't think I suggested any specific testing that 
would have clarified the identity. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Ley, we will print at this point in the record your prepared 
statement m its entirety, and other pertinent material submitted 
tor the record. 

(The material referred to follows:) 



3467 



STATEMENT 

BY 

HERBERT L. LEY, JR., M.D. 

COMMISSIONER OF FOOD AND DRUGS 

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 

OF THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

SEPTEMBER 29, 1969 



3468 



Mr. Chairman: 

Immediately following the hearings before your Subcommittee on August 1, 
1969, the Food and Drug Administration made a survey of table grapes on 
the retail market to determine if unsafe pesticide residues were 
present. Forty-eight samples were collected as follows: twelve samples 
of grapes were collected from retail stores in each of four Metropolitan 
areas--Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and the Baltimore-Washington, 
D. C. area. We specifically requested that samples be collected from 
the Safeway Store and the Giant Supermarket here in Washington, D. C. , 
from which a United Farm Workers representative informed us he had 
purchased the grapes for the analysis reported by Mr. Jerome Cohen to 
your Subcommittee on August 1. We were able to obtain a sample at the 
indicated Safeway Store, but we did not find a Giant Supermarket at the 
address given to us. We did, however, obtain a sample from another 
Giant Supermarket further out on the named street. These samples were 
collected on the afternoon of August 1, 1969. 

In addition to these 48 samples, our San Francisco District collected 
12 samples of grapes from packers or shippers in the San Joaquin Valley 
of California. Our Chicago District also collected an additional 
12 samples from produce houses and our Los Angeles District collected 
3 more samples from packers in Mecca, California. 

All of these samples were collected during the period from August 1 to 
August 6, 1969. They were promptly analyzed for pesticides by our 
District laboratories in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York 
and Baltimore. 



3469 



The gas liquid chromatographic analytical procedure used in this survey 
detects and measures about 60 pesticide chemicals, including aldrin, 
dieldrin, kelthane, endrin, DDT and its analogs, tedion, heptachlor, 
heptachlor expoxide, ethion, lindane, parathion, methyl parathion, and 
diazlnon. Only residues of kelthane, DDT compounds, ethion, tedion, 
dieldrin, and diazinon were found in the samples. All residues were 
substantially belov; tolerances. No residues of aldrin were found. 

We submit for the record the results of this survey showing the grower 
or packer, the area where samples were collected and the analytical 
findings. (Exhibit A) 

Since that survey, we have continued our normal pesticide residue 
surveillance work on raw agriculture products. As part of this program, 
our San Francisco District has, as of September 23, 1969, collected and 
completed the examination of 12 additional samples of grapes from 
packers or shippers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. These 
samples have been examined for pesticides using the same method as 
mentioned before. None of these samples were found to contain pesticide 
residues over tolerance, in fact nine of the samples were free of any 
residue detectable by the method employed. The residues on the other 
three samples were substantially below tolerance. We submit for the 
record the results of these analyses also. (Exhibit B) 

Mr. Chairman, you requested that I discuss the legal framework under 
which we regulate pesticide residues in or on foods and how a residue 
tolerance is established. 



3470 



Regulation of the use of pesticides is carried out by several agencies. 
The responsibility for registration of pesticices and other economic 
poisons is placed in the U. S. Department of Agriculture. These 
products may not be legally shipped in interstate commerce without 
prior registration as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act. To be registered, the pesticide must be shown to 
be safe when used as directed and effective for the purpose claimed on 
the label. 

Under the Pesticide Chemicals Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act, raw agricultural commodities bearing or containing residues 
of pesticides and pest control products, not generally recognized as safe 
by qualified experts, are classed as adulterated unless such residues are 
within the limits of previously established safe tolerances (which may 
even be zero). Such tolerances are established only after the USDA has 
certified that the pesticide chemical is useful to agriculture when 
employed as proposed in the petition. Also, the petitioner must present 
FDA with experimental evidence on toxicity to establish what residues are 
present and that such residues will be safe. He must show that the 
tolerances can be met under the practical conditions of pesticide usage. 
The petitioner must also specify the conditions of use on the labeling 
for the pesticide. Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are 
also authorized if not inconsistent with the public health. Raw 
agricultural products are defined to include all foods in their raw or 
natural state. 



3471 



The industry or firm promoting the use of the pesticide chemical is 
responsible for obtaining and submitting proof that any residue 
remaining on food is safe for the consumer of that food. The Food 
and Drug Administration is responsible for the scientific judgment 
concerning the safety of a tolerance. In arriving at a decision that a 
proposed tolerance is safe, Food and Drug scientists use all available 
information, in addition to that supplied in the petition. 

In general, a petition for a tolerance for a pesticide is required to 
contain certain basic information: 

1. It must contain information showing the identity, composition, 
chemical name and common name. 

2. It must set forth the conditions of use including directions, 
limitations and restrictions. 

3. Methods of analyses must be described including validation 
studies, accuracy checks and applicability to the total 
toxic residue. The methods must be practical for regulatory 
control use. 

4. The petition must contain residue data reflecting the most 
strenuous conditions of use (maximum dosage and number of 
applications), the major geographical production areas and 
in certain cases data on the processed food. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 



3472 



5. It niusL ccntain ac\ite, sub-acute and chronic toxocity studies 
in animals, covering different species, different dosages 
and different spans. The extent and complexity of these 
studies will depend on the type of compounds involved and the 
magnitude of residue on edible crops. 

6. Reproduction tests spanning two or three generations and 
three different dosage levels are required in setting 
tolerances on all but "negligible residues." 

Pesticide tolerances are set forth in tlie Code of Federal Regulations, 
Title 21, Part 120. 

It is thus obvious that the requirements for setting a tolerance for a 
pesticide are most stringent. Tliese data requirements are subject to 
continued review by FDA. New scientific data and advances in the 
evaluation of safety data are considered. Data requirements are 
changed when indicated. Tolerance setting is not a static process. 
New pesticide chemicals, formulations and ether methods of insect 
control are constantly being developed. New tolerances are required 
and existing tolerances must be reviewed in terms of current good 
agricultural practice and need in keeping with the policy that residue 
tolerances should not be higher than what result from the amount of 
pesticide necessary for safe and effective use. 

For example, FDA has recently published an order to reduce DDT tolerances. 
This action was initiated by a finding that good agricultural practices 
would permit lower tolerances; in fact, analysis of a large number of 



3473 



samples over the past several years showed that the level of DDT found 
on most fruits and vegetables is far below the 7 parts per million 
tolerance for that pesticide. Residue tolerances of aldrin, dieldrin, 
captan, folpet and TDE also have been reduced recently. 

If the review of the petition and all other available data shows that 
the requested or proposed tolerance for a residue is safe, then the 
tolerance is established by promulgation of a regulation. It should be 
emphasized that the tolerance is set at the lowest level resulting from 
that use of the pesticide which will accomplish the Intended effect, even 
though a larger amount of the residue may have been shown to be safe to 
the consumer as gauged by the animal feeding studies. There must be a 
substantial margin of safety between the largest amount of the residue 
that produces no effect in the test animals and the amount which may 
remain on the food crop. 

Obviously the establishment of safe residue tolerances does not, in 
itself, protect the consumer. Effort must be expended to enforce the 
tolerances to ensure that the regulations are being followed. FDA 
has for many years carried out an active program in this area of 
consumer protection. Our inspectors visit growers, county agriculture 
agents, pesticide dealers, packing sheds and pesticide applicators. 
They are alert for any indication of pesticide misuse. They collect 
samples of crops, both pre and post harvest, for laboratory analysis. 
A number of States also are active in policing both pesticide usage 
and residues on crops. We exchange information with these State 
officials so that all possible steps can be promptly taken to remedy 
any situation where over tolerance residues are found. 



3474 



Any food product which is, or has been, in interstate commerce and which 
is found to contain an illegal residue is subject to seizure and 
condemnation. The persons responsible for shipping such food are also 
subject to criminal prosecution. In our surveillance and control 
activities, during the period from July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969, we 
examined approximately 12,398 samples of foodstuffs, both domestic and 
import, for pesticides. More than half of the samples did contain 
residues of pesticide chemicals, the tuajority of these residues 
were well below tolerance levels. However, 27 shipments were seized in 
domestic commerce and 135 import shipments were detained at the port of 
entry, because of illegal residues. 

In addition to these surveillance activities, we also conduct "market 
basket" or total diet studies. These can be characterized as the 
final check on the tolerance system. 

In these studies, samples of a variety of foods are purchased at retail 
stores in five different regions over the country. The proportion of 
individual food items used in these studies was developed by the U. S. 
Department of Agriculture and is based on the diet of a 16 to 19 year 
old male, the biggest eater in the entire population. The quantity of 
this diet is approximately double that of the average individual. The 
samples of food are prepared as for consumption and then analyzed for 
pesticide residues. Throughout the four years of this study, the 
dietary intake of pesticide chemicals has been below the acceptable 
daily intake established by the FAO/WHO Expert Committees, and below 
those intake levels anticipated by our scientists when considering 
proposals for tolerances. 



3475 



FDA is also engaged in continuing research in developing better analytical 
niechodology for pesticides. As we stated earlier, when a new chemical is 
introduced a specific method for its detection is required. This single 
specific method may be adequate to determine the amount of that chemical 
on a given food at a given time after application, but we are often not 
in a position to know which of the many chemicals may have been used on 
a food crop. Therefore, we do not V;now what specific method to apply. 
The problem is further compounded by actions which may convert the 
original chemical to other compounds after application. As an example, 
aldrin starts converting to dieldrin shortly after application. 

Sometimes these altered compounds are more important from a toxicity 
viewpoint than the original chemical. Our chemists, therefore, need 
methods to measure any of these chemicals present. 

Our research efforts have been thus directed toward the multi-residue 
methods or tliose which measure many different chemicals simultaneously. 
In this multi-residue methodology, FDA chemists have been leaders. The 
ideal method would be a universal one which would detect and measure 
all of the original pesticide chemicals and all the significant 
alteration products which may have formed. The scientists have not, 
of course, achieved this ideal, but they have made considerable 
progress . 

Contrary to a popular misconception, gas liquid chromatography is not 

a simple operation where the sample is placed in a machine by a technician 

and the answer comes out in a ready to use form. Using the gas liquid 



3476 



chromatop,raphy , multi-residue methodology, a chemist with proper training, 
experience and equipment can analyze a sample of any of a large variety 
of foods and simultaneously obtain a high degree of accuracy in identifying 
about 60 different residue chemicals and measuring them quantitatively, 
all in the span of several hours. The information from the gas liquid 
chromatography equipment does not automatically identify the pesticide 
residue. It is essential that this data be evaluated by an experienced 
and competent analyst to establish a tentative identification so he can 
determine what further tests are necessary to confirm the identity. The 
method produces reliable results. There are many paremeters, which must 
be fully understood and well controlled, otherwise the results can be 
misleading or misinterpreted. 

Mr. Chairman, you asked about FDA's actions after learning about some 
tests on grapes conducted for Safeway Stores. The information that 
such tests had been conducted came to us from a member of your staff 
and we investigated. We were informed by representatives of Safeway, 
early in September, that they had some samples analyzed following the 
August 1 hearing. We were informed verbally of the reported results 
of the analyses and were furnished, by Safeway, with a copy of two 
reports from the C. W. England Laboratory, Washington, D. C, identified 
as the results on grape samples submitted by Safeway to that laboratory. 
There was a wide range in the findings on the various samples as given 
to us by the Safeway representatives. The range was from one laboratory 
reporting "no aldrin or dieldrin, 0.11 ppm DDT and a trace of some 
identity non-determined pesticides," to another laboratory reporting 
16.8 to 19.1 ppm aldrin and dieldrin residue. These varied results 



3477 



were reportedly obtained on grapes from the same lots in possession of 
Safeway. We, of course, cannot vouch for the accuracy of any of these 
reports. FDA has found no samples of grapes which bore residues 
confirmatory of the aldrin-dieldrin findings of the commercial 
laboratories mentioned. 

We have no information about Safeway cancelling orders on table grapes 
because of finding high levels of pesticides. 

We ha"'e, as previously stated, continued our surveillance program of 

examining samples of various raw agriculture products, including 

grapes. To date, we have not encountered any residues in grapes 

which exceed the established safe tolerances. In 334 samples of grapes, 

FDA has examined in the past 2 3/4 fiscal years, no illegal residues of aldrin 

have been reported, nor were any found in the surveys mentioned earlier. 

If we should find grapes or any other food containing an unsafe pesticide 

residue, we would take the appropriate steps to remove that product from 

the channels of consumer commerce. 

This concludes may statement Mr. Chairman. If you or the members of 
your Subcommittee have questions, I will be happy to try to answer 
them. 



3478 

Depabtment of Health, Education, and Welfabe, 

Food and Dbuq Administration, 
WasMngton, D.C., October 13, 1969. 
Hon. Walter F. Mondale, 

Chairman, Suhcommittee on Migratory Labor, Committee on Labor and Public 
Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, B.C. 

Deab Mb. Chairman : I was of course concerned when, at the hearing 
on September 29, you expressed the view we should have chectced the Eastawai 
Research Laboratories and the Strasburger and Siegel Laboratories at Balti- 
more, Maryland, since they too had examined samples of the grapes sub- 
mitted to them by Safeway Stores earlier this year. 

Because of this, I arranged for Mr. Jerry Burke, accompanied by an 
inspector from our Baltimore District, to visit both of these laboratories 
on October 2 and 3, 1969, to obtain the details of the procedures employed in 
the pesticide residue analyses of these grapes. 

I now have Mr. Burke's reports. In the case of Eastawai Research 
Laboratories, Mr. Burke's conclusions were : 

"In view of the questionable analytical procedures used, such as, no 
cleanup to remove electron capturing substances, insuflScient resolution by 
GLC, and multiple unexplained peaks in chromatograms, the inexperience of 
the laboratory staff in pesticide residue analysis, and the lack of knowledge 
of the laboratory staff in the chemistry and literature of pesticides, it is 
my opinion that Eastawai Research Laboratories' analysis of grapes for 
Safeway Stores is completely vmreliable. Mr. Ivan Rowe was informed of 
my opinion of their analysis." 

In the case of Strasburger and Siegel Laboratories, it was determined that 
the firm was following exactly the procedures set forth in the Pesticide 
Analytical Manual and had had extensive experience in this area. Mr. Burke 
concluded : 

The methodology employed and their overall knowledge in i)esticide residue 
analysis give no reason for questioning the results of analysis of grapes for 
Safeway Stores by Strasburger and Siegel." 
Sincerely yours, 

J. K. Kirk, 
Associate Commissioner for Compliance. 



3479 



PESTICIDE MULTIRESIDUE METHODOLOGY 



Before the Food and Drug Admin- 
istration establishes a tolerance 
for use of a pesticide chemical on 
food products as required under the 
Pesticide Chemicals Amendment to 
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 
the Agency requires that there shall 
have been developed a method of 
analysis to enforce that tolerance: a 
method capable of detecting and 
measuring the amount of the chem- 
ical in the food products on which 
it is to be used. 

To assess the significance of pes- 
ticide residues in the food supply we 
need a practical method of chemical 
analysis sensitive and reliable enough 
to provide the data needed for as- 
sessment. The pesticide residue re- 
search chemist has made tremendous 
progress in fulfilling these require- 
ments but he still has much to do. 
Up to 1944 the primary pesticide 
chemicals were a few inorganic 
chemicals such as compounds of 
arsenic, lead, sulfur, and fluorine. 
Today the problem of chemical 
analysis is of considerably greater 
magnitude than for these few in- 
organic elements. Since the advent 
of the organic pesticide chemical 
DDT in 1944 the number of or- 
ganic pesticide chemicals has stead- 
ily increased, and today there are 
some 800 on the market. Many are 
used in food production and for 
each, theoretically, an analytical 
method is needed. 

As new chemicals have been in- 
troduced, new, specific methods 
have been developed to detect them. 
Although a single specific method 
for a given chemical may be ade- 
quate to determine the amount pres- 
ent in food at any given time after 
application to the growing food 
plant, the regulatory chemist is not 
in a position to know which of the 
many chemicals may have been used 
on the food crop before it enters the 
channels of commerce. Therefore, 
he cannot know which specific 
method to apply. This problem has 



by J. William Cook 

been compounded because the action 
of light and air or of enzymes inside 
the plant or animal, it was found, 
caused many pesticide chemicals to 
convert to other compounds after 
application. Since these altered com- 
pounds often were the important 
toxic chemicals, the chemist needed 
methods to measure the amount of 
any of these chemicals present. 



To the FDA chemist it was ob- 
viously impossible to monitor the 
food supply effectively by the spe- 
cific methods since there simply 
were not enough chemists or facili- 
ties at hand. FDA pesticide chem- 
ists thus directed their research 
toward multiresidue methods — those 
which measure many different chem- 
icals simultaneously. In this multi- 
residue methodology FDA chemists 
have been leaders. Those groups be- 
sides the FDA which are primarily 
concerned with food products of un- 
known spray history include State 
food and drug laboratories and gov- 
ernment laboratories of other na- 
tions. Others concerned with residue 
analysis of foods are more likely to 
know which chemicals have been 
applied to the food an<' thus to 
know the specific analy method 
needed. 

The ideal method of analysis 
would be a universal one which de- 
tected and measured all of the par- 
ent or original pesticide chemicals 
and all the significant alteration 
products which may form. Although 
FDA scientists and others have not 
achieved this ideal, they have made 
considerable progress toward that 
end. 

Pesticide chemicals can be di- 
vided into general groups, each 
group member possessing chemical 
characteristics similar to those of 
the others in that group. The largest 
group includes those organic com- 
pounds which contain organically 
bound chlorine, such as DDT, BHC. 
dieldrin, and heptachlor; another 



large group contains phosphorus: 
malathion. parathion, Phosdrin, and 
Trithion; still others contain nitro- 
gen or sulfur. Some contain two or 
more of these elements. Trithion, 
for instance, contains chlorine, phos- 
phorus, and sulfur, but is classified 
as an organophosphate because its 
toxicity is due largely to the pres- 
ence of phosphorus. 

Using the current FD.A multires- 
idue methodology, a chemist with 
the proper training, experience, and 
equipment can analyze a sample ot 
any of a large variety of food prod- 
ucts and simultaneously obtain a 
high degree of certainty in identify- 
ing about 60 different residue chem- 
icals and measuring them quantita- 
tively — all in the span of a few- 
hours. This is more than can be ac- 
complished in a matter of days by 
50 or more chemists performing sep- 
arate analyses for each residue. It is 
economically and physically im- 
practicable to provide meaningful 
food monitoring by the specific 
methods, but FDA does it quite eco- 
nomically by the multiresidue meth- 
od. The analyses must be performed 
or supervised by a competent pesti- 
cide residue chemist. For although 
the method potentially can produce 
accurate and sensitive analytical re- 
sults, it is complex and has many 
parameters which, if not fully under- 
stood and well controlled, may pro- 
duce results which can be mislead- 
ing or misinterpreted, with detrimen- 
tal implications for public health. 
The present methodology has been 
well studied and validated for 
many chemicals in many food prod- 
ucts of plant and animal origin. Val- 
idation work has shown consistent 
recovery of 90 percent or more of 
the residue present for any of about 
60 pesticides, mostly from the or- 
ganochlorine group. A few of the 
organophosphorus compounds are 
recovered and measured, but not 
their metabolic or alteration prod- 
ucts. 



November 7««S / FDA Papers 



3480 



The method is sensitive to well 
below the legal tolerance established 
for many pesticide chemicals. It is 
adequately sensitive for the highly 
toxic compounds, and since the 
analysis is made for all compounds 
simultaneously, the results depend 
on the chemistry instead of the 
toxicity. Therefore, many are meas- 
ured much below the legal tolerance 
figure. 

Although some people have ex- 
pressed belief that the methods are 
more sensitive than needed, this fine 
sensitivity has many advantages. For 
instance. FDA has analyzed a num- 
ber of "total diet" or "market bas- 
ket" samples, the results of which 
are helpful to FDA as well as other 
national and international health 
agencies. High sensitivity is impor- 
tant in the analysis because these 
"total diet" samples are composites 
of a number of products, and if the 
methods were not highly sensitive. 
significant amounts in part of the 
samples in the composite might be 
diluted by the other parts of the 
composite to below the detectable 
level. 

FDA has been able to develop 
and improve multiresidue analysis 
over the past 15-20 years by taking 
advantage of the many new tech- 
niques that have become available 
to chemistry and adapting them so 
as to enhance the method's capabil- 
ities. Since the Agency has had to 
evaluate so many parameters, it has 
taken an organizational approach in 
which a number of research chem- 
ists, largely in the Pesticides Branch 
of the Division of Food and later 
the same Branch in Division of Food 
Chemistry, oriented their research 
toward the common goal of devel- 
oping the multiresidue method. 
The current multiresidue system 
is referred to as a gas chromato- 
graphic method, but gas chroma- 
tography is only part of the process, 
albeit an important one. Generally 
the method can be divided into these 



four major steps: (1) sampling. (2) 
extraction, (3) isolation (common- 
ly called cleanup in residue work), 
and (4) determination (both iden- 
tity and measurement). Gas chrom- 
atography is used primarily in the 
determination step. .Although sam- 
pling (Fig. 1) is an important part 
of any analysis, we will not treat it 
further here except to say that un- 
less a sample adequately represents 
the entire lot of any product ana- 
lyzed, there is no value in running 
the rest of the analysis. 

The three remaining steps are in- 
terrelated and in some instances 
hardly distinguishable from each 
other. Except in a few instances — 
for example, some radioactivity 
analysis — it is almost always neces- 
sary to dissolve the chemical for 
which the analysis is designed away 
from the bulk of the sample before 
determination can be made. This is 
certainly so where there is usually 
at least one million times more food 
product than residue chemical. 

Ideally the extraction process 
(Figs. 2 & 3) should dissolve all 
the residue and as little of the other 
parts of the food product as pos- 
sible. But almost invariably much 
more material than the pesticide 
residues is extracted and, therefore, 
the pesticides must.be isolated or 
separated from the coextracted im- 
purities. Isolation removes the pesti- 
cide from most of the dissolved food 
product so that nearly pure chem- 
icals are available for the determi- 
fiative step. 

Most of the early organic pesticide 
chemicals (the organochlorine ones) 
were oil soluble, so organic solvents 
such as benzene, hexane, and pe- 
troleum ether were used as the ex- 
tractants. Chemists then believed 
that the residues were borne pri- 
marily on the surface of most prod- 
ucts. Extraction consisted of wash- 
ing the surface of food products 
with these solvents. This proved 
effective to some extent. But A. K. 



Klein, an FDA chemist, showed in 
1958 that certain residues, even sur- 
face residues, were not removed 
efficiently with these solvents — 
which are immiscible with water. 
Only a small fraction of the residue 
in products such as frozen vegetables 
was extracted by the surface wash 
process. 

Dr. Klein experimented with the 
technique of using a Waring Blendor 
to grind and mix the food product 
with isopropyl alcohol (a water mis- 
cible solvent) and petroleum ether 
into a one-phase system. This one- 
phase system proved much more 
effective in solubilizing residues of 
the chlorinated compounds than the 
older, immiscible systems. But it 
also dissolved more impurities, so the 
need was greater for an efficient iso- 
lation procedure. Other organic sol- 
vents miscible with water such as ace- 
tone and dimethyl formamide were 
found to be just as effective as the 
isopropyl alcohol-petroleum ether 
solvent mixture in extracting both 
residues and interfering materials. 
In 1959 R. Moddes and the 
writer, as FDA chemists, found that 
acetonitrile was a particularly effec- 
tive extraction solvent for organo- 
phosphorus pesticides and did not 
dissolve as much impurities as other 
solvents. P. A. Mills and other FDA 
chemists studied acetonitrile exten- 
sively as an extractant for diverse 
residues, and found it so effective 
that it has been adopted as the ex- 
traction solvent for the FDA multi- 
residue method. FDA chemists have 
proved that 90-100 percent of the 
residue present from each of the 60 
chemicals included in the multiresi- 
due method may be extracted from 
most food products by this solvent. 
The isolation (or cleanup) step is 
vital to the process and must be car- 
ried out effectively before reliance 
can be placed on the last step of the 
procedure — that is, the determina- 
tive step for multiresidue analysis. 
Some chemists advocate skipping 



3481 



FOUR SECTIONS TO 
ANALYTICAL OPERATIONS 




M A small rcprescnOtivc sample 
IS prepared by compositing equal 
portions of each of a number ul unit 
nf the /oo<l product. 





^M riie composite sample is evtracted 
hv i;rin(lin£; in tlic solvent, acctomtrile. 
in 3 jxiwcr blender. 



# I lie solient is separated troni the 
suliiblc material bv filtrati'm 



3482 






IhcBnt y.^i. ... ;.. ., .;, 

piirificadoii l^ :i vilvciil ;):i(ljfioning 
process III which imini^.dbk solvents 
arc- c/iostii so (iial (lit; pcsficicfc f.ivors 
one sonciit .iiit/ (lie ii!i«:Mi(eti p/aiil 
ma(eri.]/ hynrs the oflicr soi'veiit. 
'I'fie so/veiits arc (lioioiisj/ily mixe<! 
h\ s/iafa'iig (he fitiiuel s/imiii: rjicii 
(he rjiixtnrc is :i}Uiwcd (o stand 
tiiJ(il (he snlsTiifs separate. 



j 3 .' lie seeond sle/j »,; i,.^ ....,.ii,,,;i 
; Utilizes eolunin cliroriia(ot;rapliv. (he 
; sols-eiit eontainiiit; flic /icsficidc is 
j poured tlirouijli (lie coiiinin s\liicli 
\ adsorbs (lie pe.stiei'dc and some p'aiii 

inaterial ,'tlic pi:ini pii;nieii(s and 
: others/ aiul allous some plant inaferiaj 
i to pass (hroiij-ii; this is discarded. 
; 7'lieii a di'lifereiit so/vent is chosen In 
eliitc all (he pesticide and as httJe 
p/.ni{ nia(erial as possihic from (he 
column. 7liis solvent if; caught 
; III (lie double flasfc. 



6 



c<iiiccntrate tlic pesticide in fhc 
small flasJ: at (he bottom. 



M An aliquot of (he coiiccnlrafed 
pc\tKidc sojiitioii is in|ex*(cd into 
the gas chromatograph where the 
individual jxisticides are se/«ratcd and 
recorded as peaks on (he 5(ri() chart. 
'I lie position on the chart is 
charac(eristic ol the individiiai 
/•eslitide and the size of the pcrilc 
is dependent on (piaiitity. 




3483 



the isolation process to save time. 
But FDA feels it is imperative that 
good isolation techniques be fol- 
lowed rigorously if we are to accu- 
rately determine identity and quan- 
tity. 
In the FDA multircsidue method 
the final substeps in the isolation 
are to remove oily or waxy com- 
pounds from the acetonitrile solu- 
tion by treating it with a solvent 
derived from petroleum, called pe- 
troleum ether (a petroleum frac- 
tion), which is immiscible with 
acetonitrile. When the two solvents 
are shaken vigorously in a separa- 
tory funnel (Fig. 4), the oily and 
waxy materials migrate to the pe- 
troleum ether and the pesticides re- 
main in the acetonitrile. Next the 
pesticides are forced out of the acet- 
onitrile into fresh petroleum ether 
by adding a large volume of water 
to the acetonitrile. The petroleum 
ether is put onto an adsorption 
column of Florisil (Figs. 5 & 6), a 
granular adsorbing material , which 
removes both the pesticide and the 
remaining impurities; the latter in- 
clude much of the natural coloring 
material of plants. The pesticides 
then are washed or eluted from the 
Florisil with selective solvent mix- 
tures and the impurities remain. The 
pesticides are now sufficiently pure 
for the current determinative step — 
gas chromatography (Fig. 7). 

The determinative step has taken 
a number of forms in its evolution 
since 1944. The first procedure for 
a number of compounds was the 
"total chlorine" method. This con- 
sisted of burning the chemicals or 
otherwise liberating all the chlorine 
from the compounds, then measur- 
ing all the chlorine, then calculating 
the residue based on the known per- 
cent of chlorine in the pesticides. 
This procedure had some use until 
the more highly toxic compounds 
were introduced. FDA established 
very low tolerances, such as 0.1 or 
0.2 parts per million or zero for 



these compounds. 

The total chlorine method did not 
work for the low tolerance com- 
pounds because food products known 
to have had no treatment with or- 
ganochlorine pesticides, and the 
reagents used in the analysis, con- 
tained small amounts of chlorine 
which, when calculated to pesticide, 
caused the food to appear to con- 
tain 0.1-0.3 ppm of pesticide. 
These values are called untreated 
blank values. When these 0.1 -0.3 
ppm values are low in relation to 
the amount of chemical expected — 
such as 7 ppm for DDT — they can 
be subtracted with little effect on 
the total. But when they equal or 
exceed the tolerance — such as 0.1 
ppm dieldrin or zero endrin toler- 
ance — the blank value invalidates 
the results for those compounds. No 
isolation (or cleanup) procedure 
was found that would substantially 
remove this blank value. Of equal 
importance to FDA, it was neces- 
sary for us to know which chemicals 
were present to make a valid calcu- 
lation of amount. 

Bioassay is another technique that 
was studied extensively by FDA 
and others. It was first used for DDT 
by E. P. Laug, an FDA chemist, in 
1946. The technique consists of ex- 
posing certain organisms to varying 
amounts of the toxic chemicals 
under standardized conditions and 
noting the amount of chemical re- 
quired to kill 50 percent of the test 
subjects. The amount of chemical 
that kills 50 percent of the test or- 
ganisms is called the lethal dose 50 
or LD 00- Then the same number 
of organisms under the same con- 
ditions are exposed to varying 
amounts of extracts from food prod- 
ucts. The amount of extract which 
kills 50 percent of the test organisms 
is considered to have an amount of 
pesticide equivalent to that level of 
mortality. Various organisms have 
been used in tests with this method, 
such as houseflies. fruit flies, mos- 



quito larvae, and brine shrimp. 

The bioassay procedure had 
merit and was used to some extent 
but was found to have disadvantages 
upon close study. During the early 
use of the bioassay technique FDA 
had no established means of identi- 
fying the chemicals which might 
possibly be present in a residue ex- 
tract from samples of unknown 
spray history. We attempted to in- 
terpret the mortality from a sample 
of unknown pesticide history in 
general terms — that is, toxicity 
equivalent to that for so much 
DDT. But this was of little value in 
tolerance enforcement activity be- 
cause invariably the toxicity to the 
test organisms is different from the 
toxicity values for the higher ani- 
mals that are used to establish tol- 
erances. For instance, some common 
pesticides are 50 times more toxic 
to housefiies than others; an LD -.u 
can be obtained from a small 
amount of lindane or a large amount 
of TDE, even though the general 
legal tolerances for lindane have 
been set somewhat higher than 
those for TDE. The bioassay tech- 
nique was useful, however, where 
only one known pesticide was pres- 
ent, as in agricultural experimenta- 
tion work. 

Another serious problem arose 
because oily and waxy residues in 
the extract either killed the test or- 
ganisms by suffocation or did not 
permit the pesticide to come into 
contact with the organism. Thus, the 
results obtained were either false 
positive or false negative. 

During the years 1956-1959, in 
the application of the bioassay tech- 
nique to analysis of pesticide resi- 
dues in fluid market milk, P. A. 
Clifford and later he and P. A. 
Mills, both FDA chemists, found 
that dependable mortality was pos- 
sible only after thorough isolation 
of the pesticide from the fatty com- 
ponents of milk. They also used a 
process called paper chromatogra- 



3484 



phy in attempts to separate and 
identify the different chemicals pres- 
ent. Here again they found they 
needed to isolate the pesticide from 
fatty materials to obtain dependable 
identity. 

In paper chromatography, a mix- 
ture of chemicals is placed on a 
piece of porous paper near the edge 
and the paper is barely dipped into a 
proper solvent, much like putting 
the edge of a blotter in a solvent. 
As the solvent is absorbed, it mi- 
grates up the paper by capillary 
action. As the solvent passes through 
the mixture of chemicals, the chem- 
icals begin to migrate up the paper 
with the solvent, depending on their 
solubility. When the proper solvent 
or solvents are used, the piece of 
paper becomes a chromatogram in 
which the mixture of chemicals is 
separated into components as dis- 
crete spots. The process is quite ef- 
fective in separating and isolating 
the compounds. The distance each 
component migrates in relation to 
the distance the solvent migrates is 
characteristic of each and thus the 
ratio can be used to help identify 
the compound. (This migration 
characteristic provides presumptive 
proof of identity. Other methods are 
used for definite identification.) Ex- 
tracts that are impure yield chroma- 
tograms that are difficult to interpret. 
It became evident that when the 
compounds are well enough isolated 
for valid mortality measurements 
and identity, the quantity can be 
estimated from the paper nearly as 
well as from the bioassay. Thus, the 
bioassay was gradually eliminated 
and paper chromatograms were used 
for identity and quantitation. 

Shortly after paper chromatogra- 
phy was established for this purpose, 
there was developed a somewhat 
similar technique called thin-layer 
chromatography. It is similar in 
principle, but the paper is replaced 
by a thin layer of adsorptivc mate- 
rial on a glass plate backing. This 



has certain advantages over paper 
chromatography. 

Gas chromatography, or more ac- 
curately, gas-liquid chromatography, 
entered the field about the same 
time as thin-layer chromatography. 
In most respects gas chromatogra- 
phy, properly used, is far superior 
for the determination phase and has 
become widely used. 

Gas liquid chromatography (GLC) 
was developed during the 1950's 
and proved useful for many ana- 
lytical purposes, but the early de- 
tectors were not useful for pesticide 
residue analysis for reasons we shall 
explain later. GLC equipment con- 
sists of a long tube of small diam- 
eter which is filled with an inert 
granular material called packing, at 
the end of which is the detector. 
This packing is coated with a small 
amount of nonvolatile liquid (the 
liquid phase of GLC). The packed 
tube is heated to a relatively high 
temperature and a carrier gas such 
as nitrogen is passed through the 
heated tube at a known rate. Then 
a small amount of the purified ex- 
tract is injected by hypodermic 
needle onto the same end of the 
column as the gas enters and is 
vaporized into the carrier gas (the 
gas phase of GLC). As the heated 
gas passes over the heated liquid on 
the inert packing, the different chem- 
icals pass through the column at a 
rate depending on their relative sol- 
ubilities in the gas and liquid phases 
at the given temperature. 

For GLC of pesticides, choices 
are made of temperature, type of 
gas, gas flow rate, type and amount 
of liquid, type and size of packing, 
and type of tubing material and its 
length and diameter. Selected com- 
binations arc chosen to attempt to 
completely separate the pesticides 
on the column so they emerge as 
discrete, pure compounds. It is es- 
sential that those nonvolatile im- 
purities not removed from the ex- 
tract during the isolation process 



remain at the entrance so that they 
do not react with the pesticide chem- 
icals or deter them from emerging 
in their characteristic time. 

After the chemicals emerge they 
must be detected and measured. The 
detector is an important part of the 
GLC system. The earlier detectors, 
called thermistors, responded to any 
chemical that emerged. Therefore, 
they were nonselective in response. 
But they were relatively low in sen- 
sitivity, so they did not respond to 
the very small amounts of pesticide 
chemicals available in pesticide res- 
idue analysis. 

The first selective and highly sen- 
sitive detector found useful for 
pesticide residue analysis was de- 
vised in 1960 by D. Coulson and 
others of Stanford Research Institute. 
This detector — called a microcoul- 
ometer — continuously measures the 
amount of hydrochloric acid formed 
from the chlorine in the pesticide. 
After the chemicals pass through the 
column, they are burned in a fur- 
nace to form hydrochloric acid, 
which then passes onto the micro- 
coulometer. 

Those who worked with the mi- 
crocoulometer hoped that the col- 
umn would perform the isolation 
step of analysis and that the micro- 
coulometer would perform the de- 
termination step. They soon found 
that difficulties arose when extracts 
not subjected to an isolation pro- 
cedure were put into the column. 
These impure extracts cause some 
pesticides to be lost completely, and 
cause others to be converted to new 
compounds which chromatograph 
at different times than the parent, 
etc. The detector also becomes dam- 
aged and fails to respond properly. 
When so many anomalies arose with 
the addition of impure extracts, the 
FDA chemists tried extracts purified 
by the isolation process described 
above for bioassay and paper chro- 
matography. These produced gas 
chromatographic results that were 



3485 



far superior to uncleaned extracts. 

Detection devices other than the 
microcoulometer later became 
available and were found useful for 
the organochlorine pesticides. One, 
called an electron capture detector, 
was found to be more sensitive than 
the microcoulometer to many com- 
pounds containing chlorine and it 
was considerably easier to maintain 
and operate. For most studies it has 
replaced the microcoulometer. But 
this detector, too, is subject to dam- 
age from impure extracts, and since 
it is used in conjunction with the 
same columns that are useful for 
microcoulometry, the need here for 
a gopd isolation process before gas 
chromatography is equally impor- 
tant. The electron capture detector 
is not as specific for compounds 
containing chlorine as is the micro- 
coulometer. However, few of the 
compounds that capture electrons 
are extracted, isolated, or gas chro- 
matographed. If there is a suspicious 
response it must be checked. Often 
the microcoulometric detector is 
used to prove the presence of a 
pesticide containing chlorine. 

The electron-capture detector 
principle is incorporated in the de- 
sign of a number of different detec- 
tors. Such devices have a radioac- 
tive element as a source of ions. 
Different radioactive elements are 
used in different detectors. FDA 
chemists studied the design and per- 
formance of a number of these de- 
tectors, including the geometric de- 
sign and voltage needed, and chose 
those parameters which yielded best 
conditions for routine quantitative 
measurement in residue analysis. We 
incorporated the best design and 
operating parameters into the mul- 
tircsidue method. 

Some organophosphorus com- 
pounds capture electrons even 
when these compounds contain no 
chlorine. (The response is not due 
to the phosphorus.) The electron 
capture detectors are useful for 



these few organophosphorus com- 
pounds but not for all. In 1964, 
Mrs. L. Giuffrida of FDA's labora- 
tories announced the discovery of a 
new device called a thermionic de- 
tector that is highly sensitive and 
highly selective for compounds con- 
taining phosphorus. Gas chromatog- 
raphy has been well worked out for 
the organophosphorus pesticide 
chemicals with use of the thermionic 
detector, but modification of the ex- 
traction and isolation procedures 
was necessary; this has required 
extensive experimentation. Many of 
the organophosphorus pesticides 
are water soluble or convert to water 
soluble compounds in the presence 
of light and plant and animal 
enzymes. Water soluble compounds 
are not as easily isolated from food 
products as the oil soluble com- 
pounds containing chlorine. We hope 
we can devise for full use fairly soon 
a multiresidue method for the im- 
portant members of the organophos- 
phorus group. 

Many of the compounds contain- 
ing sulfur are members of the or- 
ganochlorine and organophosphorus 
groups. There also is available a 
detector that is sensitive to sulfur 
and thus fairly useful for sulfur 
compounds that do not fit into the 
other groups. Many pesticides con- 
tain sulfur and nitrogen and many of 
these are fungicides. The extraction 
and isolation steps for this group 
have not been developed, even 
though the sulfur detector is avail- 
able. 

The only available detector sensi- 
tive to nitrogen has not been per- 
fected to a sensitivity and reliability 
sufficient to determine the pesti- 
cide compounds which contain 
nitrogen. There is a need for a good 
multiresidue method for the insec- 
ticidal carbamates and other pesti- 
cides which contain nitrogen alone 
as an important element. 

The chemist has improvised and 
innovated to provide methods of 






J. William Cook, 
Associate 
Director for 
Research, 
Division of Food 
Chemistry and 
Technology, 
Bureau of 
Science, joined 
FDAin1939. 
analysis capable of yielding mean- 
ingful results for a large number of 
pesticide chemical residues. There 
is an urgent need for continued 
research on this type of methods 
development. Many chemicals do 
not fit into the methods described 
above. We must make efforts to in- 
corporate them. Methods for the 
phosphorus and the nitrogen com- 
pounds must be perfected before a 
meaningful survey of the food 
supply can be made for those resi- 
dues. New chemicals are being 
introduced regularly. We need re- 
search to find whether these com- 
pounds can be incorporated into the 
existing methods or whether these 
new compounds will interfere with 
determination of the older ones. 

The multiresidue method for 
organochlorine compounds is use- 
ful for domestic edible animal tis- 
sues. We feel that it would provide 
a good basis to develop analytical 
methods for residues in animal 
species such as fish and other wild- 
life and other factors in our en- 
vironment such as soil, water, and 
river muds. It should be as appli- 
cable to human tissues as to edible 
animal tissues. For the use of these 
methods in environmental studies 
some research would be necessary 
to help interpret results, because 
many industrial chemicals other than 
pesticides may be present and may 
interfere with identification of the 
pesticide chemical. 

We have made much progress in 
the field of methods of analysis, but 
we need much more to continue to 
assure prompt and effective pro- 
tection of the Nation's food from 
harmful amounts of pesticide resi- 
dues. 



3486 



THE NEW MASKED MAN 
IN AGRICULTURE 

PESTICIDES AND THE HEALTH OF THE AGRICULTURAL USERS 
By MARY K. FARINHOLT 




Published and distributed by the 

NATIONAL CONSUMERS 

COMMITTEE FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, INC. 

Room 940, Engineers Building, Cleveland, Ohio 



3487 
FOREWORD 



Modern pesticides are useful in the production of our crops but they carry 
with them problems of health hazards to the persons who handle and spray 
them and who work in the fields. 

In May 1961, the Board of Directors of the National Consumers Com- 
mittee for Research and Education, Inc. voted to authorize a study of the health 
hazards of chemical pesticides to the user in agriculture and to inform the 
public of the safety precautions deemed necessary to protect the workers. 

Mrs. Mary K. Farinholt was asked to compile as much available informa- 
tion as possible and to write a non-technical pamphlet suitable for general 
distribution. In developing the subject, Mrs. Farinholt did not rely wholly on 
published material but sought first hand information through letters and per- 
sonal mterviews with members of the Federal and State governmental depart- 
ments, research laboratories and chemical concerns, farm groups, universities, 
scientists and physicians. Scores of persons have aided in clarifying difficult 
points and responding to requests for specific information. We wish especially 
to express our appreciation to the staff in the California Departments of Public 
Health and Agriculture and at the University of California in Riverside. We 
are equally grateful to the members of the various Federal agencies — the U. S. 
Public Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the Bureau of Labor 
Standards, the Pesticides Regulation Division and the Agricultural Extension 
Service of the Department of Agriculture, and the President's Committee on 
Migratory Labor — who gave generously of their time and knowledge to 
the study. 

In her conclusions, Mrs. Farinholt points out that there is no one single 
remedy to ensure safety in the use of chemical pesticides. Various methods 
are used, such as Read-the-Label campaigns, instruction classes in safe practices, 
safety regulations, medical supervision, the development of less toxic pesticides, 
and finally, the long-range plan of integrated control of pests harmful to 
the crops. 

A series of questions to stimulate thought and point to possible solutions 
of health problems and a selected bibliography will aid the reader who wishes 
to further explore the subject. 

It is our hope that this pamphlet will encourage more extensive use of 
safety precautions and that it will help to secure more effective cooperation 
between Federal and State governments, industry, agriculture, public health, 
physicians, health educators, and Extension personnel. If the publication of 
this study helps to reduce the health hazards to man in the use of modern pesti- 
cides through a better informed public understanding of the problems, our 
effort will be abundantly justified. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B 



3488 



This study was made possible through the donors of the Ehzabeth S. 
Magee Testimonial Fund and the special gifts of Mrs. Arthur E. Barnard and 
Mr. Hyman Schroeder. 

We are indebted to the Bureau of Labor Standards of the United States 
Department of Labor for the photograph on the cover. 

Susanna P. Zwemer, Secretary 

National Consumers Committee for 
Research and Education, Inc. 
September 1962 



DIRECTORS 



Broadus Mitchell 

Chairman 

Arthur J. Altmeyer 

Vice-Chairmati 

Mrs. Richard A. Zwemer 

Secretary 

Nicholas Kelley 

Treasurer 



Elizabeth S. Magee 
Assistant Treasurer 

Mrs. Clara M. Beyer 

Walter Frank 

Mrs. Thomas F. McAllister 

Hyman Schroeder 

Mrs. Hubert Wyckoff, Jr. 



3489 



In face mask, goggles, gloves, and boots, the 
man you see on a U. S. farm sometimes looks like a 
space-man. Why the weird costume? For spraying 
crops safely with today's chemical pesticides, a farm 
worker needs special clothes. He needs special 
knowledge and methods too. 

Many vocal citizens have questioned about pesti- 
cides on behalf of consumers, fish, black footed 
ferrets and lesser prairie chickens, but few on behalf 
of farmers and farm workers. In this study there- 
fore, we are assessing the health hazards of pesti- 
cides to the men who apply them in agriculture. 

Mary K. Farinholt 



3490 

Table of Contents 

Page 

WHAT ARE PESTICIDES? _ 1 

EFFECTS ON HUMANS 2 

Some Case Histories 2 

Statistics Scarce on Pesticide Injuries 3 

A Menace to Health? What the Experts Say 4 

Toxicity of the New Pesticides 7 

Health Hazards 8 

Insecticides — Chloritiated Hydrocarbons 8 

Insecticides — Organic Phosphates 9 

Herbicides — Ha/ogenated Organic Acid Compounds 11 

Dinitrophenols 11 

Carbamates 12 

Fungicides — Organic Mercury Compounds 12 

Rodenticides 12 

Difficulty of Diagnosis 13 

Precautions 14 

Farm Facts 16 

LAWS 18 

Labeling of Pesticides 18 

Use of Pesticides 20 

British Regulations 22 

EDUCATION 24 

Do They Read the Label? 25 

Where Pesticide Information is Needed 26 

PRESENT HEALTH PROGRAMS 27 

Emergency Information 27 

Medical Research 27 

Medical Supervision 27 

A SCIENTIFIC WAY THAT IS SAFER 29 

What is Integrated Control? 29 

PUBLIC QUESTIONS 32 

NO SIMPLE OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS ARE POSSIBLE 34 

LITERATURE CITED 35 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 37 



3491 
THE NEW MASKED MAN IN AGRICULTURE 

Pesticides and the Health of the Agricultural Users 

By Mary K. Farinholt 

9 

WHAT ARE PESTICIDES? 

Agricultural pesticides are used to control insects, diseases, weeds, and 
rodents harmful to crops. In 1961, over 500 million pounds of pesticides 
worth $300 million were sold by U. S. companies. There are approximately 
94,000 brand-name registered pesticides on the market. Production figures have 
been rising steadily since 1947. About half of present production is insecticides. 

Pesticides as an agricultural tool are a century old. Around 1850, sulfur 
and bordeaux mixture were used systematically against mildew on grapes, and 
paris green against the Colorado potato beetle. As other arsenicals related to 
paris green were found to protect crops, pesticide use increased. At the end of 
World War II, the whole pattern of agricultural use of pesticides was altered 
by the introduction of DDT and other chemical products of war research. These 
were fast followed into the market by scores of other pest control compounds. 

The new "economic poisons" available since 1945 have been used in a 
new widespread way: on crops, pastures, meadows, and forests, where before 
pests were not considered controllable. Along with mechanization, they are now 
a regular mainstay in the modern U. S. farmer's effort to get more yield with 
less manpower. Many post- 194 5 pesticides have new properties and new 
hazards of which most of us are not aware. 

Chemical pesticides are here to stay. An increasing population will require 
more food from a static or shrinking farm acreage. Besides the sheer quantity 
of food U. S. consumers demand, the quality they expect includes diversity and 
lack of blemish, infestation and decay. Furthermore, the big capital invested 
in the big business of farming today will not tolerate gambling on possible 
crop loss, when a preventive is at hand. Without chemical pesticides, according 
to a National Academy of Sciences subcommittee, many fruits and vegetables 
would disappear from the market, and many other crops would grow so 
meagerly they would be marketable only as rare luxuries. Apples, tomatoes, and 
corn show how pests threaten stable supply and safe investment. Apples can be 
attacked by 100 insects and 100 diseases, about 20 of which are sure to endanger 
unsprayed fruit. In 1946, one-half the tomato crop in 10 states was destroyed 
by fungi In 1940-45, corn production was abandoned in many areas because 
of the sweeping devastation of the European corn borer. This sort of destruction 
can now be prevented. 

Still, informed estimates suggest that, despite present efforts, one-fifth of 
U. S. crops are lost yearly because of pests. All factors point to an intensified 
fight against crop pests in the future. 

• 1 • 



3492 
EFFECTS ON HUMAJNS 

Some Case Histories 

While man-elously improving crop production in recent years, pesticides 
have also created another kind of news in agriculture: 

In Massachusetts in 1959, two Puerto Rican farm workers were dusting 
turnips with insecticides. "They worked in jeans or khaki pants, short- 
sleeved shirts, and different types of shoes. If they got thirsty along one 
of the rows, they stopped dusting and had a drink of milk from their 
lunch pails, or perhaps a 'coke.' On Friday of the week during which they 
were working on the turnips it was particularly hot and humid and about 
5 p. m., the two men complained of feeling sick. By the time they could 
be admitted to a nearby hospital and receive treatment (the foreman told 
the doctor they had been using parathion), it was 7 p. m. In spite of hos- 
pitalization and atropine therapy, however, one man died at 9:15 p.m. 
and the other at 10:10 p. m."i 

"A six-year-old boy found a gallon jug of 40% TEPP concentrate which 
had been abandoned in an orchard near his home. In the course of trying 
to open it he spilled some on his legs. By the time he got home he was 
in a state of collapse. Without knowing what was wrong with him his 
father rushed him to the doctor but the boy stopped breathing en route 
and the resultant lack of oxygen so damaged the brain that the boy died 
six days later without being able to breathe naturally again."^ 

"A truck driver used to transporting and handling organic phosphates, to 
carefully wear protective clothing, and to wash carefully after each expo- 
sure, spilled a couple of ounces of Systox (demeton) on his trousers one 
morning. Knowing that it would be rapidly absorbed through the skin, he 
washed the spot out with a rag and water. Apparently in a hurry,' he 
continued to wear the same trousers. By late afternoon he was hospitalized 
in a critical condition, exhibiting signs of severe organic phosphate 
poisoning. "3 

"In a recent case, a child suffered a sudden seizure and was brought quickly 
to a hospital where he was found to be limp, unresponsive, and slightly 
cyanotic. The pupils were widely dilated and the pulse 'very slow' 
total absence of reflexes . . . The child's tolerance for moderate doses of 
atropine without atropinization and the fact that his father was a spray 
pilot aroused suspicion that the youngster might be poisoned by an organic 
phosphorus insecticide ... It turned out the child ... had eaten dirt 
contaminated by parathion. It was established that spillage of the para- 
thion had occurred more than 6 months earlier. Soil from the place where 
the child had dug still contained nearly 1% of parathion. "^ 

In Florida in 1957, organic phosphate poisoning killed the operator of a 
private spraying business. "He was apparently exposed over a long period 
and complained of sickness for some time prior to hospitalization and 
death. "5 



3493 

"Thimet made news during March and April of 1959 when 25 farm laborers 
who were planting cotton in the San Joaquin Valley were suddenly taken 
ill Signs and symptoms ranged from nausea, dizziness and headaches, to 
blurring of vision and coma. The men who became ill were exposed 
while loading and unloading the bags of Thimet-treated seeds from trucks, 
loading the planters, piling the empty bags, and finally burning theni. 
Thimet, like other organic phosphate pesticides, may enter the body directly 
through the skin as well as by inhalation and swallowing."*^ 



Statistics Scarce on Pesticide Injuries 

It is impossible to know how many such illnesses and deaths have occurred, 
and are occurring in the U. S. — and in U. S. agriculture, in particular — 
because of the use of pesticides. Uniform reliable statistics do not exist. Most 
States have no system for reporting or recording injuries attributable to pesti- 
cides Dr Bernard C. Conley, Secretary of the Committee on Pesticides and the 
Committee on Toxicology of the American Medical Association, has stated: 

"The incidence of injury from pesticides has been extremely difficult to 
determine. Statistical data on nonfatal and fatal poisoning have been scanty 
and misleading, and this has contributed to the misconception that pesti- 
cide injuries are infrequent or rare.'"^ 

"California is the only State which annually publishes a detailed tabulation 
of nonfatal injury from economic poisons."^ 

Expert estimates have been made, and an up-to-date one asserts that approxi- 
mately 166 deaths from pesticides occurred in the U. S. in 1959- It is often 
assumed in such educated guessing that there probably are 100 times as many 
nonfatal injuries as fatal California alone, in the year 1959, reported 
1093 pesticide injuries — 3 fatalities — among the 80% of employed workers 
in the State covered by workmen's compensation records. California health 
officials are concerned because, though their number of agricultural workers 
has decreased in recent years, the trend of pesticide injuries in their State is 
increasing.^ In Florida, there has been a "slowly rising number of deaths from 
pesticides," as pesticide manufacturers themselves have recognized.^" 

Many other States assume they have no health problem from pesticides or 
that the problem is under control. Yet their complacency often has frail 
foundations i^^ 

"The reporting of poisoning cases is not a requirement of public health 
Laws so we do not know the incidence of this problem. Deaths, of course 
must be reported, but any specific agent would be tabulated under a general 
category such as deaths resulting from accidents, poisoning, and violence. 
[Wei did have two, or possibly three, deaths about two years ago from 
parathion which were brought to our attention." 

"Morbidity from pesticides is not officially reportable in this State. Of course 
where deaths occur death certificates are sent into this office." 



3494 

"Since illness due to chemical poisoning is not a required reportable disease 
in this state, our Division of Vital Statistics has no such records." 

"Employees in the agricultural industry are not within the jurisdiction of 
this Department and upon inquiry, I find very little information concerning 
injuries by pesticides in our state. It is believed these cases are more or 
less handled by the county health officers." 

States which report poisoning cases to the Federal government's Clearing- 
house for Poison Control Centers suggest the Clearinghouse as the best source 
of information. But the Clearinghouse itself notes that "only about one-half 
of the centers report to the National Clearinghouse. Also it is questionable 
how many agricultural poisonings would be reported to centers. "i- 

A state workmen's compensation system requires occupational accident and 
disease reports which would give substantial information on the incidence of 
pesticide injuries in agriculture, at least for those not self-employed. In fact, 
such records are the source of California's uniquely detailed reports. However, 
only seven States cover agricultural workers in the same way as other workers. ^^ 

Many officials of the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Public Health 
Service believe that reports of deaths are reliable enough for them to know the 
general range of pesticide fatalities and that these are close to an unavoidable 
minimum. However, no one can presume to know the scope of less-than-fatal 
injuries attributable to pesticides. 



A Menace to Health? What the Experts Say 

1 

Can pesticide use be a real menace to the health of farmers and farm 
workers without our seeing a heavy accumulation of case histories or a clear 
national toll of pesticide casualties ? 

The World Health Organization devotes constant expert attention to study- 
ing pesticide use, because of its massive effort to control insect-borne diseases 
such as malaria. In an intensive report in 1956 "Toxic Hazards of Pesticides to 
Man," a WHO Study Group pointed out that: "Groups which deserve study 
because of their extended exposure include workers in formulating plants 
[where the basic chemicals are combined with other ingredients to form the 
brand-name products used on farm, lawn, and garden], workers on antimalaria 
spray teams, and workers engaged in certain agricultural pursuits." Presumably, 
the special vulnerability of agricultural workers would include those who mix 
and prepare sprays, those who do ground-level spraying from tractor or truck, 
those who do aerial spraying of large tracts, and thoseharvesting crops where 
poisonous residues are present; since the specially risky stages in any pesticide 
operation, according to WHO, are in transferring the pesticide from bulk to 
smaller containers, in mixing the spray, in exposure to droplets while spraying, 
and of course any accidental contamination (such as ocairs by spills or leaks, 
using faulty respirator masks, flying through spray mist, or working among 
foliage where heavy residues persist) . 



3495 

"While there is comparatively httle difficulty in assembling reports of 
casualties that are published in the medical and scientific literature, it must 
be recognized that many accidental cases of poisoning are never reported. 
Many factors may contribute to the failure of such cases to reach the 
published literature." . . . "The Study Group recognizes the fact that pesti- 
cides present considerable toxic hazards in agriculture. "i"* 

In I960, Mr. Homer R. Wolfe of the Wenatchee Field Station, U. S. Public 
Health Serv^ice, pointed out that the ability of parathion residues on foliage to 
poison crop workers has not been generally appreciated. 

Careful investigation of eleven episodes of parathion residue poisoning 
disclosed that "of 142 persons exposed, 75 became ill. These mild poison- 
ings occurred in workers thinning, picking, or irrigating crops of apples, 
pears, grapes, oranges, and hops treated with one or more pounds of para- 
thion per acre. Several of the known instances of poisoning involved expo- 
sure to foliage or fruit sprayed not more than two days earlier. However, 
contact with pear trees, grape vines, and orange trees caused poisoning as 
much as 12, 33, and 34 days, respectively, after application. Since the 
reporting [in 1958} of this clinical and occupational type of parathion 
poisoning, there have been found many more such outbreaks involving 
hundreds of workers. "^^ 

Scientists of the U. S. Public Health Service at Wenatchee also checked on 
"a rather large number of illnesses allegedly due to pesticides in central Wash- 
ington" among persons spraying crops there in 1958. 

"These cases included two fatalities and approximately 100 illnesses rang- 
ing in severity from very mild (with no time lost from work) to serious 
(involving several days of hospitalization). In 71 of the 100 cases, it was 
considered that an etiology of pesticide poisoning was established by expo- 
sure history, clinical symptoms, and/or laboratory tests. Most of the poison- 
ing cases involved parathion, the most widely used of the more toxic 
pesticides in this area. However, demeton (Systox) and Phosdrin were 
also involved . . . The incidence of poisoning was somewhat lower dur- 
ing 1959."^^ 

Dr. Clyde Berry, Associate Director of the Institute of Agricultural Medi- 
cine at the State University of Iowa says there are several logical explanations 
for the dearth of case reports : 

"1. Farmers are not being made ill. 

2. They are being made ill, but are not seeing physicians. 

3. They are being made ill and are seeing physicians, but the causes of 
illness are not being diagnosed. 

4. Thev are being made ill, they are seeing physicians and the etiologies 
are being diagnosed, but case reports are not being published in the 
medical literature. 



3496 

It seems likely that the answer lies in the latter three of these possibilities."^'^ 

Mr. Henry N. Doyle of the Occupational Health Program, U. S. Public 
Health Service, in discussing the vulnerability of agricultural people to health 
hazards from toxic chemicals, contrasted the conditions of industrial and agri- 
cultural work: 

"Industrial operations are usually performed in a fixed location where exhaust 
ventilation or other suitable control methods are feasible. Industry has 
been subjected to fairly extensive and intensive educational programs on 
health and safety for at least a generation. Large companies usually have 
full-time safety and medical departments alert to potential dangers. Further- 
more, personnel of insurance carriers and official agencies make frequent 
visits to industrial plants to check for possible hazards. On the other hand, 
agricultural workers generally have little idea of the hazards of handling 
and applying powerful chemicals. Although most chemicals of this type 
carry warnings on the container labels, the tendency is to pay little or no 
attention to the labels, particularly if a material has been used previously 
without untoward incident. Moreover, the methods of application are 
almost as varied as the materials used. Many of these methods present 
dangers that would not be tolerated in manufacturing establishments."^^ 

Aside from the devastating cases of systemic poisoning, there is the more 
common and constant danger of skin irritation and severe dermatitis from expo- 
sure to pesticides. Dr. Louis Schwartz, specialist in occupational dermatology, 
has devoted one article entirely to the problem of skin hazards to farmers, 
florists, and cattle breeders from fertilizers and pesticides. ^^ 

In its 196O-6I Annual Report, the Department of Public Health of the 
Province of Saskatchewan, Canada, asserted that "the hazard associated with 
the use of a wide variety of chemicals on the farm is very real and increasing 
year by year." Dr. N. Williams, Director of the Department's Occupational 
Health Branch, said, "I am sure that there are very many cases of minor illness 
associated with the use of agricultural chemicals, but many farmers will not 
consider their symptoms serious enough to consult a physician, and even if they 
do the cause of the non-specific symptoms may not be recognized by the 
physician."-^ 

After eight years of experience with post-war pesticides, the British Govern- 
ment in 1952, found it necessary to adopt stringent Regulations controlling the 
use of the more toxic pesticides for the protection of agricultural workers. In 
the U. S., there is no Federal regulation of the manner of pesticide use. Only 
five States attempt an indirect influence for safe use by requiring all users to get 
permits or licenses. 

In California, the danger to agricultural people from present usage of toxic 
chemicals is clearly recognized. The California Department of Public Health 
states with real anxiety that they had 975 occupational disease reports attributed 
to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals in I960 — 60% of which refer 
to farm workers. Their reports do not include self-employed farmers so there 
is no way to know the rate of pesticide illness among them. In California, they 
find that both commercial applicators and farmer applicators of pesticides use 



3497 

farm workers in spray operations. Some of the people involved become ill. 
Others working on farms receive their exposure while harvesting or irrigating 
the crops. -1 

Officials of the Florida State Board of Health are also concerned about 
their State's pesticide disease rate. They have expressed the opinion that "Farm 
workers and their children are involved more than any other group, from the 
standpoint of being poisoned by highly toxic pesticides . . . Children have been 
sprayed in their yards adjacent to orange groves. "^^ 

Can we reasonably believe that only California and Florida in the United 
States, and the rest of the world, have experienced shocking casualties from 
widespread uncontrolled use of highly toxic pesticides in agriculture? 

Many officials are completely reassured because U. S. pesticide casualties 
are apparently less significant than in other countries such as India, and we 
would expect this to be so because of our solid experience with industrial safety 
and the technical maturity of most of our farmers. But officialdom and the 
pesticide industry should be restless about health risks from pesticides as long 
as they can not provide real answers to two questions: 

(1) How many illnesses and deaths occur in the United States each year 
because of pesticides? 

(2) Is the casualty rate close to the irreducible minimum of accidents 
which no reasonable public policy could prevent? 

It seems probable that there is unnecessary suffering and wasted health 
among people in agriculture in view of their exposure, known casualty cases, 
general ignorance of the properties of new pesticides and necessary precautions, 
unrestricted sale of extremely toxic chemicals to any user except in a few States 
which require licenses, and lack of regulation or inspection to enforce safe use. 
Considering all these circumstances, the opinion of many State officials that they 
have no new health problem in agriculture because they have no records on the 
subject, is not reassuring. It is highly disturbing. 



Toxicity of the New Pesticides 

For years, toxic pesticides have been used such as cyanides, arsenicals, 
strychnine, nicotine. The public and the medical profession are by now well 
aware of their hazard. The continuous introduction since World War II of 
powerful new pesticides offers new threats to health because they are more 
commonly used, bringing a large population into contact with them; many of 
them are highly toxic to humans; they may enter the body by many routes, 
through the skin as well as by swallowing or breathing; their threat to the body 
may gradually accumulate so that a minor final exposure can be enough to 
produce severe illness; their damage is diverse and hard to diagnose, ranging 
from chronic minor irritations (including skin disorders) to fatal poisoning. 

Among the new pesticides, their toxicity, or ability to injure, varies widely. 
It is some source of confusion, for example, that among the powerful organic 



3498 



phosphate insecticides, parathion is so toxic it should never be used by home 
gardeners or any non-expert, while malathion is generally promoted through 
every local hardware store as one of the safest to handle. 



Health Hazards 

It is even more confusing to the non-expert handler of a pesticide that the 
hazard, the actual probability that you will be endangered if you apply a parti- 
cular chemical, also varies widely. The weather affects your chances of pesticide 
illness. Poisonings occur more often in very hot humid weather. 

Insecticides are marketed as dusting powders, water-dispersible powder 
concentrates, oil emulsion concentrates, water or oil solutions. The solvents and 
other carriers used with the insecticidal chemical itself, are often poisonous to 
humans and may also be skin irritants. DDT in powder form is safe enough 
for doctors to put into certain open wounds, but DDT sprays of higher than 
0.5% concentration require precautions against skin contamination. -^ Apply- 
ing lindane may not be risky in a hayfield, but to do it by aerosol in a green- 
house, as shown on the cover, you need a full-face gas mask. To handle mala- 
thion spray, you may not need protective clothing — unless you have recently 
been exposed to EPN. Dusting with Sevin can be relatively safe, but a man who 
is continually opening bags of Sevin, or loading it into applicator airplanes, 
needs a respirator. 

Over large tracts, airplanes are used to spread insecticides, herbicides, 
defoliants, fungicides, fertilizers. The pilots may dispense either a spray or a 
dust or a fog. The U. S. Department of Agriculture, in a guide for air-sprayers, 
warns them of a "bewildering variety of spraying equipment" produced for 
them.-^ The design of airplane, of chemical tank, of discharge pump or gravity- 
feed system they use can decide the pilot's and ground flagman's degree of 
exposure to pesticide illness. 

Men applying pesticides on the ground may be using an aerosol, a com- 
pression sprayer, a stirrup-pump sprayer, a hand-plunger duster, a fogging or 
misting machine. Some types of equipment and some brands of equipment are 
of course safer than others. 

Using a form or concentration or application method that is wrong for 
his work conditions, can erase a farm worker's margin of safety. 



Insecticides — Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 

The most famous of the chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides is DDT. 
But also in general use are chlordane, BHC, lindane, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, 
methoxychlor, toxaphene, heptachlor, etc. Of all the new economic poisons, 
DDT is the most studied and the best understood. DDT had great resources 
of wartime research focused upon its development. Its effectiveness against a 
wide range of pests made it magically attractive for a huge market; agricultural 
users, householders, and the United Nations' attack on disease-carrying pests. 

• 8 • 



3499 

It is known that, in varying degrees, chlorinated hydrocarbons affect the 
central nervous system, "but the exact mechanism of this action either in man 
or in animals has not been elucidated."--^ Exposure can be by swallowing, 
breathing, or skin contact. Body effects are cumulative; a large dose or repeated 
small doses can be equally damaging. When taken into an animal's body, they 
are stored in its fat. Mild poisoning may show itself by headache, fever, nervous- 
ness, excessive blinking, cold skin, loss of appetite. Severe poisoning can bring 
vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions preceding death. Permanent liver and kidney 
damage have been observed in animals and are considered possible in humans. 
DDT, of relatively low toxicity itself, can cause dermatitis, and the solvents used 
in DDT sprays can cause dermatitis and poisoning symptoms. 

Chlordane is now an ingredient in many popular insecticides. It is forcibly 
marked by Dr. Frederick D. Malkinson of the Department of Medicine of the 
University of Chicago, as "perhaps the most potent and dangerous insecticide 
in the group of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds ... it penetrates the skin 
with great ease." In an article in the A.M. A. Archives of Industrial Health, 
Dr. Malkinson particularly refers to the death of an industrial worker from 
spillage of chlordane on his clothes, and several deaths at home and among 
agricultural workers from skin absorption alone or in combination with respira- 
tory absorption.-^ 

On the other hand, carbon tetrachloride, an insecticide used mainly to 
fumigate stored grain, is not so important a threat to the body when it enters 
through the skin but is most dangerous to inhale. Large amounts of it inhaled 
have been known to cause death in one to fifteen minutes. Yet, a U. S. Public 
Health Service officer was horrified to notice in a farm sur\^ey report that 
workers were observed merely "tying handkerchiefs over their faces to protect 
themselves from heavy concentrations of carbon tetrachloride."^^ 



Insecticides — Organic Phosphates 

The organic phosphate insecticides include some of the most toxic agricul- 
tural chemicals commercially available: TEPP, HETP, demeton (Systox)" para- 
thion, schradan (OMPA), EPN. Dramatic cases have been recorded of injury 
to children finding "empty" containers, or workers handling these pesticides 
without knowledge of their unexpected properties. Their consequent notoriety 
should have scared off everyone from careless or unawed use. However, there 
is among this chemical class great variation in toxicity to humans and in how 
the different compounds react within the human body. Dipterex and chlorthion 
are not nearly of the same order of menace as those we have just mentioned. 
And malathion is conspicuous among effective wide-range insecticides for its 
relatively low toxicity to man. 

The organic phosphates attack the body mainly by interfering with the 
action of the enzyme cholinesterase in the nervous system. This enzyme normally 
prevents the accumulation of acetylcholine which makes the muscles respond in 
their characteristic ways to various nerve impulses. When cholinesterase is 
prevented by an organic phosphate from converting acetylcholine and thus 
terminating the body's responses to nerve stimuli, a terrible uncontrolled clamor 
mangles all the body's functions. 

• 9 • 



3500 

One can be exposed by swallowing, breathing, or skin contact. Entry 
through the skin is, in fact, the principal danger from organic phosphates. The 
effects of parathion can accumulate in the body for weeks, so that repeated small 
exposures as well as single massive ones can be dangerous. 

Early signs of organic phosphate poisoning can be general and deceptively 
mild: headache, nausea, weakness, and fatigue; giddiness, anxiety, and restless- 
ness. If the eyes have been in contact with spray, there may be eye pain and 
constriction of the pupils. (Spray pilots are, of course, especially endangered 
when they experience eye symptoms.) When the illness is allowed to make its 
appalling progress, vomiting, diarrhea, increased respiratory rate with a feeling 
of tightness in the chest, uncontrollable muscular twitching, sweating, tearing, 
salivation, defecation, urination, develop. In advanced cases, convulsions, coma, 
loss of reflexes, follow. Death is caused apparently by respiratory failure. Severe 
cases have been saved by prompt diagnosis and treatment, but speed is essential 
because heavy exposure can bring death in 1/2 to 4 hours. 

In a i960 book- length study of the chemical, biochemical, and physiological 
properties of the organic phosphate compounds. Dr. Richard D. O'Brien of 
Cornell University tells about their most furtive quality, first noticed in labora- 
tories only a few years ago.^'' 

"In 1956, it was reported that FDA scientists had found certain combina- 
tions of organophosphates to be more toxic than one v/ould expect on the 
assumption of additive effects. The pair of compounds mentioned in this 
first anonymous article was malathion and EPN." 

In 1957, FDA workers reported that in acute oral studies on rats, 50% 
were killed by about 1/10 LD50 each of malathion and EPN in combination. 
One LD50 is the amount of the material that kills 50% of the animals under 
usual test conditions. In dogs, all were killed by less than 1/40 LD50 malathion 
in combination with less than 1/50 LD50 of EPN. FDA subacute feeding 
studies showed greater than simply additive effect upon blood cholinesterase 
of rats and dogs. 

This unpredictable build-up called "synergism" was observed in all paired 
combinations in acute oral doses to mice of EPN, malathion, dimefox, Phostex. 
"Once again the most marked effect was found with EPN and malathion." 
Apparently, one reason for malathion's low toxicity to warm-blooded animals 
is that, on entering the body it is chemically altered by protective action of the 
liver. This process is hampered in the presence of many other organic phos- 
phates, such as Thimet and methyl parathion; and the process is completely 
stalled by parathion.-^ Since synergistic effects of organic phosphate combina- 
tions have only been detailed in laboratory reports on animals, the U. S. pesti- 
cide industry may still consider them mere armchair theory. But Dr. O'Brien 
refers to this observed synergism, or "potentiation," as a serious problem, 
"when two compounds that are innocent separately may together cause death. "^'^ 

There is much uncertainty still about which nev,^ compounds may thus 
have their toxicity enormously multiplied by practical use together. Little is yet 
known about the accumulation of most of the new compounds in the body, 
except in the case of DDT, and even its tilt'imate ejects are not known because 
humans have been absorbing it only since World War II. Information is com- 
pletely inadequate on the types and the incidence of chronic illnesses that may 

• 10 • 



3501 

be caused by pesticides, injuries that are not fatal but are prolonged. Perhaps 
for all these reasons, the British Government, in an official summary of its 
agricultural poisons regulations, states:-** 

"(a) The repeated use of chemicals, even in small quantities, can have 
cumulative effects which may not be noticed until a dangerous amount 
has been absorbed. This applies particularly to chemicals in the 
organo-phosphorus group. Some of these — like diazinon, 'Dipterex,' 
malathion and "Rogor' — are not dangerous enough under normal 
conditions to be specified in the Regulations, but if absorbed by a 
man who has worked with specified phosphorus substances they could 
increase the accumulation of poison in his body — perhaps to a most 
serious degree . . . 

(b) A worker known to have been poisoned by a chemical, and who has 
been advised not to work with it until he recovers, must not work 
with any chemical in the same group whether it is specified in the 
Regulations or not. 

(c) Although each group of chemicals acts on the body in different ways, 
it is undesirable on general grounds for a worker who has been 
removed from contact with a chemical in a particular group on medi- 
cal grounds to be transferred to work with another chemical in a 
different group, e.g., a worker removed from contact with a dinitro 
compound should not be transferred to work with an organo-phos- 
phorus compound or vice versa." 

Herbicides — Halogenated Organic Acid Compounds 

Halogenated organic acid compounds, used as selective herbicides to 
erase unwanted plants and leave the desired grass or crop unharmed, are best 
known because of the popularity of 2,4-D. 2,4-D has been assumed to have no 
danger for animals or man. However, an article in the A.M. A. Archives of 
Environmental Health of January 1962 reports that 2,4-D has apparently pro- 
duced motor disorders, paralyses in extremities, vomiting and diarrhea in experi- 
mental animals. The scientists making the observations also noted three patients 
who had apparently experienced damage to the central nervous system from 
skin absorption of the herbicide. They suggest caution in the use of 2,4-D, 
and that "special neurological examination of workmen in contact with 2,4-D 
is necessary."-^ 



Dinitro phenols 

Eradicant herbicides destroy all the vegetation in an area. The dinitrophe- 
nols, typified by DNOC, are used often for this purpose. But in different form, 
DNOC and the others are also used as fungicides, insecticides, miticides, blos- 
som-thinners in orchards. They can cause dermatitis. All the dinitros are dan- 
gerous to inhale or swallow, and DNOC and some others of the group can 
also be absorbed through the skin. Chronic DNOC poisoning is evidenced by 
fatigue, headaches, sweating, thirst; cataract formation may follow. An acute 

• 11 • 



3502 

illness in man brings nausea, restlessness, sweating, fever, rapid respiration, 
cyanosis and collapse. If death occurs it usually is within 24-28 hours. Yellow 
staining of the conjunctivae, and in severe exposures, of the organs, tissues, and 
fluids of the entire body, are characteristic of DNOC. Also characteristic is 
the slow, insidious pattern of recorded cases of poisoning — so unlike the 
immediate prostrating blow following exposure to TEPP or parathion. DNOC 
has been regarded as a menacing cause of casualties abroad, but in this country 
is considered relatively safe, whether because of differences in formulations 
used here, or in luck, or in case- reporting, or because "the symptoms of poison- 
ing from substituted dinitrophenols resemble those of hyperthyroidism rather 
closely, "^"^ is not entirely clear. 



Carbamates 

To counteract some plant diseases, chemical fungicides are applied to plants 
or to seeds. The carbamates are rated among the less hazardous agricultural 
chemicals to use: Ferbam, Zineb, Nabam, etc. However, much remains to be 
learned about them. Their health risks have so far been observed as "mild 
dermatitis, pharyngitis, rhinitis, bronchitis and conjunctivitis" as a result of 
rather heavy exposure.^^ A recently developed carbamate insecticide, Sevin, is 
reported to have relatively low toxicity for the user. Though a cholinesterase 
inhibitor, its developers state that it possesses "greater anticholinesterase activity 
against insects than against mammals. "^- 

Fiingicides — Organic Mercury Compounds 

Organic mercury fungicides can cause severe poisoning. Dr. Wayland J. 
Hayes, Jr. of the U. S. Public Health Service, an internationally eminent toxi- 
cologist who concentrates on pesticide research, issued a warning in a July 1961 
article that the organic mercury compounds are now available in this country 
"and their action should be familiar to physicians who treat farmers and others 
concerned with the use of agricultural chemicals." Early poisoning signs include 
tremors of the hands, loss of side vision, incoordination in speech and gait, 
irritability and headache. "Symptoms may follow relatively slight exposure and 
may appear as much as several weeks after exposure has ceased. "^^ 



Rodenticides 

Of the rodenticides, the long-used thallium and arsenic compounds are, 
as is well known, terribly hazardous when swallowed and also somewhat dan- 
gerous through skin contact. Of the newer rodenticides, warfarin and ANTU 
are considered safe. 

One pesticide about whose ferocity there is no disagreement or quibbling, 
is sodium fluoroacetate (1080) — "probably the most hazardous rodenticide 
available. "•'■* Its sale is restricted by industry; and the USDA, Public Health 
Service, and pest control specialists agree that it should be used minimally, with 
the most cautious conditions, and by experts only. 



12 



3503 
Difficulty of Diagnosis 

The possible relationship between pesticides and blood diseases remains 
an open question. According to Dr. Hayes, broad assertions that pesticides have 
brought an increase in blood dyscrasias are unfounded: 

'". . . the trends of incidence of the blood dyscrasias have not increased; 
however, this does not establish that pesticides are not the cause in indi- 
vidual cases. It is certainly agreed that chemicals, especially drugs, can 
be the cause of individual cases. It is also generally recognized that no 
really satisfactory diagnostic test is available for establishing the relation- 
ship between a particular chemical and a particular case of blood dyscrasia. 
I would like to make a plea for basic research in this field . . ."^^ 

The dimness surrounding the question of pesticides' effect on the blood is 
only one aspect of the difficulties of diagnosing agricultural chemical injuries. 
Dr. Hayes describes some of these: 

"Sometimes the patient, or those who accompany an unconscious patient, 
are simply unaware of an exposure which has occurred; or they may be 
aware of an exposure but completely uninformed about its significance" 
"Information on the older pesticides usually adequate to permit 
diagnosis of poisoning by them is easily available . . . Information on the 
newer pesticides is somewhat less available."'* 

The basic U. S. medical guide for pesticides, which is prepared by the 
Communicable Disease Center "at Atlanta, Georgia, states: 

"In the absence of laboratory facilities for cholinesterase determinations, 
poisoning by these [organic phosphorus] compounds has been confused 
with heat stroke, heat exhaustion, gastroenteritis, and pneumonia or other 
severe respiratory infection. Mild poisoning must frequently be distin- 
guished from asthma and from simple fright with various psychosomatic 
manifestations, particularly among the associates of knov/n poisoning 
cases. "^"^ 

Laboratory measurement of blood cholinesterase activity is the best indi- 
cator for organic phosphorus poisoning. But, Dr. Hayes warns, many doctors 
and laboratory personnel are unaware of the difficulties of interpretation. Normal 
healthy enzymatic activity can vary greatly between individuals, and even in 
the same individual over time. So really, only when a person's usual chol- 
inesterase level in times of health is known, can his level after exposure be a 
completely reliable diagnostic aid. 

There are also particular handicaps in diagnosing chlorinated hydrocarbon 
poisonings : 

"Nervous symptoms and convulsions entirely similar to those of chlorinated 
hydrocarbon insecticide poisoning may be induced by a variety of economic 
poisons as well as by even less specific neurologic disease."-'*'^ 

Furthermore, in attempting laboratory analysis of the poison in tissues and 
urine, medical people must realize that exposure by repeated small doses will 
have allowed time for these chemicals' peculiar biological feat of storage in 
the body fat, leaving little evidence in other tissues, blood, and urine. 

• 13 • 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 10 



3504 

The confusing resemblance of dinitrophenol poisoning to hyperthyroidism 
has already been mentioned. 

A specific antidote for organic phosphorus poisoning has been successful 
even in advanced cases — large doses of atropine given for 24-48 hours. Oxygen 
may be required for severe cases of either organic phosphoais or dinitrophenol 
poisoning. In all cases where there has been dermal exposure, the poison must 
be removed from the skin (sometimes by an attendant wearing rubber gloves 
for his own protection). 

Attempting self diagnosis and self treatment can be very dangerous, espe- 
cially in the case of atropine taken without immediate follow-up and observa- 
tion by a physician because the atropine may mask important symptoms of 
poisoning by organic phosphates. It seems likely that an occasional needless 
death has resulted from self treatment with atropine with such striking success 
that the patient continued his exposure and when the effects of atropine finally 
wore off the patient died before he could get to a doctor. 

Precautions 

What precautions can a man take to protect himself against pesticides he 
is working with.^ All the pesticides are poisonous to some degree, and should 
be handled carefully according to directions. 

"It is not generally realized that, while spraying, workers undergo a con- 
tinual exposure to imperceptible spray droplets. This is true even when 
there is no visible mist behind the spray nozzle and no visible wetting of 
the skin or clothing of the worker. In a similar way, when dust forniula- 
tions are used, there is some exposure even when no cloud of dust is seen."^^ 

A worker should be told the risks of the chemical he is handling. Special 
work clothing should be worn including hat and gloves, left at the end of the 
workday and washed frequently. The hands and face should be washed before 
eating or smoking to prevent swallowing or inhaling the chemical. These 
general rules are guides for safely using the less toxic pesticides — DDT, 
malathion, Sevin, etc., according to the USDA, "provided they are in dilute 
dusts or water sprays. However most concentrates and oil solutions require 
special precautions. "^'^ 

In handling the latter, and the more toxic compounds such as toxaphene 
and dieldrin, a worker is advised against spilling them or getting them into 
eyes, nose, or mouth. He should be provided w'lth protective clothing which 
closes at wrists and throat, and gauntlet gloves (rubber or neoprene for phos- 
phates' use). Care must be taken not to put hands already contaminated with 
chemical into gloves. If any pesticide is spilled on the body or clothing, cloth- 
ing must be changed immediately, and skin or eyes thoroughly washed. ' Work 
period should be carefully limited to an 8-hour day for men who will be using 
chemicals over a prolonged period. First aid and treatment facilities should be 
available in case of toxic injuries. Daily bathing after work is necessary. 

When preparing solutions, it is helpful to remember to use deep con- 
tamers and long-handled mixers and dippers. Sprayers need to wash hands 
frequently; after refilling equipment, before eating or smoking, at the end of 

• 14 • 



3505 

work. They have to resist sucking or blowing through clogged nozzles of spray 
equipment, and try to avoid, as much as possible, moving through spray — if 
outdoors, or having drafts blow spray onto them — if indoors. 

To use TEPP, parathion, and other pesticides that are the most toxic avail- 
able, workers need not only the protective clothing, handy washing facilities 
and 'change of clothes, medical facilities available for emergencies, already 
advised for the milder chemicals — but also respirators or gas masks. Respira- 
tors are half-face masks protecting the mouth and nose but not the eyes. They 
have small filtering and absorption capacity, and are useful only against dusts, 
mists, and low-concentration vapors. 

Of course, relying on faulty respirators is more dangerous than having 
none, so the USDA issues lists of tested and approved brands of respirator)' 
devices. The listing is complicated, since a single respirator can not suffice for 
every pesticide. Those that protect against parathion may not protect agamst 
TEPP, and the respirator that serves adequately against low concentrations may 
not serve against high concentrations. 

Farm workers with pesticides should also know that respirators require as 
much care as a well-tended baby: 

"1. Change filters twice a day, or oftener, should breathing become difficult. 

2. Change cartridges after 8 hours of actual use, or oftener, if any odor 
of the pesticide is detected. 

3. Remove filters and cartridges and wash face piece with soap and warm 
water after use. After washing, rinse thoroughly to remove all traces 
of soap. Dry face piece with clean cloth uncontaminated with pesti- 
cide. Place face piece in a well-ventilated area to dry. 

4. Store respirators, filters and cartridges in a clean dry place. . . . The 
respirator should be fitted properly on the face, not too high on the 
nose, with narrow portion over the bridge of the nose, and chin cup 
contacting underside of the chin. Headbands should be adjusted just 
tightly enough to insure a good seal."'*^ 

Respirators should be worn by those who load pesticides into spray equip- 
ment, who burn empty containers (the smoke can be lethal), who are exposed 
to obvious dusts or mists, or who are continuously exposed to not-so-obvious 
amounts. 

However, full-face gas masks with their greater absorbing and filtering 
capacities, have to be worn by workers exposed to the extremely toxic materials. 
They are the workers who mix or apply pesticides in enclosed places, such as 
users of aerosols in greenhouses; workers who load aircraft and who act as 
flagmen on the ground for aircraft; and pilots who apply highly concentrated 
chemicals. 

The pilots who do air-spraying and dusting have been especially exposed 
to pesticide hazards. The World Health Organization has advised them in 
particular:^^ 

• 15 m 



3506 

1. Not to join ground crews in the job of loading pesticides into the 
plane. 

2. Never to fly through their own spray mist. 

3. To have regular blood cholinesterase tests when working with organic 
phosphates. 

4. To use appropriate respirators and goggles. 

5. To change regularly into clean uncontaminated clothing. 

6. To try to choose planes so designed as to reduce exposure hazard. 
Most aircraft used in spraying are not designed for the purpose, and 
so put the pilot in some risk of contamination from his toxic cargo. 

Not only the aerial spray men need radical re-designing of the equipment 
for applying new agricultural chemicals. Old-style equipment often makes 
hazardous exposure inevitable for men applying pesticides at ground level, and 
adequate protective clothing may be quite impossible. Dr. Clyde M. Berry 
wryly remarked to the Society of Agricultural Engineers: 

"You may now state that an application device for field crops is effective 
because you tested the foliage. I predict that you will soon be asked how 
much you are putting on, and in, the operator of the device. To those of 
you who think in terms of personal protective equipment — impervious 
clothing, boots, face shields, respirators and rubber gloves — I would 
point out that these are temporary and/or emergency measures. The real 
answer lies in engineering. Wear these protective devices yourselves if 
you doubt me. Wear them for a full day in the blazing summer sun, and 
you will return to your air-conditioned office and take another look at the 
Frankenstein you have created. ""*- 

Because equipment is dangerously obsolete for many of the new pesticides, 
it has been suggested that a manufacturer — as part of his required pre-market- 
ing research — should be responsible for developing and field-testing really 
practical protective equipment and procedures, before a pesticide could be legally 
saleable. 



Farm Facts 

Are people on the farm taking precautions with pesticides? Very irregularly, 
according to Dr. Clyde Berry. The farmer finds that: 

"A sign on his planter warns against the dangers of insecticides and urges 
that he follow the precautions of the manufacturer. The insecticide label 
warns against breathing the dust. No retail outlet for respirators exists 
m his community. Prompt washing is urged if skin contamination occurs. 
There are no showers in the south forty. His medical resources are limited. 
There may not be a rural physician in the community. A hospital may be 
miles away. Health and accident insurance may not be available or may 
be prohibitive in cost. A local health department, if one existed, would 

• 16 • 



» 



3507 

not be likely to provide services in the area of occupational health and 
safety. In the absence of competent health and safety facilities the farmer 
must rely on his own knowledge and judgment. These may be inept. He 
may not seek medical attention at all."'*^ 

Gloves, protective clothing, and respirators are hot and uncomfortable in 
sunny fields. They are likely to be cast aside. In Iowa, experienced observers 
reported:^* 

"Because of the small parts which make up a spray nozzle, it is impractical 
and nearly impossible to clean them when gloves are worn. High clearance 
machines are bad to handle when the nozzles plug. Unless the spray boom 
is lowered by the operator, he must reach up to remove the nozzle. Since 
the nozzles are dripping spray material, it runs down over the hands and 
arms of the operator, sometimes reaching the chest and abdomen before 
the cleaning job is completed and the nozzle reinstalled." 

"There appears to be a general antipathy toward the use of respirators . . . 
It is a general practice to wear the respirator going one way down a spray 
lap, and to drop it beneath the chin on the return lap when driving into 
the wind. This is not a good practice since the inside of the respirator 
has a tendency to collect spray residue." 

"Exposure to spray drift is unavoidable under most field conditions . . . 
there are nearly as many types of spray rig as there are farmers who have 
them. Most of these pieces of equipment are home made affairs." 

The farm worker is naturally removed one step further than the farmer 
from safety in pesticide use. He is dependent upon his employer to provide 
understanding of safe use, handy washing facilities, protective clothing and 
equipment, first aid and medical care in emergency, safe application equipment. 
He is hardly in a position to initiate a safety program of his own. Washing 
facilities are vitally important in safe use of pesticides - — to prevent skin con- 
tamination, and also to prevent contact of food and cigarettes with contaminated 
hands. But washing facilities are famously scarce for farm workers. 



17 



3508 

LAWS 

Labeling of Pesticides 

Are there any governmental safety controls on pesticide sales ? The Federal 
government requires a manufacturer to do certain testing, packaging, and labeling 
before a pesticide can be marketed across State lines. These regulations are 
intended to safeguard the consumer who buys pesticides (so he can be sure the 
chemical he buys is the effective pest-killer it is supposed to be) and the food 
consumer (so he can be sure what he eats does not contain more chemical 
residue than his health can tolerate). They also protect the pesticide user's health. 

The pesticide labeling law giving supervision to the U. S. Department of 
Agriculture is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947. 
The principle of that Law is that the label is the key to proper use. The manu- 
facturer who wants to ship a new pesticide formulation in interstate commerce 
must submit to the USDA a proposed label giving the ingredients, adequate 
directions, and warnings. He has to prove his product can do the job he claims 
for it. 

Requiring a governmental O. K. of a company's scientific testing means 
that information must be supplied by industry about the nature and effects of 
a new agricultural chemical. 

The manufacturer must provide enough information for the USDA to 
judge the chemical's effectiveness and safety. The USDA may consult the U. S. 
Public Health Service about safety. Research study of the health effects on 
experimental animals from oral, inhalation and skin doses of a new pesticide 
is relatively simple for the manufacturer, if the pesticide is not to be used 
where it may contaminate food. 

But the machinery of registration becomes really complicated and expensive 
— to both industry and government — when the pesticide is to be used in food 
production. Then, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, acting under 
authority of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended in 1954, must be 
satisfied that the chemical can be used without leaving an unhealthy residue 
in the crop. Only after the FDA says yes, can the Department of Agriculture 
register a pesticide for use on crops. 

To find out the probable results of people eating the pesticide often, with 
their food, research must be done over a longer period and with a greater variety 
of animals, than for a pesticide of no concern to the FDA. The usual food 
pesticide research program has two-year feeding tests on rats, one-year feeding 
tests on non- rodent species, complete pathological records on the test animals, 
devising of whatever chemical and biological methods are needed to analyse 
the residues of the new pesticides. 

The simplest pre-marketing research discovers the dangers to warm-blooded 
animals from an occasional heavy exposure. It shows what can happen to 
handlers of the concentrate in industry and on the farm, to workers who inhale 
spray or rub against sprayed foliage. 

But the elaborate testing done for the FDA is to reveal the effects of 
repeated exposure to small amounts. ""What makes this problem of chronic 
toxicity difficult is that one is looking for everything," explains Dr. Ralph Con- 
nor, Vice President of Rohm & Haas Company."*^ 

• 18 • 



3509 

"The effects may not be shown by recognizable symptoms, and they may 
occur very gradually. In a case like this, we feed animals a diet containing 
the material under question. Certain animals will be fed at one level, 
others at another, so that, all told, we will have five or six different levels 
of exposure. We try to pick these so that we will include so much toxicant 
at one or two levels that we will get some sort of toxic effect. This is 
generally done with rats for a two-year period which covers practically the 
entire life span. We also carry out feeding experiments on some other 
species — usually dogs. The animals are observed for any detectable 
changes in their health, rate of growth, etc., and at the end are sacrificed. 
All the organs are examined — heart, brain, spleen, liver, etc. — to look 
for any changes that may have been produced. There is, of course, the theo- 
retical possibility that some effect may have been produced that all this nnay 
have overlooked, but I do not know of any more thorough way to do it." 

"From this point there is no set procedure to be followed in studying 
chronic toxicity, but what needs to be done varies with the product and 
the use to which it is to be put. For example, one of our insecticides is 
recommended for use in dairy barns. Here, it would be important to know 
whether any of the material could get into the milk. We therefore 
synthesized the radioactive insecticide, fed it to cows and analyzed the 
milk for the insecticide. We used radioactive labeling because it is a much 
more sensitive method than any chemical analysis and because it shov/s 
up the metabolites as well as the original pesticide." 

"In the case of our herbicide for use on rice, it was important to know 
whether the rice would contain any of this material after har^-^est. We 
therefore, fixed up some swimming pools in which we could grow rice 
on our experimental farm and made the application of radioactive herbicide 
and analyzed the plants periodically to determine the presence or absence 
of our product. In this case, we were able to show that long before harvest 
there was no herbicide or metabolite from it in the rice plant." 

"Testing on humans? There is only one type of test for which this is 
feasible and this is patch testing to determine skin sensitization or irrita- 
tion. We need to have this information, of course, for the protection of 
our own workers. We use 100 subjects obtained as volunteers from our 
Research Laboratories. I do not think it is practical to feed such materials 
to people, not only because of some possible unknown hazard to thern, 
but because I am not sure that the results would mean much. Usually, if 
something is highly toxic, the program I have described has shown this. 
The thing to be most concerned about at this stage of the work is whether 
something is occurring that is not readily recognizable. To determine this, 
it is far better to use animals which can be sacrificed to permit a detailed 
examination of all parts of the body, in order to pick up any abnormalities." 

The Federal rules give prescriptions for labeling every sort of formulation 
of each compound. For example, chlordane in wettable powders above 25% 
concentration, and in oil solutions for agricultural use, must be marked: 

"Caution: Harmful if swallowed. Contact with skin causes toxic symptoms. 
Avoid breathing dust or spray mist. In case of contact with skin, 
wash with soap and water. Avoid contamination of feed and 
foodstuffs. "4« 

• 19 • 



3510 

For parathion above 2%, the label must include the word POISON in red, 
skull-and-crossbones, a statement of the antidote and first aid treatment in case 
of injury: 

"Warning: Poisonous If Swallowed, Inhaled, or Absorbed Through Skin! 
Rapidly Absorbed Through Skin ! Do not get in eyes, on skin, 
or on clothing. Wear natural rubber gloves, protective clothing 
and goggles. In case of contact, wash immediately with soap 
and water. Wear a mask or respirator of a type passed by the 
U. S. Department of Agriculture for parathion protection. Keep 
all unprotected persons out of operating areas or vicinity where 
there may be danger of drift. Vacated areas should not be 
reentered until drifting insecticide and volatile residues have 
dissipated. Do not contaminate feed and foodstuffs. Wash 
hands, arms and face thoroughly with soap and hot water before 
eating or smoking. Wash all contaminated clothing with soap 
and hot water before reuse."'**' 

For parathion dusts 2% and below, the word "Warning" remains, but no need 
for POISON, skull-and-crossbones, or antidote statement. 

A provision of the labeling law that one must not sell a pesticide except 
in the manufacturer's unbroken container prevents the consumer from getting 
any pesticide separated from its cautionary label. Industry and Agriculture 
Department people believe that this is also an indirect safety measure, since 
large packages of the more toxic pesticides are unlikely to be purchased except 
by expert users who know how to handle them. 

Once a pesticide is on the market, Department inspectors are entitled to 
take samples from plants and retail stores to test whether official standards are 
still met. If a product is found not to meet the health and efficiency standards 
set for it, it can be seized everywhere it is being marketed. 

All except five States — Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa — 
have pesticide labeling laws, similar to the Federal Act, placing conditions on 
pesticide marketing within the State. Two of the exceptions, Connecticut and 
Iowa, have laws pertaining just to insecticides and fungicides. 



Use of Pesticides 

In this manner, the conditions of sale are regulated. But what about regu- 
lation of use? The Federal government attempts such regulation only incidentally 
by insisting on its packaging and limited-residue rules. However, a pesticide 
shipped legally interstate, then sold from a "broken package," — that is, trans- 
ferred from the manufacturer's labeled quart can to the storekeeper's pint bottles 
— could be controlled only by State law. The USDA's Pesticides Regulation 
Division, unlike the FDA in seizing contaminated food, can not pursue such 
a violation within a State. 

The limits, set by the Food and Drug Administration, on the amount of 
poisonous chemicals in food crops — residue tolerances — give a little pro- 
tection indirectly to an agricultural worker. At least, there is a lid on the 

m 20 m 



3511 

amount of poisonous material he can contact on a food or feed crop. This 
though, is no help to him at all if he is working in cotton. Besides, an amount 
or method of application may be dangerous to handle, despite its leaving behind 
at harvest time only a legal residue of no danger to consumers. It is also 
admitted among industry, farmers, and the FDA, that there are frequent crop 
seizures for excessive residues. Farmers often spray more than the allowed limit, 
from ignorance or financial anxiety about their crop. 

Twenty-nine State governments now exert some direct control on the way 
pesticides are used. As pesticide sales have boomed, and new kinds continually 
came into use, the "custom-applicator" business — spraying and dusting for 
hire — has emerged with problems of its own. Both airplane and ground 
spraying businesses have to be run by true specialists with efficient equipment, 
or there is serious possibility of injury to the operators themselves, and to 
nearby crops, animals, and people, as the States have begun to discover. 

A Model Bill has been urged on all the State legislatures since 1949 by 
the Council of State Governments and many officials and trade associations in 
the pesticide field, to require custom applicators to have licenses for which 
they must pass qualifying examinations. This measure protects reputable busi- 
nesses, as well as workers, and the community. And the administration of 
licensing laws is nothing new for the States. A few of the 29 States which 
attempt pesticide-use regulation have had a comprehensive concern about 
injuries which could not be met simply by custom-applicator licensing. The laws 
passed by some of the greater agricultural States, which grapple earliest with 
new technical problems in agriculture, may give a hint of future needs to 
other States. 

California, Hawaii, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin have a licensing-and- 
permit system requiring not only licensing of custom-applicators but also per- 
mits for the owners of land to be treated. Two of these States also require 
manufacturers and dealers in certain pesticides to get permits. To receive a 
license for custom-application in Oregon, one must take a regular course and 
examination in pesticide-use given by county agricultural agents. The Oregon 
Chemical Spray Applicators Law has a special feature providing, in detail, for 
democratic handling of one of the newer problems of self-government. In 
suitable regions, 2/3 of the population may by passing a referendum, establish 
theirs as a large "protected area" or "restricted area." Within those areas, act- 
ing through special governing committees, Oregon residents themselves will 
plan "the time, place, manner, and method of the application of herbicides or 
insecticides" for their area as a whole.^''^ 

The constructive possibilities of such a law exist for any other State that 
will have a spry and enterprising attitude toward the new problems offered to 
government by such technical innovations as pesticides. California has been a 
leader in recognizing that new pesticides have brought new responsibilities to 
the State, and in inventing new ways to meet them. 

In I960, Governor Edmund G. Brown set up a Special Committee on 
Public Policy Regarding Agricultural Chemicals. The Committee held extensive 
hearings and issued a Report, which have encouraged public discussion of pesti- 
cide use, hazard, and regulation. 

m 21 • 



3512 

In addition to the basic pesticide labeling law, and a law providing for 
licensing and supervision of applicators, California has an Injurious Materials 
Law which restricts the use of certain extremely dangerous chemicals to persons 
having a permit and observing certain safety conditions. Though agricultural 
conditions are often thought hard to regulate because units are diffuse and 
unorganized compared to industry, in this and other surveillance efforts, admin- 
istration on the county level has worked. A licensed agricultural pest control 
operator must register with the County Agricultural Commissioner where he 
will be working, and observe any special rules made by the Commissioner to 
protect special areas, crops, or wildlife in his district. Anyone in California 
wishing to use one of fourteen materials on the Injurious Materials list has 
to get a permit and information on safe use from the County Commissioner. 
TEPP, parathion, EPN, Systox, Phosdrin, Thimet, and sodium arsenite are all 
included. No dealer may supply these chemicals to anyone who does not 
have a permit. 

In testimony before Governor Brown's Special Committee, Mrs. Goldy D. 
Kleinman and Dr. Irma West of the State Department of Public Health, 
asserted that government will have to take some new legal positions on pesti- 
cides, if the upward trend of injuries is to be reversed. Washing facilities for 
farm workers must be provided: "Such facilities are not usually available in 
the field and many farm laborers may not bathe after each day's work." More 
forceful inspection seems to be needed to see that safe practices when available, 
are used: "Could the agricultural industry pay inspectors ... in much the same 
way as the canning industry pays inspectors to supervise canning procedure?" 
Or is a general market for potent poisons impossible to make safe in any way? 
Would it be wiser to restrict the users of the highly toxic agricultural chemicals 
"to those who can demonstrate ability and equipment to work safely in the 
same way as the users of radioactive isotopes must first demonstrate their 
ability to use radioactive materials safely ?"^^ 



British Regulations 

Such questions asked in California may sound brash to U. S. agriculture 
officials and chemical industry. But in Great Britain, they had been answered 
before they were asked. 

In California, from 1956 to 1961, twenty children and four adults died 
from accidental poisoning by the weed-killer sodium arsenite. There were also 
a number of recorded instances of animals and plants killed because of careless 
handling of sodium arsenite. Therefore that chemical was recently placed on 
the California Agriculture Department's Injurious Materials list so that a permit 
is now required when using it. In Great Britain, sodium arsenite had been 
withdrawn from the commercial market. 

The most recent official study of toxic chemicals in Britain recalls: 

"In the 8-year period 1946-53 before the introduction of the Regulations to 
control the use of the more toxic pesticides . . . there were eight deaths 
from these substances. In the eight years which have elapsed since the 
Regulations came into force in March, 1953, one agricultural worker died 

• 22 • 



3513 

as a result of poisoning; this death occurred in 1955 from the use in 
greenhouses of ethylmercury phosphate. This substance is now used only 
in two special factory premises for the treatment of sugar beet seed and 
is no longer available to agricultural workers. "^^ 

In the same 1953-60 period, there were only 30 nonfatal pesticide illnesses 
among British agricultural workers. 

What are the Regulations that have practically stopped pesticide casualties 
in Great Britain? They are stringent. They invoke penalties for offenses 
against safety. They employ inspectors. They have entailed prosecutions. 

The British Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Regulations of 1952 refer 
to certain extremely toxic agricultural chemicals. Twenty are on the regulated 
list at present, including Systox, DNOC, endrin, parathion, Phosdrin, schradan, 
TEPP, HETP, and organic mercury compounds used in aerosols. When workers 
are using these substances, they perforce must take certain precautions, and their 
employer must undertake defined obligations. 

In the most exact and lengthy detail, safety requirements are spelled out: 
The worker t7iust wear specified protective clothing and remove it at the end 
of work. He must wash at the end of each v/ork day and before eating, drink- 
ing, or smoking. He jnust not blow or suck a spray nozzle; "use for any purpose 
other than drinking, a drinking vessel provided by his employer"; or work 
longer hours than set forth in the law. The employer must ensure that any 
worker who carries out a scheduled operation has been trained in the precau- 
tions to be observed and is adequately supervised." He must provide protective 
clothing with replacement filters for masks, accommodation for the worker's 
personal clothing, soap and towels and water "for all the workers likely to use 
them and sited near, but outside, the spraying area" safe drinking water. He 
must "ensure that any spraying or soil-application apparatus is washed before a 
worker repairs it." He must keep a work record for each employee, and he must 
not permit a pesticide worker to be on a job longer than the limit set in the law.-^*^ 

These musts are not propaganda or platitudes. They are rigidly enforced 
by a staff of 72 or more inspectors. An employer who does not provide and 
supervise safe conditions, or a worker who will not make proper use of what 
is provided, when working with the most toxic chemicals, is guilt}' of a legal 
offense. An isolated offense can be corrected on the spot cooperatively and 
informally. But cases of continued violation have brought about 32 prosecu- 
tions since 1953. 

British authorities credit their use Regulations not only with directly pre- 
venting injuries, but with indirectly erasing many possible occasions for injury :^^ 

"The need to comply with the Regulations makes the use of these pesticides 
troublesome. Farmers and workers clearly prefer to use pesticides that 
require little or no protective clothing, so that their choice, if they have 
one, is for a non-regulated as against a regulated chemical . . . This 
attitude, in turn, has stimulated manufacturers to produce less poisonous 
materials." 

• 23 • 



3514 
EDUCATION 

It is impossible, actually, for anyone to handle pesticides effectively and 
safely unless he has been taught to do so. Education in pesticides use has to 
be the user's main shield. Laws can only back up educational efforts, and coerce 
the recalcitrant. What kind of education about pesticides do we have in the 
United States.? 

All information to the public is, like the Federal law and most State laws, 
based on the opinion that a good label is the only important guarantee of safe 
use. Government and industry efforts to teach consist almost entirely of ""Read- 
the- Label" campaigns. 

The educational task is done mostly by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
through its County Agents, and by industry, through individual companies or 
trade associations. Others provide worthwhile information, but can not have 
a massive national impact: the American Medical Association, farm magazines, 
some State Farm Bureau organizations, some State agriculture departments, 
some State health departments, the National Safety Council. 

As Mr. Justm Ward, Director of the USDA's Pesticides Regulation Divi- 
sion, says:^- 

"... the basic concept of the law is that an individual of ordinary intelli- 
gence is competent to read and follow label directions, and if those direc- 
tions are adequate when complied with to prevent injury that is as far as 
this law is expected to go." 

The USDA's County Agent acts as counselor and friend at the farmer's 
elbow. He is in constant communication with the agricultural people of his 
area, answering their questions by phone and mail, visiting the farms, demon- 
strating techniques, organizing meetings, passing along expert technical advice 
from his State Agricultural Experiment Station, and from Washington, for 
local crop conditions. So his office is the obvious funnel through which most 
facts and advice on pesticides reach the agricultural public. Through him, 
manufacturers pass to farmers, horticulturists, and home gardeners, explanations 
about a product; and the U. S. Department of Agriculture along with Extension 
specialists of his own State, gives explicit directions on how much of which 
pesticide to apply to which crop, and how, and when. Occasionally, there will 
be a uniform nation-wide campaign launched by the Department of Agriculture 
in Washington, such as a blanket distribution of "Read-the-Label" leaflets, signs, 
telephone tabs, car stickers, etc., and in this every County Agent will participate. 
The specialty of the Extension Service, though, is its local flexibility, so there are 
no firm rules for a County Agent about the form or intensity of his pesticide 
education effort. How much he accomplishes depends upon his own interest, 
ability, and time. 

• 24 • 



3515 

Do They Read the Label? 

Have agricultural pesticide users in the United States been educated suc- 
cessfully? The U. S. Department of Agriculture and many State agriculture 
officials think they have. Agricultural administrators may be excused for being 
sometimes overly defensive, since the farmer is less likely to approach them 
about a dermatitis or a respiratory complaint than about a pest control 
problem that bothers him. They must concentrate on the crop-marketing 
aspect of the farmer's welfare. Out of habit, they may tend to think the insect- 
crop relation is all-important and all else regarding pesticides is sentimentality. 

It is of course, impossible to measure the effectiveness of having the entire 
statutory effort for user safety devoted to getting adequate labels, and the 
entire educational effort devoted to urging workers to "Read-the-Label." It can 
only be indicated negatively by the incidence of injuries. 

Dr. Wayland J. Hayes, Jr. of the U. S. Public Health Service believes "the 
safety record of the newer pesticides in the United States is good."^^ We appear 
to have had far fewer victims of pesticide misuse than Japan or India, or many 
of the under-developed nations. 

But, while we may not have the accident rate of many other countries, 
neither do we have a safety record like Britain's. 

A sign that information about pesticides has not been enough is the pilot 
program launched in March 1962 by the National Agricultural Chemicals 
Association — an industry group. The organization reacted to Florida's rising 
pesticide casualties, by announcing "Education — or rather, re-education" as 
the "only effective and enduring solution to the problem." They set out to "satu- 
rate" the State of Florida with safety information, to reach every dealer, farmer, 
and homeowner who handled pesticides in an experiment to show what more 
intensive education could do. The usual posters, leaflets, labels, gummed pack- 
ing tape, were distributed for display wherever pesticides were "stored, mixed, 
loaded, or used."^^ But a new involvement of the mass media was tried by 
preparing simultaneous items for newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, and meet- 
ings. Perhaps the most promising feature of the campaign was the new collab- 
orarion it arranged among the State Department of Agriculture, the State Board 
of Health, the State Industrial Commission, the Board of Education, the College 
of Agriculture, all of whom took part in the project. At the time of writing, 
the campaign has not yet finished. 

Surely a long-term effort, more pervasive than what we have had, is needed 
in all the States — not just in Florida. Surely the government departments 
concerned could initiate pesticide-information programs in which they would 
act together — and not continue to wait for industry to show them how. 

• 25 m 



3516 

Where Pesticide Information is Needed 

If the pesticide injury rate is to be reduced through education, certain 
groups of people will have to learn more than they now know about pesticide 
hazards : 

Parents, 

Farmers and custom applicators, 

Agriculture officials at every level, 

Doctors, hospitals, and public health personnel, 

Employees of farmers and applicators. 

The first four groups all are in positions of responsibility for the health of 
others, and should have information channeled especially to them. If parents 
knew it was a life-and-death matter to find out whether a chemical is harmful 
before buying, to store it out of reach, to destroy used containers; if employers 
knew enough to protect themselves, and knew the necessity of safe working 
conditions for employees; if agricultural officials were aware enough to dis- 
courage from using pesticides anyone not in a position to use caution, and to 
recommend the least toxic pesticide wherever possible, the pesticide situation 
in the United States would be far more sane. 

How to inform doctors and medical facilities about the new ailments from 
new pesticides which they may see, is a particularly vital problem. Until, as an 
A.M.A. Committee has recommended, these facts are given in medical training 
courses and all our doctors have been exposed to them there, special ways must 
be arranged for getting through to them generally and quickly. Poison Control 
Centers around the nation, and two Communicable Disease Centers, are always 
available to advise doctors who call, but the doctor must know enough to be on 
the right road to diagnosis in order even to know he should call on them! 

The Committee on Pesticides of the American Medical Association has 
noted that: 

"Growing recognition of the health problems of pesticides and other com- 
monly used chemicals found on the farm and in the home has fostered 
numerous suggestions for informing physicians about those products that 
have obvious or latent potentialities for harm . . . Despite this activity, a 
tendency exists to dismiss medical problems involving non-drug com- 
pounds as the concern of the rural practitioner or the industrial physician. 
This attitude is both unjustified and unrealistic" . . . 

"Practicing physicians as well as medical students should be informed of 
the dangers of widely used, nonmedicinal chemicals, and should be familiar 
with methods for the prevention and treatment of accidental poisoning."^'* 

In Great Britain, the Government is issuing to medical practitioners, hos- 
pitals, and health officers a memorandum calling their attention to symptoms 
and treatments of poisoning from the highly toxic pesticides on the Agriculture 
Regulations list. 

• 26 • 



3517 
PRESENT HEALTH PROGRAMS 

Emergency Information 

The U. S. Public Health Service now operates 460 Poison Control Centers 
in 48 States (except Vermont and Montana), and the District of Columbia. 
The Centers keep records of the ingredients of trade name products that are 
poisons, including pesticides, and the antidotes for poisoning. This information 
is available around the clock to those (mostly parents and doctors) who call 
for it. Some Centers also offer some education about poisons through visiting 
nurses of local public health departments. 

Medical Research 

Since 1949, the Communicable Disease Center of the U. S. Public Health 
Service has been analyzing the toxic hazards to man of economic poisons used 
in public health and agriculture. In its main laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia — 
and in two field stations at Wenatchee, Washington and Phoenix, Arizona — 
scientists make various laboratory studies. They observe farmers, orchardists, 
and spray pilots occupationally exposed to pesticides; volunteers for controlled 
experimental exposure; and patients sick from over-exposure. 

Medical Supervision 

Besides research in effects on humans, and emergency treatment informa- 
tion, another form of medical resource is needed for those using the more toxic 
pesticides: regular surv^eillance by doctors of exposed men and their working 
conditions. 

Medical surveillance is thought finicky or impossible where it does not 
exist. But the World Health Organization has reported :^^ 

"It should be emphasized that the earliest signs of poisoning both by the 
organo-phosphorus and the chlorinated-hydrocarbon group of insecticides 
are essentially mundane in character. Headache, fatigue and mild indiges- 
tion might easily and in some cases, justifiably be attributed to the effects 
of long hours of work, perhaps under trying conditions. Likewise with 
other compounds, such as the dinitrophenols and pentachlorophenol, 
fatigue and profuse sweating might easily be attributed to the hot environ- 
ment in which poisoning by these particular compounds usually occurs. 
It is therefore most important that adequate medical supervision of all 
pesticide operators be available when new or dangerous pesticides are used, 
so that workers who draw attention to any of these premonitory symptoms 
may receive the serious medical attention that the circumstances undoubt- 
edly demand." 

In Great Britain, employers are "strongly recommended" by the Govern- 
ment to have medical supervision of workers with pesticides, particularly the 
more toxic organic phosphate and dinitro compounds. "Experience has shown," 

• 27 • 



3518 

the British Government states, "the value of standing arrangements for the 
medical supervision of workers using poisonous substances. "^^ Employers are 
warned that there is regular need for blood sampling of workers long-exposed 
to dinitros and organic phosphates, and that in case of accident, "it may not 
be possible at a moment's notice to call on a doctor who will be ready to 
undertake this work." It is recommended "as a reasonable precaution to 
engage a doctor before using these substances, to explain to the doctor the 
uses expected to be made of these substances and to follow the doctor's advice 
which will, wherever necessary, be based on his examination of workers." 
H. M. Inspector of Factories or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and 
Food can help employers to find the doctors they need. For medical supervision 
to be adequate, the employer will provide the doctor with facilities for exami- 
nations and with records of the workers' contact with toxic compounds. The 
doctor can then point out when stricter precautions are needed, when a worker 
should be shifted from use of toxic chemicals, when a worker needs medical 
treatment or hospitalization.^'^ 

"It is obvious," in the judgment of the California Department of Health, 
"that any hazardous work requires both a safety and a medical program 
working closely together. Either program without the other is inadequate 
(only 'half safe') . . . When environmental control is particularly diffi- 
cult, as in agriculture, the more critical and the more active is the medical 
program because disease and injury are getting closer to the workers who 
must be examined and treated more frequently." . . . "Medical supervision 
has more to offer in the prevention of organic phosphate poisoning than it 
has for many other occupational hazards. First, there is the cholinesterase 
test which can detect excessive exposure before workers become sick . . . 

Second, there is an antidote for poisoning which if administered early and 
in adequate amounts can save the lives of victims who have absorbed 
several times the fatal dose . . . Third, the extremely hazardous properties 
of organic phosphates and the hundreds of cases of occupational poisoning 
which are occurring annually in California point to the urgency of utilizing 
all protective measures both environmental and medical. "^^ 

Accordingly, the California Division of Industrial Safety has issued orders 
requiring employers in agriculture to provide medical supervision for workers 
who regularly apply certain highly toxic organic phosphate pesticides. And it 
is recomfnended that "all who work with organophosphorous pesticides or any 
other hazardous materials be medically supervised. "^^ A California employer 
affected by the new orders must engage a doctor to watch his employees' condi- 
tion regularly, arrange blood cholinesterase tests, advise when workers should 
be shifted from dangerous exposure, and be ready with prompt care in poison- 
ing emergencies. Medical and laboratory bills are to be paid by employers: 

"Medical supervision, regardless of what it costs, should be looked upon as 
a cost of production of using hazardous materials. Improving the safety 
of operations can often reduce the services necessary and therefore the 
cost of the medical program. "^^ 

• 2S • 



3519 
A SOENTIFIC WAY THAT IS SAFER 

The general use across the nation of very poisonous pesticides has had 
other disadvantages besides endangering inexpert users. It has raised the prob- 
lem of poisonous residues in food, and has produced insect populations resistant 
to the chemicals that temporarily controlled them. Effects of chemical pesticides 
on man and all forms of life are so incompletely understood, that it is quite 
possible we are bargaining wholesale for even more damage in the future. 

Widespread use of the most toxic chemicals may even be ineffective in 
controlling pests. Erasing some insects by chemicals will often free their 
natural prey, so that species formerly unnoticed, begin to flourish and in turn 
become pests. Dr. Paul DeBach, entomologist at the University of California 
at Riverside, recalls :5^ 

"I worked with one, perhaps the first, notable upset from the use of DDT. 
The enormous use of DDT on citrus in the Central Valley of California 
beginning in 1945 promoted the cottony-cushion scale (which had been 
under excellent biological control in California since the vedalia beetle 
was imported from Australia in 1888-89) from the status of a scarce pest 
to one of the most damaging pests within the space of two years. From 
the end of 1946 until the spring of 1947, I was unable to find a single 
living vedalia beetle in this area. They had to be reintroduced, and after 
spraying procedures were changed, the cottony-cushion scale was again 
reduced by its predator. Meanwhile, many growers suffered serious losses." 

Nationally, we have been eager to spray and slow to count the conse- 
quences. Is it now time to think out a more rational approach to pest control? 
Actually a start has been made. A more scientific alternative exists which has 
been termed "integrated control." 



What is Integrated Control? 

In integrated pest control programs, maximum use is made of natural 
enemies, and minimum use is made of chemicals. 

"Biological control and chemical control are not necessarily alternative 
methods; in many cases they may be complementary, and, with adequate 
understanding, can be made to augment one another ... It is short- 
sighted to develop a chemical control program for the elimination of one 
insect pest and ignore the impact of that program on the other arthropods, 
both beneficial and harmful ... On the other hand, this approach is no 
worse than the other extreme which would eliminate chemicals to preserve 
the biological control even in the face of serious economic damage. For 
we must recognize that modern agriculture could not exist without the use 
of insecticides. The evidence that biological and chemical control can be 
integrated is mounting."*^^ 

• 29 m 

36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 11 



3520 

This attitude of long-range scientific calculation aims to free crops of 
unwanted insects and weeds as economically as possible, with as little environ- 
mental damage as possible. This is not merely letting nature take its course. 

An ecology- oriented scientist called on to rid an area of pests, will study 
the relations of all living things in the environment, find which natural con- 
trols are on his side, and act to bolster them. He wants the most effective 
attack on the particular insect with the least incidental risk to humans, wildlife, 
soil, water, beneficial insects, and harmless plant life. So he selects the victim, 
the weapon, and the application time, with precision. Aware of all the living 
organisms in the area, he avoids the broad-spectrum chemicals that endanger 
many species along with the pest. 

If this sort of pest control concept spreads, some reorientation of the 
U. S. Agricultural Extension Service may be needed. Already, where integrated 
control is practiced in California, ecology-minded entomologists work in close 
liaison with County Commissioners and farmers, choosing the best methods 
for their region. 

When pest control is approached in this manner, the method used varies to 
suit the particular problem. In some places, the best protection is merely to 
foster predators already in the area, as when wasps' nests in North Carolina 
are sheltered from their enemies so the wasps may successfully prey on a tobacco- 
pest. Or, it may be wise to hunt out, import, and mass-breed predators or 
parasites to feed upon the pest, as entomologists introduced enemies of the 
sugar cane leafhopper in Hawaii and of the Klamath weed in California. 

Sometimes, the treatment used is a biological-chemical combination as in 
"the chemical strip treatment of alternate pairs or rows of oranges in order to 
permit the build-up of a parasite of purple scale, thereby achieving 50% 
savings for pest control over a considerable area."®^ 

The recent U. S. Department of Agriculture eradication of the screw- 
worm from a large southeastern part of the United States was accomplished by 
mass producing and sterilizing males to mingle with the rest of the pest popu- 
lation. Other highly adventurous research, in insect diseases, has made it 
possible to attack the alfalfa caterpillar in California by spraying fields with a 
virus deadly only to pests. And for some years, great acreages of the U. S. have 
been planted in corn, wheat, and alfalfa scientifically dev'eloped to be, them- 
selves, pest-resistant. 

It may take several seasons after ceasing general spraying to re-establish 
a balance between the pest and its natural enemies; it takes six to ten years to 
develop pest-resistant plants; "parasites may be very effective over a 10-year 
period, but not prevent severe outbreaks one or two years out of 10."^- There- 
fore, a strategic use of chemicals can help to promote a favorable biological 
balance. 

"Biological control is thus utilized to permanently increase environmental 
resistance to an introduced pest . . . Because chemical insecticides are 
nonreproductive, have no searching capacity, and are nonpersistent, they 
constitute short-term, restricted pressures. "^^ 

• 30 • 



3521 

Could biological control solve most of the agricultural pest problem? 

"To those who know the subject, the future couldn't be brighter," says one 
entomologist at the University of California. "There are many major 
insect and weed pests in the United States for which natural enemies can 
be imported" . . . "In Canada . . . the major emphasis is on biological 
control, and long-term ecological studies have clearly demonstrated that 
insecticides in the orchard often create more problems than they solve. 
Canadian entomologists also are making considerable progress in biological 
control of forest pests."*''* 

But before such programs could be widely adopted in the United States, 
there would have to be research resources to study more thoroughly the habits 
of our major pests; and development against a variety of pests of presently limit- 
ed techniques, including male sterilization and chemical attractants with traps. 

The Entomology Research Division, USDA, is working in its laboratories 
on new ways to control insects. And the University of California has a Depart- 
ment of Biological Control, which in addition to pursuing research, teaches 
and advises integrated pest control methods to State and County agricultural 
officials. However, in the United States generally, there is a shortage of funds 
and staff for development of integrated biological-chemical methods. Only 
about 40 entomologists (2% of the trained men available) in the United States, 
are working full time on biological control. The rest are absorbed mainly in 
industry or in industry-sponsored pesticide research in universities. 



31 



3522 
PUBUC QUESTIONS 

1. The Department of Agriculture practically determines how much and 
which pesticides are used. Is there adequate assurance that public health 
interests are fully involved in their decisions? 

2. Do economic incentives, alone, provide enough impetus for industrial 
development of pesticides as little toxic as possible to humans? Or may 
the high cost of testing and registering a new pesticide lead, instead, to 
a general relaxation in the effort to produce new ones continually? To 
encourage development of less toxic pesticides, do we need more of the 
artificial incentives, such as government-sponsored research, government 
regulation of use of the more toxic pesticides, and State systems of com- 
pensation for workers injured in agriculture? 

3. Do the variations and gaps in State labeling laws leave open some intra- 
state loopholes so that it is possible to market within a State pesticides 
dangerous to health? 

4. Are all injuries from pesticides in agriculture consequences of "misuse"? 
If so, does the modern community not hold itself responsible for accident 
prevention in agriculture, as it does in supervising airplane safety, car 
safety, traffic safety, factory safety, food-consumer safety? A slippery 
curve may be safe, if you read the signs and drive properly, but fences 
are put up to prevent speeders from dropping off, and if there are some 
casualties, the road may even be altered. In industry, if enough people 
make a stupid mistake which involves injuries, this is considered a safety 
problem to be reckoned with, not something to be ignored because the 
machine was misused. 

5. Is pre-marketing testing adequate? Careful and thorough as testing on 
animals may be, it can not give a full picture of the human health hazards 
from using a new pesticide. Should there be more of limited field testing 
on humans before a pesticide goes on the general market, to show actual 
human exposure hazards in addition to what is known about sheer animal 
toxicity? Would this provide more knowledge of chronic and cumulative 
effects on humans? Should the development of practical protective equip- 
ment, procedures, and medical methods become a necessary cost-of-produc- 
tion for pesticide manufacturers ? 

6. Should marketing of high-toxicity compounds be more restricted? 

7. Is enough known about "potentiation" to be sure when the safer pesticides 
are safe? 

■ ' * 

8. Do ignorant users often get hold of the most-toxic pesticides for unsuit- 
able purposes? If so, should this be prevented by permits and licenses, in 
the same manner as we use drug prescriptions and drivers' licenses? 

m 32 • 



3523 

9. In each State, where should responsibilities be placed for agricultural 
safety with pesticides? What are the employer's obligations, what are the 
worker's ? Who should inspect and enforce safe conditions ? 

10. Is the education we need about pesticides being done by State health 
officials, county agents, etc. ? How can more doctors be satisfactorily 
informed 7 

11. Does read-the-label education take us all the way we need to go in teach- 
ing safe agricultural use of pesticides } What of those — foreign, illiterate, 
ignorant, or near-sighted — who can't read the label ? Or most people, who 
do not have well-trained clinical imaginations with which to envision 
fully the meaning of "Contact with skin may cause toxic symptoms"? Or 
those whose circumstances make it impossible to follotv the label — 
because soap and water, protective clothing, and first aid are all unavail- 
able? Or a man more vulnerable than the average, because the weather is 
unusually hot and humid, or because he has a health condition that can 
not withstand pesticide exposure? 

12. Are the problems of pesticide injury in agriculture recognized in Federal 
and State health programs? Are the community's preventive, diagnostic, 
and treatment resources available? 

13. Is farm safety necessarily harder to maintain than industrial safet}'? If 
so, should we ignore it or should we insist on more money, ingenuity, and 
restriction of hazardous materials, to accomplish farm safety programs? 
Can progress be made in achieving safe conditions of pesticide use for 
farm workers, without the spur of workmen's compensation systems? 

14. Do we wish our government to emphasize the development of biological 
pesticide practices, with a view to adopting a public policy of integrated 
biological-chemical control ? 



33 



3524 
NO SIMPLE OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS ARE POSSIBLE 

We must recognize how many uncertainties and public questions do sur- 
round the use of toxic pesticides. The "pesticide problem" affects vegetation, 
wildlife, water supplies, soil, insect populations, insect-borne diseases, adequacy 
and purity of food supply, recreation, industrial handlers, farm users, food 
consumers. Even in the limited study of only its health effects on agricultural 
users, the problem is complicated. Chemists, biologists, entomologists, medical 
research workers, public health officials, agricultural experts, manufacturers, 
have few absolute answers. 

One basic fact is certain: in our advanced technological society, it is 
economic nonsense to talk of outlawing a whole class of useful tools. We 
would never confiscate all knives because people are often cut and sometimes 
killed by them. 

But there is no economic inevitability about the ways in which we choose 
to use our dangerous tools. Society has the political right to choose the aims 
for which agricultural pesticides shall be used, and what the forms, functions, 
and restrictive conditions shall be. 

So far, most of these choices seem to have been made for us by our 
experts. Because they are so often responsible and humane, and because U. S. 
farmers are so often intelligent technicians, the dangers of the situation have 
been conspicuous to the public only in intermittent moments of panic. 

But pest control is an increasing problem, and the use of chemical pesti- 
cides is one factor that is here to stay. The management of this public tool 
must be consciously assumed by an informed public. 

The extent of the pesticide hazard to agricultural users is uncertain. The 
best public-health, educational, and legal methods of control are being disputed. 
These questions are a political responsibility of the U. S. public — to study, 
think over, and decide, with the advice of its experts. 



34 • 



3525 
LITERATURE CITED 

1. Bureau of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor. Safety Standards, vol. IX, 
no. 1, Jan.-Feb. I960, p. 7 

2. Upholt, William M. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 3, no. 12, Dec. 1955, 
p. 1002 

3. Young, John; West, Irma; and Loretz, Wayne. California's Health, vol. 12, no. 17, 
March 1, 1955, p. 132 

4. Hayes, Wayland J. Jr. A. M. A. Archives of Environmental Health, vol. 3, July 1961 
p. 49 

5. Florida. State Board of Health Report, (unpublished) October 1961 

6. California. Department of Public Health. Occupational Disease in California 
Attributed to Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals - 1959. Feb. 1961, p. 8 

7. Conley, Bernard E. Journal of American Medical Association vol. 163, April 13, 
1957, p. 1339 

8. Conley, Bernard E. A. M. A. Archives of Industrial Health, vol. 18, August 1958, 
p. 128 

9. California. Department of Public Health, op. cit., p. 14 and Occupational Disease 
in California Attributed to Pesticide and Agricultural Chemicals - I960. November 

1961, pp. 4, 6, 12 

10. National Agricultural Chemicals Association. N. A. C. Neu'S. vol. 20, no. 4, April 

1962, p. 3 

11. Unpublished letters to author 

12. Unpublished letter to author 

13. Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. Bulletin 161 Revised, p. l4 

14. World Health Organization. Technical Report Series No. Il4. 1956. pp. 13, 14, 
17, 21 

15. Wolfe, Homer R., Technology Branch, Communicable Disease Center, U.S. Public 
Health Service. Washington State Weed Conference Proceedings. Nov. I960, p. 5 

16. Durham, William F. Technology Branch, Communicable Disease Center, U. S. 
Public Health Service. Proceedings of I960 N. W . Perishable Loss Prevention 
Short Course. Feb. 17-18, I960, p. 30 

17. Berry, Clyde M. Journal of the Iowa State Medical Society. July 1959, p. 387 

18. Doyle, Henry N. Public Health Reports, vol. 72, no. 2, February 1957, p. l47 

19. Schwartz, Louis, copied from Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada. vol. 3, Zagreb 1952, Br. 3 

20. Province of Saskatchewan. Department of Public Health. Annual Report 1960-61 
p. 171; and unpublished letter to author 

21. Unpublished letter to author 

22. Unpublished letter to author 

23. Malkinson, Frederick D. A. M. A. Archives of Industrial Health, vol. 21, February 
1960, p. 91 

24. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farmers' Bulletin. No. 2062, September I960, p. 11 

25. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Communicable Disease Center. 
Clinical Memoranda on Economic Poisons. 1956, p. 25 

26. O'Brien, Richard D. Toxic Phosphorus Esters. Academic Press. I960, pp. 210-212 

27. Ibid. p. 2 

28. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Safe Use of Poisonous Chemicals 
on the Farm. Leaflet APS/1. London. April I960, p. 12 

29. Desi, L; Sos, J.; Olasz, J.; Sule, F.; and Markus, V. A. M. A. Archives of Environ- 
mental Health, vol. 4, January 1962, pp. 95-102 

30. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Clinical Memoranda on 
Economic Poisons, p. 63 

31. Ibid, p. 65 

• 35 • 



3526 

32. Carpenter, C. P.; Weil, C. S.; Palm, P. E.; Woodside, M. W.; Nair, J. H. Ill; 
and Smyth, H. F. Jr. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 9, no. 1, Jan. /Feb. 
1961, p. 30 

33. Hayes, Way land J. Jr. op. cit. p. 53 

34. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Clinical Memoranda on 
Economic Poisons, p. 52 

35. Hayes, Way land J. Jr. op. cit. p. 54 

36. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Clinical Memoranda on 
Economic Poisons, p. 10 

37. Ibid. p. 25 

38. World Health Organization. Technical Report Series No. Il4 p. 44 

39. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Handbook No. 120 inside front cover 

40. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Respiratory Devices for Protection against Inhala- 
tion Hazards of Dust, Mists, and Low Vapor Concentrations of Certain Pesticides. 
Leaflet. March 20, 1961, p. 7 

41. World Health Organization. Technical Report Series No. 114, p. 21 

42. Berry, Clyde M. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Society of Agri- 
cultural Engineers. Columbus, Ohio. June 12-15, I960 

43. Berry, Clyde M. American Journal of Public Health, vol. 49, no. 5, May 1959, 
pp. 620, 621 

44. Long, Keith R. and Walden, John. Preliminary Studies on Economic Poisons. 
Bulletin no. 4. Institute of Agricultural Medicine. State University of Iowa. 
September 1958, pp. 5-7 

45. Unpublished letters to author 

A6. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Regulations for the Enforcement of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. (Title 7, Ch. Ill, Pt. 362, Interpretation 
18; Revision II) Federal Register. March 9, 1962, p. 2270 and p. 2274 

47. Oregon. House Bill No. 1208. 573-545(2) 

48. Kleinman, Goldy D. and West, Irma. Paper presented at meeting of the Special 
Committee on Public Policy Regarding Agricultural Chemicals. Oct. 20, I960, p. 8. 
Sacramento, California 

49. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture and 
Food Storage. London. 1961, p. 12 

50. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Leaflet APS/l, Part I 

51. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture and 
Food Storage, p. 13 

52. Ward, Justus C. American Journal of Public Health, vol. 45, no. 6, June 1955, 
p. 725 

53. Hayes, Wayland J. Jr. Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 5, I960, p. 396 

54. Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 152, June 20, 1953. p. 709 

55. World Health Organization. Technical Report Series No. 114, p. 11 

56. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Leaflet APS/l, Part III 

57. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Poisonous Substances Used in Agri- 
culture — Notes for Employers on Medical Supervision. Nos. 1 and 2. December 
1956 

58. California. Department of Public Health. Questions and Answers about Medical 
Supervision for Workers Using Organic Phosphate Pesticides. 1962, pp. 1, 4, and 8 

59. DeBach, Paul. Handbook on Biological Control of Plant Pests. Brooklyn Botanic 
Garden. I960, p. 23 

60. Stern, Vernon M.; Smith, Ray F.; van den Bosch, Robert; and Hagen, Kenneth S. 
Hilgardia. California Agricultural Experiment Station, vol. 29, no. 2, October 1959, 
p. 94 

61. Fisher, Theodore W. Handbook on Biological Control of Plant Pests, p. 18 

62. Turner, Neely. Handbook on Biological Control of Plant Pests, p. 55 

63. Stern et al. Hilgardia. pp. 88, 89 

64. Fisher, Theodore W. Handbook on Biological Control of Plant Pests, pp. 17, 18 

• 36 • 



3527 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1. Arterberry, J. D., Durham, W. F., Elliott, J. W. and Wolfe, H. R., Exposure to 
Parathion, AMA Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 3, 477-485 (Oct. 1961) 

2. Barnes, J. M., Hayes, W. J. Jr., and Kay, Kingsley, Control of Health Hazards 
Likely to Arise from the Use of Organo-Phosphorus Insecticides in Vector Control, 
WHO Bull. 16, 41-61 (1957) 

3. Batchelor, Gordon, S., Walker, Kenneth C. and Elliott, Joseph W., Dinitroortho- 
cresol Exposure from Apple-Thinning Sprays. AMA Archives of Industrial Health, 
Vol. 13, 593-596 (June 1956) 

4. Berry, Clyde M., Agricultural Industry — the Changing Pattern, American Journal 
of Public Health, Vol. 49, No. 5, 616-621 (May 1959) 

5. Berry, Clyde M., Health Hazards from Agricultural Chemicals, Journal of the 
Iowa State Medical Society, 387-389 (July 1959) 

6. Berry, Clyde M., Health Hazards from Farm Chemicals, paper presented at annual 
meeting of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Columbus, Ohio (June 
12-15, 1960) 

7. Cann, Howard M. and Verhulst, Henry L., Fatality from Acute Dinitrophenol 
Derivative Poisoning, American Journal of Diseases of Children, Vol. 100, 947-948 
(Dec. I960) 

8. Carpenter, C. P., Weil, C. S., Palm, P. E., Woodside, M. W., Nair, J. H. and 
Smyth, H. F. Jr., Mammalian Toxicity of 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcar hamate (Serin 
Insecticide) Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 9, No. 1, 30-39 (Jan. /Feb. 1961) 

9. Derbes, Vincent J., Dent, J. H., Forrest, W. W., and Johnson, M. F., Fatal Chlor- 
dane Poisoning, Journal of the AMA, Vol. 158, 1367-1369 (August 13, 1955) 

10. Durham, William F., Health Hazards in the Use of Pesticides, Proceedings of 
1960 N. W. Perishable Loss Prevention Short Course (Feb. 17-18, I960) 

11. Durham, William F., Gaines, Thomas B., and Hayes, Wayland J. Jr., Paralytic and 
Related Effects of Certain Organic Phosphorus Compounds, AMA Archives of 
Industrial Health, Vol. 13, 326-330 (April 1956) 

12. Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Compilation of Economic Poisons 
(Pesticides) Laws, New York (June 1961) 

13- Committee on Pesticides, Pharmacology and Toxicology of Certain Organic Phos- 
phorus Insecticides, Journal of the AMA, Vol. 144, 104-108 (Sept. 9, 1950) 

14. Committee on Pesticides, The Present Status of Chlordane, Journal of the AMA, 
Vol. 158, 1364-1367 (Aug. 13, 1955) 

15. Committee on Pesticides, Toxicology in Medical Curriculum, Journal of the AMA, 
Vol. 152, 709 (June 20, 1953) 

16. Committee on Toxicology, Occupational Dieldrin Poisoning, Journal of the AMA, 
Vol. 172, 2077-2080 (April 30, I960) 

17. Conley, Bernard E., Incidence of Injury with Pesticides, Journal of the AMA, Vol. 
163, 1338-1340 (April 13, 1957) 

18. Conley, Bernard E., Morbidity and Mortality from Economic Poisons in the United 
States, AMA Archives of Industrial Health, Vol. 18, 126-133 (Aug. 1958) 

19. Decker, George C, Pros and Cons of Pests, Pest Control and Pesticides, World 
Review of Pest Control, Vol. 1, Part 1, 6-18 (Spring 1962) 

20. Desi, I., Sos, J., Sule, F., and Markus, V., Nervous System Effects of a Chemical 
Herbicide, AMA Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 4, 95-102 (Jan. 1962) 

21. Doyle, Henry N., Occupational Health on Farms, Public Health Reports Vol. 72, 
no. 2, 145-148 (Feb. 1957) 

22. Edson, E. F. and Noakes, D. N., The Comparative Toxicity of Six Organophosphorus 
Insecticides in the Rat, abstract in Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 3 no 2, 
98 (Feb. 1961) 

23. Elliott, Joseph W., Walker, Kenneth C, Penick, Archie E., and Durham, William 
F., Insecticide Exposure, a Sensitive Procedure for Urinary p-Nitrophenol Deter- 
mination as a Measure of Exposure to Parathion, Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 
Vol. 8, no. 2, 111-113 (March/April I960) 

• 37 • 



3528 

24. Flanagan, Joseph E. Jr., Labeling Legislation — a Summary Review of Recent 
Developments, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 50, no. 5, 637-641 
(May I960) 

25. Frear, D. E. H., Pesticide Handbook, College Science Publishers, State College, 
Pa. (1961) 

26. Fredriksson, Torsten, Percutaneous Absorption of Parathion and Paraoxon, AMA 
Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 3, no. 2 (Aug. 1961) 

27. George, John L., The Pesticide Problem, The Conservation Foundation, New 
York (1957) 

28. Golz, Harold H., Controlled Human Exposures to Malathion Aerosols, AMA 
Archives of Industrial Health, Vol. 19, 516-523 (May 1959) 

29. Golz, Harold H., and Shaffer, C. Boyd, Toxicological Information on Cyanamid 
Insecticides, American Cyanamid Co., New York (I960) 

30. Great Britain, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Toxic Chemicals in 
Agriculture and Food Storage, Report of the Research Study Group, H. M. Sta- 
tionery Office, London (1961) 

31. Great Britain, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Leaflet APS/l, The 
Safe Use of Poisonous Chemicals on the Farm (April I960) 

32. Great Britain, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Labour Supply Branch, 
Poisonous Substances Used in Agriculture — Notes for Employers on Medical 
Supervision, Nos. 1 and 2, (Dec. 1956) 

33. Great Britain, Statutory Instruments 1956 No. 445, The Agriculture (Poisonous 
Substances) Regulations, 1956, H. M. Stationery Office, London (1959) 

34. Handbook on Biological Control of Plant Pests, Brooklyn Botanic Garden (i960) 

35. Hayes, Wayland J. Jr., Diagnostic Problems in Toxicology, AMA Archives of 
Environmental Health, Vol. 3, 49-56 (July 1961) 

36. Hayes, Wayland J. Jr., Pesticides in Relation to Public Health, Annual Review of 
Entomology, Vol. 5, 379-404 (I960) 

37. Hayes, Wayland J. Jr., Dixon, Ernest M., Batchelor, Gordon S., Upholt, William 
M., Exposure to Organic Phosphorus Sprays and Occurrence of Selected Symptoms, 
Public Health Reports ,Vol. 72, no. 9, 787-794 (Sept. 1957) 

38. Hayes, Wayland J. Jr., Durham, William F. and Cueto, Cipriano, Jr., The Effect 
of Known Repeated Oral Doses of Chlorophenothane (DDT) in Man, Journal of 
the AMA, Vol. 162, 890-897 (Oct. 27, 1956) 

39. Hilgardia, California Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. 29, no. 2 (Oct. 1959) 

40. Huguley, Charles M. Jr., Erslev, Allan J. and Bergsagel, Daniel E., Drug-Related 
Blood Dyscrasias, Journal of the AMA, Vol. 177, 23-26 (July 8, 1961) 

41. Joslin, Eric F., Forney, Robert L., Huntington, Robert W. Jr., and Hayes, Wayland 
J. Jr., A Fatal Case of Lindane Poisoning, Proceedings of National Association 
of Coroners, Cleveland, Ohio, 53-57 (1958 Seminar) 

42. Kleinman, Goldy D. and West, Irma, California State Department of Public Health, 
Occupational Disease in California Attributed to Agricultural Chemicals, statement 
presented at meeting of Special Committee on Public Policy Regarding Agricultural 
Chemicals, (Oct. 20, I960) 

43. Knapp, L. W. Jr., Poison Information, Institute of Agricultural Medicine, State 
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 

44. Lindquist, Arthur W., New Ways to Control Insects, Pest Control, (June 1961) 

45. Long, Keith R. and Walden, John, Preliminary Studies on Economic Poisons, 
Bull. no. 4, Institute of Agricultural Medicine, State University of Iowa, Iowa 
City, Iowa. (Sept. 1958) 

A6. Malkinson, Frederick D., Percutaneous Absorption of Toxic Substances in Industry, 
AMA Archives of Industrial Health, Vol. 21, 87-99 (Feb. I960) 

47. Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Manual L-1, Guide to Precautionary Label- 
ing of Hazardous Chemicals, Washington D. C. (1961) 

48. National Agricultural Chemicals Association, Law Chart — Laws Regulating Dis- 
tribution and Sale of Agricultural Chemicals, Washington D. C. 

• 3S • 



3529 

49. National Agricultural Chemicals Association, Pesticide Use Lau' Chart, Washington 
D. C, (Dec. 1959) 

50. National Agricultural Chemicals Association, Prototype of a Safety Education 
Campaign, N. A. C. News, Vol. 20, no. 4, 2-6 (April 1962) 

51. O'Brien, Richard D., Toxic Phosphorus Esters, Academic Press, New York and 
London (I960) 

52. Pemberton, C. E., History of the Entomology Department Experiment Station, The 
Hawaiian Planters' Record, Vol. LII, no. 1, 53-90 (1948) 

53. Pesticides Subcommittee of the Food Protection Committee, National Academy of 
Sciences — National Research Council, Safe Use of Pesticides in Food Production, 
publ. 470, Washington D. C. (1956) 

54. Province of Saskatchewan, Canada, Department of Public Health, Annual Report 
1960-61, 171 

55. Quinby, Griffith E. and Lemmon, Allen B., Parathion Residues as a Cause of 
Poisoning in Crop Workers, Journal of the AMA, Vol. 166, 740-746 (Feb. 15, 1958) 

56. Reeder, David H., Organic Phosphate Insecticide Poisoning, Journal of Occupa- 
tional Medicine, Vol. 3, no. 3, 129 and 130 (March 1961) 

57. Safety Factors in Agricultural Aviation, Agricultural Chemicals, 55 and 89 
(May 1961) 

58. Schwartz, Louis, Skin Hazards from Fertilizers and Pesticides, copy from Arhiv 
Za Higijenu Rada, Vol. 3, Zagreb 1952, Br. 3 

59. Schwartz, Louis, Tulipan, Louis, and Birmingham, Donald J., Occupational Diseases 
of the Skin, 494 and 503, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia (1957) 

60. State of California, Department of Public Health, Occupational Disease in Cali- 
fornia Attributed to Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals 1939 (Feb. 1961) 

61. State of California, Department of Public Health, Occupational Disease in Cali- 
fornia Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals I960 (Nov. 1961) 

62. State of California, Department of Public Health, Questions and Answers about 
Medical Supervision for Workers Using Organic Phosphate Pesticides, (1962) 

63. State of California, Department of Public Health, Reports of Occupational Disease 
Attributed to Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals 1958 

64. State of Oregon, House Bill No. 1208, Chemical Spray Applicators Law 

65. Top, Franklin H., Occupational Health in Agriculture, AMA Archives of Environ- 
mental Health, Vol. 2, 150-154 (Feb. 1961) 

66. Upholt, William M., Evaluating Hazards in Pesticides Use, Agricultural and Food 
Chemistry, Vol. 3, no. 12, 1000-1006 (Dec. 1955) 

67. Upholt, William M., Life-Saving Suggestions on Handling Parathion or TEPP, 
Better Fruit Magazine (July 1956) 

68. LTpholt, William M., Observe the Rule, An Ounce of Prevention, American Fruit 
Grower, 39 and 40 (May 1955) 

69. Upholt, William M., Toxicology of Insecticides, The Sanitarian, Vol. 20, no. 1, 
23-27 (July-Aug. 1957) 

70. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Insects — the Yearbook of Agriculture 1932, 
U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 

71. U. S. Dept. Agr., Farmers Bull. No. 2062, How to Spray the Aircraft Way, U. S. 
Govt. Printing Office, Washington D. C. (I960) 

72. U. S. Dept. Agr., Agricultural Research Service, Insecticide Recommendations, 
Agriculture Handbook no. 120, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D. C. 
(1962) 

73. U. S. Dept. Agr., ARS, Respiratory Devices for Protection Against Inhalation 
Hazards of Dust, Mists, and Low Vapor Concentrations of Certain Pesticides, 
(March 20, 1961) 

74. U.S. Dept. Agr., ARS, Service and Regulatory Announcements No. 166 (1958), 
Regulations for the Enforcement of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti- 
cide Act (Title 7, Ch. IH, Pt. 362 of the Code of Federal Regulations) 

• 39 • 



3530 

75. U.S. Dept. Agr., ARS, Service and Regulatory Announcements No. 167 (1958), 
Interpretations of the Regulations for the Enforcement of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Kodenticide Act (Title 7, Ch. Ill, Pt. 362 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations) 

76. U. S. Dept. Agr., ARS, Irkterpretation 18, Revision II, Interpretations of the Regu- 
lations etc. ... , Federal Register, 2267-2277 (March 9, 1962) 

77. U. S. Dept. Agr., ARS, Use of Diseases to Kill Plant Insect Pests, ARS Special 
Report no. 22-74 (Oct. 1961) 

78. U. S. Dept. Agr., Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, The Pesticide 
Situation for 1960-1961 (July 1961) 

79. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Communicable Disease 
Center, Clinical Memoranda on Economic Poisons, Public Health Service Publication 
No. 476, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D. C. (1956) 

80. U. S. Dept. of HEW, National Office of Vital Statistics, Deaths from Accidental 
Poisoning by Pesticides: U.S., Selected Years 1946-39 (May 1, 1961) 

81. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards, Agricultural Workers and 
Workmen's Compensation, Bull. 206, U.S. Govt. Printing Office (1959) 

82. U. S. Dept. of Labor, Bur. of Lab. Standards, Pesticides. Safety Standards 7, 8 9 
19, 20 (Jan.-Feb. I960) 

83. U. S. Dept. of Labor, Bur. of Lab. Standards, State Workmen's Compensation 
Laws, Bull. 161, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D. C. (I960) 

84. U. S. Federal Aviation Agency, Aircraft in Agriculture 1939, U. S Govt. Printing 
Office, Washington D. C. (June 1961) 

85. U. S. Laws, Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Appr. June 25, 1938, 52 
Stat. 1040-50 c. 657, Publ. No. 717, 75th Congr.) 

86. U. S. Laws, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Appr June 25 
1947, 61 Stat. 163-73 c. 125, Publ. No. 104, 80th Congr.) 

87. U. S. Laws, Public Law No. 318, 83rd Congress (amended Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act in 1954) 

• 88. U. S. Laws, Public Law No. 86-139, 86th Congress (amended Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act in 1959) 

89. van den Bosch, R., and Stern, V. M., The Integration of Chemical and Biological 
Control of Arthropod Pests, Annual Review of Entomology, Vol. 7, 367-386 (1962) 

90. Verhulst, H. L. and Page, L. A., A New Agent in Parathion Poisoning, Journal 
of New Drugs, Vol. 1, no. 2 (March-April 1961) 

91. Ward, Justus C, Public Acceptance of Pesticides Depends on Safe Use Pest 
Control (Jan. 1962) 

92. Ward, Justus C, Toxicity Criteria Used in judging the Labeling of Pesticides, 
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 45, no. 6, Ill-Ill (June 1955) 

93. Wolfe, Homer R., Health Hazards in the Agricultural Use of Economic Poisons, 
Washington State Weed Conference Proceedings, 3-8 (Nov. I960) 

94. Wolfe, Homer R., Durham, William F., Walker, Kenneth C, and Armstrong, J. F., 
Health Hazards of Discarded Pesticide Containers, AMA Archives of Environ- 
mental Health, Vol. 3, no. 5 (Nov. 1961) 

95. World Health Organization, Bull. 20 (1959) 

96. World Health Organization, Tech. Rept. Ser. No. 110, Expert Committee on 
Insecticides — Sixth Report (1956) 

97. World Health Organization, Tech. Rept. Ser. No. Il4, Toxic Hazards of Pesticides 
to Man (1956) 

98. World Health Organization, Tech. Rept. Ser. No. 191, Expert Committee on 
Insecticides — Tenth Report (i960) 

99. Young John, West, Irma, and Loretz, Wayne, Public Health Hazards in Use of 
Agricultural Chemicals, California's Health, Vol. 12, no. 17, 129-133 (March 

• 40 • 



3531 



The Regulation 
of Pesticides 

in the 
United States 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 



3532 



CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION 1 

AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 2 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 2 

Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts 3 

CRITERIA FOR PESTICIDES REGISTRATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF TOLERANCES 4 

Department of Agriculture 4 

Registration Requirements 4 

Criteria for Establishing Registration 4 

Toxicity Tests 4 

Efficacy Data 5 

General Labeling Requirements 5 

Other Required Information 6 

Review by Other Agencies 6 

Opinion on the Adequacy of Residue Data and Proposed Tolerance . . 7 

Manpower and Funds on Criteria and Registration 7 

Food and Drug Administration 7 

Data Requirements for Pesticide Tolerances 8 

Chemical Data 8 

Toxicological Data 11 

Discussion 14 

The Granting of a Registration 15 

RESEARCH, ACTION, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS 16 

Research 16 

Department of Agriculture 16 

Food and Drug Administration 18 

Monitoring, Surveillance, and Compliance Programs 22 

Department of Agriculture 22 

Monitoring Programs 22 

Surveillance and Compliance 23 

Surveillance of Domestic and Imported Red Meat 23 

Food and Drug Administration 25 

Surveillance and Compliance Programs 25 

Education, Information, and Coordination 56 

CONCLUSIONS 58 

SUMMARY 59 

APPENDIX 62 

Charts and Tables of Data 63 

Statistical Treatment of Data 223 

March 1968 



3533 



INTRODUCTION 



The United States is conrnitted by law, policy, and the traditions of many 
decades to assure that the food supply of the Nation is safe, clean and 
wholesome. The United States is conunitted to full enforcement of these laws, 
and accordingly, has developed criteria and protocols that are effective, 
workable, and enforceable. Within this primary goal, the United States seeks 
means that will permit achievement with minimal dislocation of production or 
trade. But under no circumstances will hazard to people or to the environment 
be countenanced to serve economic goals. 

The wholesomeness of any food supply depends in part on the quality of the 
total environment -- the soil, water, and air in which the food is grown, 
processed, and consumed. Acute contamination of these basic natural resources 
by pesticide residues and other pollutants can affect not only the safety of 
food products, but also other environmental values such as human water 
supplies, wildlife preservation, and outdoor recreation. The United States 
is actively seeking to protect and manage these resources in the interest of 
greater safety and human welfare. 

In the highly interrelated, interdependent world of modern technology and 
trade, the challenge of protecting crops and livestock from insects, diseases, 
weeds, and other pests without hazard to people, animals or their environment 
requires the combined and sustained efforts of scientists, technicians, and 
administrators; of producers, processors, and distributors; of industry and 
government; and of nations working together to establish and administer 
sound, acceptable standards of food safety and environmental quality. 

The following information provides a full statement of the authorities on 
which the U.S. pesticides regulations are based; the division of responsi- 
bilities between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare; the criteria for registration and establishment of 
tolerances; the research, action, and education programs related to pesti- 
cides; and the existing levels of pesticide residues in the United States. 



3534 



AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

The statutory authority for the regulation of pesticides and pesticide resi- 
dues entering interstate commerce has been established by the Congress of the 
United States. Under these statutes, the responsibility for registration of 
pesticides and pest control materials has been delegated to the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. The establishment of tolerances for pesticides in or on 
human food and animal feeds has been delegated to the Food and Drug Adminis- 
tration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 

When the proposed use of a pesticide will result in residues on a food or 
feed crop, the registration by the Department of Agriculture is not granted 
until a tolerance has been established by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The regulation of pesticides and pesticide residues by the Federal Government 
encompasses those pesticides or residues involved in shipment in interstate 
commerce. Pesticides and food supplies produced and used within a single 
State are under the jurisdiction of that State. The various Federal agencies 
are working closely with their counterparts in the States in the field of 
pesticide regulation and control. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act was established by law 
on June 25, 1947, to regulate the marketing of economic poisons and devices. 
This Act was amended in 1959 and in 196A. 

The term "economic poison" is defined as "any substance or mixture of sub- 
stances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any 
insects, rodents, fungi, weeds, and other forms of plant and animal life or 
viruses, except viruses on or in living man or other animals which the 
Secretary (of Agriculture) shall declare to be a pest, and any substances or 
mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or 
desiccant . " 

Under the Act, no pesticide chemical may be legally shipped in interstate 
commerce for general use until it has been shown to be safe when used as 
directed and effective for the purpose claimed on the label. Also, any resi- 
dues that may remain on food or feed must not exceed the safe tolerance level 
established by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The Act prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of products which are 
not registered or are adulterated or misbranded. Products which are in viola- 
tion of the Act may be seized and criminal action instituted against the 
shipper of such products. 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

The establishment of tolerances for pesticides on or in food and feedstuffs 
is provided for in the Pesticide Chemicals Amendment and Food Additives 
Amendment of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Sections 408 and 409) admin- 
istered by the Food and Drug Administration. 



ion' 



3535 



The paramount purpose of this Act is to assure the safety of the Natl< 
food supply; to require that the industry promoting the use of the pesticide 
chemical prove that the residues remaining on the food are safe for the 
consumer; and to require Government clearance before the pesticide is used. 

The Act provides for seizure and destruction of agricultural commodities that 
contain pesticide residues in excess of established tolerances. Where no 
tolerance has been established, commodities carrying residues in excess of 
established working levels are also subject to seizure and destruction. The 
Act also provides for criminal penalties for violations and for the use of a 
legal injunction. 

The Act outlines in general terms the data and information to be furnished 
and the procedure to be followed for obtaining a pesticide tolerance. Addi- 
tional procedures and more specific data requirements in the regulations 
insure that food safety requirements are met prior to establishing a tolerance. 

Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts 

Federal inspection for wholesomeness of all meat derived from cattle, sheep, 
swine, goats, and horses shipped in interstate and foreign commerce is re- 
quired under the Meat Inspection Programs. All poultry products shipped in 
interstate and foreign commerce also require Federal inspection. The import- 
ation of meat is prohibited unless such meat also complies with the regula- 
tions governing the Federal meat inspection programs. 

The 1967 Federal Wholesome Meat Act has extended the essential elements of 
the Federal Meat Inspection program to livestock, meat, and meat products 
within intrastate commerce. It also provides assistance in improving State 
systems, and authorizes intervention in intrastate plants where health 
hazards may be involved. 

The Congress of the United States has assigned responsibility for promulgating 
regulations and administering the Federal Meat Inspection program to the 
Secretary of Agriculture. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 12 



3536 



CRITERIA FOR PESTICIDES REGISTRATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF TOLERANCES 

Department of Agriculture 

Registration requirements 

1. Criteria for establishing registration 

The applicant for registration must furnish documented proof to support 
the claims made for the proposed product. Data required to support 
registration usually include the following: 

A. Toxicity tests 

Toxicity tests on the proposed formulation must be conducted to show 
that the directed use of the product would not be injurious to exposed 
man or beneficial animals when warnings and cautions are carefully 
followed. The extent of toxicologica 1 data required will vary with 
the nature and proposed use of the product. Toxicity studies normally 
inc lude : 

(1). Safety data 

a. Acute mammalian studies 

1. Oral 

2. Dermal 

3. Inhalation 

4. Eye and skin irritation 

b. Subacute studies 

1. Oral - 90 days 

2. Dermal - 21 days 

3. Inhalation - 14 days 

c. Other studies which may be required include: 

1. Neurotoxicity 

2. Teratogenicity 

3. Effects on reproduction 

4. Synergism 

5. Potentiation 

6. Metabolism 

7. Avian and fish toxicity 

(2). Physical-chemical properties 

a. Boiling point 

b. Flash point 



3537 



c. Physical state 

d. Density / 

e. Vapor pressure 

f. Solubility 

g. Stability 

B. Efficacy data 

Biological tests under field and laboratory conditions must be con- 
ducted to determine if the product will control the pests named on 
the label, when used as directed, without causing significant adverse 
effects to the crop or property being treated. The following factors 
are considered in determining efficacy: 

(1). Effectiveness 

The product must be shown to be effective for the intended 
purposes when used as directed. 

(2). Phytotoxicity 

(3). Translocation within the plant or animal being treated 

(4). Persistence in soil, water, or plants 

(5). Compatability with other chemicals 

(6). A thorough search and evaluation of the data submitted as 

well as other applicable data are made. After such search, 
the Department of Agriculture specialists concerned with 
efficacy determine whether or not the proposed formulation 
would be useful for the intended use without causing signif- 
icant adverse effects when applied according to the proposed 
labe ling. 

2. General labeling requirements 

A. Name of product 

B. Name and address of manufacturer, registrant, or person for whom 
manufactured 

C. Net contents 

D. Ingredient statement 

Name and percentage (by weight) of each active ingredient, and total 
percent of inert ingredients, or name of each active and each inert 
ingredient in descending order, and relative abundance in each cate- 
gory and the total percentage of inert ingredients 



3538 



E. Warning or caution statement 

The label of any economic poison must show warnings pertaining to: 

(1). Ingestion 

(2). Skin absorption 

(3). Inhalation 

(4). Flammability or explosion 

The required signal word such as "DANGER," "WARNING," or "CAUTION," 
and the statement "Keep Out of Reach of Children" must appear on the 
front panel and meet the minimum type size requirements. The front 
panel of the label of economic poisons which are highly toxic to 
man must show: 

(1). "POISON" in red on a contrasting background 

(2). "DANGER" 

(3). Skull and crossbones 

(4). Statement of antidote, including directions to call a physician 
immediately (in immediate vicinity of skull and crossbones and 

"POISON") 

F. The registration number assigned to the product 

G. Directions for use which are adequate to protect the public (optional 
on label — may appear on accompanying printed or graphic matter) 

3. Other required information 

A. Data to support any or all claims on the labeling 

B. A complete statement of the composition of the product, including the 
the percentage by weight of each of the active and inert ingredients, 
if such information does not appear on the label 

C. Any pertinent information about inert ingredients 

D. Any other information pertaining to physical or biological properties 
of the product, etc. 

4. Review by other agencies 

Petitions for registration filed with the Department of Agriculture are 
reviewed and commented on by other Departments of the Federal Government. 
The Department of the Interior reviews all petitions for registration 



3539 



whose use patterns may have an impact on fish or wildlife. The Public 
Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
reviews all petiti^ins from the standpoint of human safety. The comments 
of these two agencies are forwarded to the Department of Agriculture and 
are considered before registration is granted or refused. 

Opinion on adequacy of residue data and proposed tolerance 

An analytical method suitable for enforcement purposes must be provided with 
the petition, when suggested use patterns will result in residues of the chem- 
ical on food or feed. The analytical method and the residue levels presented 
in the petition are evaluated and an opinion on whether the proposed toler- 
ance reasonably reflects the residue is forwarded to the Food and Drug 
Administration. 

The review includes consideration of the residues of the parent chemical 

metabolites, and the conversion products that may be formed. Residues 

occurring in plant parts other than the principal raw agricultural commodity 
are also considered. 

Manpower and funds on criteria and registration 

There are 258 people engaged in the work of the Pesticides Regulation 
Division, 115 in registration and 143 in enforcement. The Division is 
funded at $3,500,000. 

Food and Drug Administration 

If the product is proposed for use in a manner which is likely to result in 
residues in or on food or feed, it is not registered by the Department of 
Agriculture until a tolerance or exemption has been granted by the Food and 
Drug Administration. 

The determination of the safety of a tolerance is a scientific judgment and 
cannot be derived from any arbitrary mathematical calculation. This judgment 
involves consideration of the "no-effect" levels demonstrated in the experi- 
mental animals, the cumulative potential, the metabolic data, the maximum 
contribution to the diet that could be expected if all commodities for which 
tolerances are sought bore residues at the tolerance levels taking into account 
any reduction in residues accomplished in preparing the food ready to eat, the 
probable exposure to other similar toxicants, and species differences in trans- 
lating the animal data to possible effects on man. An adequate margin between 
the tolerance level and the "no-effect" level in the experimental data is 
required, taking into consideration the proportion of the diet involving 
crops on which residues might be expected. 

Tolerances established under Section 408 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
are established on raw agricultural commodities, not on processed foods. If 
the residues remaining in a processed food have been removed to the extent 
possible in good manufacturing practices and do not exceed the tolerance on 
the raw product, the processed product complies with the law. In general, 



3540 



the residues In processed foods are a fraction of the amount permitted on the 
raw agricultural commodity. To cover the residues of pesticides applied to 
or concentrating in processed foods, tolerances may be established under 
Section 409 of the Act, the Food Additives Amendment. However, the major 
uses of pesticide in the United States are on raw agricultural commodities, 
and the overwhelming majority of established tolerances are on these products. 

Ideally, the tolerances on pesticide residues should apply to the ready-to- 
eat food on the dinner plate because it is the quantity of pesticide actually 
consumed that can have health significance. However, tolerances established 
at this point in the food chain would not be practical. Therefore, a point 
in the distribution system has been selected where meaningful corrective 
action can be taken to prevent consumption of unsafe amounts of pesticide 
chemicals. The tolerance concept does not anticipate, as a practical matter, 
that all foods will contain residues of all chemicals as high as the estab- 
lished tolerance level, or even that all of a single food will always contain 
a residue at the tolerance level. 

Data requirements for pesticide tolerances 

The criteria and data requirements for establishing tolerances are presented 
below. Although these are described in detail, some flexibility is permitted 
in practice. The basic requirement is that the data and other information 
furnished, when evaluated as a whole, will establish the safety of the pro- 
posed pesticide tolerance. This judgment is made by toxicologists qualified 
by training and experience to evaluate the safety of pesticide residues in 
food. 

1. Chemical data 

The chemical data in pesticide petitions must meet two major requirements. 

A. The residue data must delineate the identity and magnitude of the 
residues and must show that, under the proposed conditions of use, 
the proposed tolerance is suitable (i.e., will not be exceeded but 
is no higher than necessary). 

B. The analytical methods used to obtain the residue data must be valid 
and must afford a measure of the total toxic residue. A suitable 
method must be furnished for enforcing the proposed tolerance. 

The following listing represents items of information usually needed to 
arrive at a scientific judgment as to whether these requirements have 
been met: 

Pesticid e chemical : The identity and complete composition, including 
minor components and impurities, as well as accepted chemical (or biolog- 
ical) and common names are required. Specifications must be furnished if 
required to establish identity or to limit impurities. 



3541 



Chemical, physical, and biological properties pert inenc xo rhe -^valuat ion 
of the efficiency of analytical procedures and the nature and stability 
of residues must be reported. 

Conditions of use : Complete proposed directions for use must be included. 
Proposed limitations and restrictions, such as against feed use of by- 
products, must be reasonable, practicable, and in conformity with accepted 
practices. 

Analytical methods : The petition must present or refer to a method suit- 
able for enforcing the proposed tolerance. This method is added to the 
compendium of pesticide analytical methods, the FDA Pesticide Analytical 
Manual. In some instances residue data may be obtained by methods not 
suitable for regulatory purposes. It is desirable to confirm residue 
results by using more than one method (i.e., by a specific method and one 
or two appropriate general methods). Descriptions of methods must be 
sufficiently detailed and well organized to be followed by analysts not 
familiar with the procedures. 

General requirements for methods : Extraction and clean-up procedures 
must be efficient in removing and recovering residues from samples. 

Methods must be validated by an adequate number of blanks (untreated 
crops) and recoveries on an adequate representation of the commodities 
involved. Blank values must be reasonably low in relation to the proposed 
tolerance. Recoveries must be at appropriate fortification levels in 
relation to the proposed tolerance and must be reasonably quantitative. 

Sensitivity, accuracy, and precision must be satisfactory in relation to 
the proposed tolerance and to the toxicity of the pesticide chemical. 

Additional requirements for regulatory methods : Must be sufficiently 
specific to identify and measure residues in the presence of residues of 
other pesticides which could reasonably be expected to be present on the 
same commodities. 

Must be reasonably rapid and not require "exotic" (unavailable) equipment 
or reagents. 

Must not require use of untreated crop samples for blanks or for internal 
standards. 

Must be capable of giving satisfactory results when employed by regulatory 
laboratories. Method trials in at least two FDA laboratories are made to 
determine suitability for regulatory purposes. 

Samples for analysis : Samples used must reflect the proposed conditions 
of use, including maximum usage, with respect to dosage, timing, number 
of applications, etc. Samples reflecting exaggerated conditions of use 
are also of value. Conditions under which samples were field treated, 
including method of application, must be reported. 



3542 



Samples must reflect adequate geographical distribution (i.e., major 
growing areas), and adequate representation of types of crops for which 
tolerances are proposed. 

The time between sampling and analysis and the conditions under which the 
samples were kept must be stated. Samples must be kept in storage for as 
short a time as possible; if crop or extract samples were stored before 
analysis, evidence must be given to show that the residues are stable 
under such conditions. 

Methods of preparing crop samples for analysis (i.e., trimmed, washed, 
brushed, peeled, hulled, etc.) must be reported. If these operations are 
necessary to reduce residues within the proposed tolerance, they must 
reflect commercial practice in preparation of the crop for shipment in 
interstate commerce. 

Analytical results : In all cases individual results, not just averages, 
must be reported. Any corrections made for blanks and recoveries must be 
explained. There must be an adequate number of results on each commodity. 

The identity and magnitude of the residue under the proposed conditions 
of use must be established. Toxic residual metabolic, degradation, or 
other conversion products must be identified and measured. 

Data showing whether the pesticide is systemic (i.e., is translocated 
within the plant or animal) must be presented. 

Data must be Included to show the rate at which the residue dissipates 
on the crops involved. 

Where it is pertinent, results must include data on the distribution of 
the residue (for example, between peel and pulp) and evidence as to 
whether the residue is reduced when the raw commodity Is prepared for 
market (by washing, trimming, brushing, etc.) in order to judge the 
amount of residue that is likely to remain on the edible portion of the 
commodity. 

Where pertinent to the proposed usage, data must be presented on the accu- 
mulation, persistence, and Identity of residues In soils, and the transfer 
of such residues to crops likely to be grown in the same soils. 

Where pertinent, evidence must be presented to show whether residues con- 
centrate at a higher level or undergo chemical change in processed foods 
or feeds, including edible by-product food or feeds. 

In certain cases, it may be necessary to provide data showing the effect 
on residues of standard operations of preparing the food for consumption 
(i.e., cooking, etc.). 

If feed and forage items, including feed by-products, are involved, there 
must be a basis for determining whether residues will transfer to food 
products such as meat, milk, and eggs. If so, the identity and magnitude 

10 



3543 



of such transferred residues must be established and suitable tolerances 
proposed. 

The guidelines for the review of the chemical data in petitions which 
propose negligible residue tolerances are generally the same as those 
described above, except that: (a) tissue residue studies on laboratory 
animals may be accepted to show the likelihood that the pesticide use 
will result in residues in meat and milk, and (b) tolerances may be estab- 
lished on the basis of a group of crops rather than on each crop individ- 
ually. A negligible residue tolerance is a tolerance that has been estab- 
lished to provide a basis for registered uses which previously have been 
accepted on the basis that "no residue" or a zero residue will be present 
in the treated crop at the time of harvest. Based on a recommendation 
from a committee of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research 
Council, FDA and USDA have abandoned the concept of "no residue" or zero 
tolerance registrations of pesticides as far as possible (for example, 
only zero tolerances can be established for carcinogens), and have 
replaced "no residue" and zero tolerances with small finite tolerances 
(i.e., negligible residue tolerances). Regulatory problems had arisen 
because extremely sensitive analytical methods had been developed which 
indicated that many of these older "no residue" uses did result in low- 
level residues. Where a registration had been granted on a "no residue" 
or "zero-tolerance" basis, 1-year extensions of registration have been 
granted under certain conditions. These extensions were granted when the 
registered use pattern indicated that there would remain only low- level 
residues, which are generally recognized as of no toxicological signifi- 
cance. During the 1-year extension, the petitioner is expected to docu- 
ment the level and toxicological safety of the residues for the estab- 
lishment of the negligible residue tolerance. 

In specified instances, a temporary tolerance is established to permit 
experimental pesticide field trials, on a limited scale, conducted in 
accordance with and required by a temporary permit issued by USDA. The 
purpose of these trials is to determine the usefulness of the pesticide 
without having to destroy the crop. 

Toxicological data 

The requirements for the two major types of tolerances--f or negligible 
residues and for residues (higher levels )--are outlined as follows: 

A. It has been determined that a negligible residue tolerance is suffi- 
ciently limited by the magnitude of the residue, extent of use, and 
mode of use so that the levels of ingestion which result are consid- 
ered to be of little or no toxicological significance. The safety 
factor is usually about 2,000 based on 90-day studies; that is -- 

Quantity of pesticide that produces "no effect" in the most 

sensitive animal tested 

^ = 2,000 

Quantity of pesticide expected in the diet of man 

11 



3544 



Quite often, such tolerances reflect the sensitivity of the method. For 
such a negligible residue tolerance, the basic requirement is data from 
two 90-day (subacute) animal feeding studies. The term "basic requir- 
ement" is used because acute data for significant metabolites may indi- 
cate need for further studies, or results of the basic 90-day studies may 
call for further work, or knowledge of the toxicity of the general class 
of compounds involved may result in requests for specific kinds of toxi- 
cological data. 

B. A tolerance for residues in excess of negligible residues will 
require the following data: 

(1). Acute toxicity 

a. LD50 in at least two species of animals 

b. A description of the signs of toxicity 

(2). Short-term toxicity (subacute toxicity) 

a. At least two species, one a non-rodent 

b. Duration, 90 days 

c. At least three dosage levels plus a control group; 
one dosage level should be toxic 

d. When 90-day studies are designed to continue for long- 
term toxicity studies, sufficient animals must be 
started to supply the required number for the long- 
term studies. 

e. Observations: growth, food consumption, general appear- 
ance and behavior, mortality, organ weights, clinical- 
laboratory tests (blood and urine, organ function, 
enzymatic and metabolic), and gross and microscopic exam- 
inations. All animals dying before termination should be 
examined grossly and microscopically. All tumors should 
be recorded and examined microscopically. 

f. In the case of organo-phosphorus and carbamate pesticides, 
cholinesterase inhibition and demye linat ion studies must 
be made. 

(3). Long-term toxicity (chronic toxicity) 

a. At least two species, one a non-rodent 

b. Duration, usually 2 years 

c. At least three dosage levels plus a control group; 
one dosage level should be toxic 

d. The groups at the start of the experiment should be suffi- 
ciently large to assure an adequate number of survivors at 
termination. For rodents this may vary from strain to 
strain so that numbers to be used are contingent on the 
judgment of the investigator. 

e. Observations: growth, food consumption, general appear- 
ance and behavior, mortality, organ weights, clinical- 
laboratory tests, gross examination of animals throughout 

12 



3545 



experimental period and tissues at autopsy, and compre- 
hensive microscopic examination of tissues. Animals dying 
before termination should be examined grossly and micro- 
scopically. All tumors should be noted and examined 
microscopically. 

(4). Biochemical data 

a. Data from at least two species of animals 

b. Observations: absorption, distribution, metabolic trans- 
formation, elimination, possible accumulation, and the 
effect of enzymes which should be examined because of the 
nature of the chemical under study. 

c. Information on metabolism of pesticides and their other 
conversion products in treated plants. At least acute and 
short-term toxicity data on the significant plant metab- 
olites or other conversion products. If the conversion 
products are different from metabolites of the test animals, 
long-term toxicity data on the pesticide metabolites or 
other conversion products may be required. 

(5). Reproduction studies 

a. At least one species, preferably two 

b. At least two dosage levels plus a control group 

c. One dosage level should be definitely toxic; one should 
have no effect. 

d. Usually three successive generations in the rat; two 
generations are satisfactory if the results are conclusive. 

e. Preferably two litters per generation 

f. Both the males and females should be treated for 60 days 
prior to breeding. The second and third generations are 
treated from weaning throughout the breeding period. 

g. Observations: fertility, length of gestation, live births, 
still births, survival at A days and at weaning, sex of 
newborn and of weanlings, body weights, gross abnormalities, 
and microscopic and sketetal examination of young in last 
generation. 

(6). Data on man 

a. From industrial exposure 

b. From accidental poisonings and suicides 

c. From controlled experiments in special cases 

d. Biochemical data of the type indicated under (4) b. above 
are particularly useful. 

(7). Any additional studies that might be indicated by results 
from studies (1) to (6) above. 



13 



3546 



Discussion 

Data requirements for tolerances are subject to continual review in light 
of new scientific data and information, specifically advances in scien- 
tific knowledge about the criteria for the evaluation of the safety of 
chemicals in food. The data requirements outlined above are the present 
requirements. Earlier tolerances were established on the basis of lesser 
data, but any deficiences are being remedied before tolerances on addi- 
tional crops are established. For example, the requirement for repro- 
duction studies was instituted in 1963. 

There may be some misconception as to the method used to arrive at a 
tolerance on a raw agricultural commodity. First, and of essential impor- 
tance, is that the tolerance must be safe for the consumer if all of this 
particular raw food did bear residues at the tolerance level. However, 
we do take into account the patterns and modes of consumption - propor- 
tion of the food consumed in the raw state, a_s _i_s, as compared with the 
proportion consumed in the processed state where a reduction of residues 
may occur. It should be emphasized that there must be an adequate margin 
of safety between the "no-effect" level in the most sensitive test animal 
and the level of residue likely to be ingested by the consumer. 

Secondly, the tolerance does not ref lect the average residue on the raw 
agricultural commodity; it reflects the max imum residue which will remain 
on the treated crop as harvested and shipped when the directions for use 
are followed, _if such maximum residue is safe. 

Pesticide surveillance and enforcement data clearly show that only a 
small percentage of the samples contain amounts of pesticide residues 
that actually approach the tolerance levels. This is to be expected, 
since not all crops need treatment. Tolerances are established to cover 
the residues (if they are safe for the consumer) that the grower will 
incur under the most strenuous conditions of pesticide use, i.e., at the 
maximum dosage, the maximum number of applications to the crop, and as 
close to harvest, as the label permits. Not all growers in a specified 
geographic area and certainly not all growers in other geographic growing 
areas of the country would find their crops attacked by the same pests at 
exactly the same stages of growth; even if this situation did occur, some 
of the growers would undoubtedly choose another equally effective pesti- 
cide. The U.S. tolerances have been established primarily to protect the 
consumer. Samples analyses show that this purpose is being achieved, and 
at the same time, the grower is permitted to use chemical tools effec- 
tively to produce a wholesome and abundant food supply. 

Thirdly, since the tolerance is established on the raw agricultural com- 
modity, it does not realistically reflect the residue on the food as 
eaten except in special cases. Data clearly demonstrate that pesticide 
residues are substantially reduced by the various processing operations 
employed in preparing food for consumption (ready-to-eat ) : the milling 
of grain, the washing operation in some cases, the peeling of fruits and 
vegetables, the removal and discard of outer leaves of leafy vegetables, 
cooking, or canning. 

lA 



3547 



Finally, the tolerance will not be set higher than the level reasonably 
required to cover the residue likely to result from the proposed pesti- 
cide usage even though the animal feeding studies may indicate that a 
higher level is safe. For example, if 10 p. p.m. of pesticide X would be 
safe as gauged by all the animal studies but the max imum residue incurred 
by the proposed use will not exceed 1 p.p.m. , on the raw agricultural 
commodity, the tolerance will be established at 1 p.p.m. It is our con- 
sidered purpose to minimize the exposure of the consumer to pesticide 
residues in his food supply, all in the interest of safety. 

The Granting of a Registration 

If Department of Agriculture requirements are met and FDA establishes the 
tolerance, registration is granted. 

If the safety data do not justify the proposed tolerance, a lower tolerance 
or a zero tolerance may be established. The Department of Agriculture then 
grants a registration on the basis of the tolerance established by the Food 
and Drug Administration, provided the pesticide is useful under the conditions 
required by the lower tolerance. 

In the past, when a pesticide was registered for use on a food or feed crop 
on the basis of a zero-tolerance or on a no-residue basis, it meant that the 
directed use would not leave residues on the harvested food at levels which 
could be detected by chemical analysis. This has often meant that the devel- 
opment of a more sensitive method invalidated the zero-tolerance or no-residue 
acceptance. This procedure has been modified in favor of registration on the 
basis of finite tolerances for all uses involving food or feed where there is 
a reasonable expectation of some residue, however small, as provided for in 
the joint statement of April 13, 1966, by the Departments of Agriculture and 
Health, Education, and Welfare. Uses involving no reasonable expectation of 
residues in the food are usually designated "nonfood" uses. 



15 



3548 

RESEARCH, ACTION, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

Research 

The formulation and enforcement of adequate pesticide regulations, like any 
other regulation, must be firmly based on research and use experience. With- 
in the United States, as in many countries, industry, educational institu- 
tions, and State and Federal laboratories have utilized their combined efforts 
to develop, test, evaluate and control chemical methods for pest control. 

Department of Agriculture 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts, and otherwise supports, a compre- 
hensive, forward-looking, in-depth pesticides pest-control program involving 
research, regulation, pest control, monitoring, information, and education. 
The ultimate objective is to develop and encourage the use of those means of 
effective pest control which provide the least potential hazard to man, 
animals, and their environment. 

In addition to its own research programs, the Department also supports 
research on pests and their control in private and public agencies through 
contracts and grants. Major grant funds are allocated to State agricultural 
experiment stations and schools of forestry through procedures authorized by 
Congress under the Hatch and Mclntire-Stennis Acts. 

A 1966 study by State and Federal Governments of 91 areas of agricultural 
research included a determination of the number of scientist-man-years and 
the funding associated with this research. Seven areas of agricultural 
research are of particular interest to those concerned with pest control. 

The total scientist-man-years and the funding of the research projects in 
fiscal year 1967 are indicated in Table A. The data represents the combined 
efforts of the State agricultural experiment stations, schools of forestry, 
and the Department of Agriculture. 



16 



3549 



Table A 



Total Scientist-Man-Years and Funding in State Agricultural 

Experiment Stations, Schools of Forestry, and 

U. S. Department of Agriculture 



Fiscal Year 1967 



Researc h Area Total Scientist-Man-Years Total Funding 

Insect pests of fruit, vegetables, 

field crops, livestock, poultry, 

and forests 844 $33,725,000 

Diseases of fruit, vegetables, field 

crops, livestock, poultry, and forests 1,229 53,550,000 



Weeds and other hazards to fruit and 
vegetable crops 

Internal parasites of poultry and 
meat animals 



185 6,560,000 

92 4,513,000 



Protection of poultry and livestock 

from toxic chemicals, poisonous plants, 

and other hazards A8 2,397,000 

Insure food products free from toxic 

residues 129 5,600,000 



Control of insect pests of man and his 
belongings 



67 2,655,000 



Total 2,594 $109,000,000 



The research and action programs related to pesticides and pest control, 
supported by the Department of Agriculture have been associated with certain 
general objectives. A summation of these objective-related research and 
action programs is indicated in Table B. The funding for this Department 
research in fiscal year 1967 has also been included in Table A under the 
appropriate research areas. 



17 



3550 



Table B 



Expenditures by the United States Department of Agriculture 

during Fiscal Year 1967 for Pesticide-Related Research and 

Action Programs 



Pesticide Related Research on: 



Fundamental biology 

Improved means of nonpest ic ida 1 
control 

Improved pesticide use patterns 

Toxicology, pathology, metabolism 
and fate of pesticides 

Action Programs 

Monitoring impact of pesticides 
on the environment 

Regulation of pesticides 

Information, education, and 
coordination 



Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1967 



$16,307,000 

23,702,000 
12,937,000 

4,942,000 

886,000 
3,284,000 

4,787,000 



The prime objective of the research programs is to develop safer, more effi- 
cient, and more economical means of pest control, to provide man with an ever- 
increasing supply of food and fiber, and to protect the environment from 
avoidable contamination. The benefits of research also provide an ever- 
expanding baseline of knowledge for the evaluation of the safety of pest 
control procedures. 

Food and Drug Administration 

FDA's research activities in pesticides are designed to support and strengthen 
Its capability to establish and enforce pesticide tolerances. These research 
activities fall into two major areas: chemical research and biological 
research. 

FDA's chemical research on pesticide residues in foods includes: (1) estab- 
lishing the chemical identity of the residue, including significant conversion 
products; (2) developing, improving, and validating methodology for measuring 
the amount of such residue; and (3) occasional checking on the validity of 
data submitted in petitions. 



18 



3551 



The development o£ adequate methodology for the analysis o£ pesticide resi- 
dues is a continuing problem and requires a major share of the research 
effort. Multiple residue detection techniques, which will determine many 
pesticides simultaneously, have simplified the regulatory analytical problem 
but they have greatly complicated the research and development problem. It 
is frequently very difficult to fit a pesticide into a multiple residue detec- 
tion scheme without complicating the scheme for the chemicals for which it 
was originally developed. Many large groups of pesticides in increasing use, 
such as carbamates, have not yet been fitted into such techniques. Further- 
more, multiple residue detection techniques alone do not establish unequiv- 
ocally the identity of the pesticide residue, particularly if artifacts or 
interferences are encountered. Identity of the residue must be confirmed by 
another method and a variety of such confirmatory methods must be available 
for the many different pesticides in use. In addition to the adaptation of 
present methods to new chemicals and the development of new methods, improve- 
ments in sensitivity, efficiency, rapidity, and simplicity of existing methods 
are always needed to enable the Food and Drug Administration to improve the 
effectiveness of its tolerance enforcement program. 

Analytical methods should be available for the initial identification and 
measurement of residues on objective samples of unknown treatment history. 
This is the reason that emphasis has been placed on the development of mul- 
tiple residue detection techniques such as gas chromatography. Methods of 
this type in the United States have been developed almost solely through the 
research program of the Food and Drug Administration. By such methods, it 
has been possible for FDA to analyze about 25,000 food crop samples annually 
for a variety of pesticides, equivalent to perhaps a million individual 
analyses per year. 

In many cases, the residue from use of a pesticide comprises not only the 
chemical applied, but also toxic degradation or other conversion products 
which may be formed on exposure to light and weathering. Heptachlor on 
plants and in animals converts to the equally toxic heptachlor epoxide. 
Dieldrin has been reported to give a toxic photo-decomposition product. Meta- 
bolic products may be formed in animals and deposited in edible tissues or 
milk. Phosphate pesticides are especially prone to form toxic conversion 
products. This phase of the research program must insure that the composition 
of the residue has been established so that the analytical methodology devel- 
oped will measure all toxicologica lly significant residual chemicals. 

The biological research program is directed toward evaluating the hazards of 
pesticide residues and their conversion products by acquiring information on 
the effects of these materials on animals and man. This research work is 
applied research directed to the support of establishing pesticide tolerances 
and to the development of scientific facts to furnish an increasingly sound 
basis for FDA policies. The research effort Includes the following areas: 
The development of data on new types of pesticides to facilitate FDA guidance 
of commercial work for support of petitions; a more detailed examination of 
specific toxic effects for their impact on safety evaluation; examination and 
development of new toxicological methods for use in evaluating safety; and 



19 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 13 



3552 



resolution of conflicting or equivocal data for a sounder evaluation of 
safety of pesticide residues in foods. This information results in the 
ability to establish safe tolerance levels and enforcement policies. 

In all cases, measurable parameters are desired from animal experimentation 
which may prove useful for logical prediction of toxicity in man. It is 
highly desirable to determine how man handles the toxic substances so that 
an animal species can be sought which will provide corresponding data useful 
in safety interpretation. 

In brief FDA biological research includes: 

(1) Study of the physiological effects and metabolism of pesticides in 
biological systems, including the metabolic fate of the compounds, 
their biochemical reactions, the nature of the metabolic pathways, 
and an evaluation of their effects in terms of toxic action; 

(2) Performance of toxicity studies of pesticides as a method for 
determining safe tolerance levels; 

(3) Development of data on the direct effect of pesticides on man. 

FDA's research programs on pesticides will require 152 man-years and 
$2,298,000 in fiscal year 1968 (July 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968). These funds 
are nearly A3 percent of the $5,384,000 total FDA expenditure on pesticide 
programs planned this year. All FDA pesticide program activities and 
resources allotted to them are summarized for comparative purposes in 
Table C. 



20 



3553 

Table C 
Summary of FDA Activity on Pesticide Programs, Fiscal Year 1968 



Activity 



Man-Years Dollars 



Total, all activities 405 $5,384,000 



31 358,000 



u 152 2,298,000 

Research ^-^ ' 

Toxicity, metabolism, fate of residues 

on foods, methodology for pesticides 

and metabolites, etc- 

Standards 

Evaluation of pesticide petitions, 
establishment of tolerances, etc. 

c 'ii,^^^ 191 2,266,000 

Surveillance '■^'- ' 

2,000 investigations in growing areas, 

12,000 domestic market samples examined, 

2,250 import samples examined, 30 market 

basket surveys involving 12,300 sample 

tests (total diet studies), etc. 



11 227,000 



^ ,. 16 200,000 

Compliance ^" ' 

Regulatory followup on products with 

excessive residues, industry workshops 

on legal requirements, etc. 

Inf ormat ion 

Consumer information projects and 
services 

State Program Development 3 20,000 

Training of State officials 

International Program Development 1 15,000 

Develop and maintain liaison programs 
with foreign countries exporting foods 
to the United States in order to achieve 
conformance with tolerances. 



Current plans provide for expansion of the pesticide program activities at the 
rate of approximately 10 percent each year for the next 5 years. 



21 



3554 

Monitoring, Surveillance, and Compliance Programs 

Department of Agi iculture 

1. Monitoring programs 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1964 initiated a program specifi- 
cally designed to establish pesticide residue profiles in limited areas. 
These pilot studies, located in the Mississippi River Delta, included 
five areas in Mississippi and Arkansas. Representative farms were 
selected where records of the kinds and amounts of pesticides had been 
kept for 10 to 15 years. The program was designed to determine existing 
pesticide levels in soils, sediment, water, crops, livestock, and certain 
species of aquatic and land animals inhabiting the study areas. Adjust- 
ments in the program have permitted the establishment of similar areas 
near Yuma, Arizona, and Grand Forks, North Dakota. 

In addition to these study areas, soil samples have been analyzed from 
17 locations having high pesticide use histories; 13 locations where 
pesticides were used occasionally, such as forests and rangelands; and 
13 locations on Forest Service lands and National Wildlife Areas where 
no pesticides were reported to have been used. 

The Department's monitoring program operates in 19 States. A total of 
48 different types of agricultural or environmentally related samples 
have been analyzed. 

Analysis of agricultural soils after several yearly applications of 
chlorinated insecticides has shown no evidence of accumulation or buildup. 
Residues in nontreated food or feed crops can usually be associated with 
the residues found in the soil. In certain cases, illegal residues have 
been found in such crops as carrots, potatoes, soybeans, or peanuts grown 
in soil that had been previously treated with the more persistent chlo- 
rinated hydrocarbon pesticides. 

The movement of pesticides into water is closely associated with the 
movement of soil particles. Repeated sediment analysis of major water 
bodies as well as farm ponds indicates a low level concentration of 
pesticides . 

The monitoring program utilizes 36 man-years, 21 of which are profes- 
sional scientists. Approximately $530,000 is allocated for the conduct 
of this program. 

Over the next few years, the monitoring program of the Department will be 
continued to the point where the status of pesticide residues in the soils 
of every State will be determined. Periodic re-examination of the soils 
will provide a continuing assessment of pesticide residues in the soil. 



22 



3555 



2. Surveillance and compliance 

The most accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of any regulatory pro- 
gram is accomplished by the systematic sampling and analysis of the prod- 
ucts being regulated — in this case, the pesticides available to the 
user and the food and feed commodities that have been treated with the 
pest ic ides. 

The Department of Agriculture maintains a nationwide surveillance program 
on pesticides shipped in interstate commerce. A force of 31 inspectors, 
working out of Washington, D.C., and five field stations systematically 
inspect and sample pesticides in warehouses and in sales outlets. The 
pesticides are inspected for registration, adequacy of information on the 
label, and for other important aspects. The inspectors also sample 
representative pesticides and submit the samples for chemical analysis 
or biological activity. This enforcement program is supported by 95 
field personnel. For fiscal year 1967, the budget of the enforcement 
program amounted to $2,200,000. 

During fiscal year 1967, a total of 5,154 samples were taken. The Depart- 
ment instituted seizure actions in 189 cases. Where minor violations of 
the law were noted, the registrant was notified and corrective action was 
taken. 

3. Surveillance of domestic and imported red meat 

The Meat Inspection Act administered by the Department of Agriculture 
requires the surveillance of meat and meat products processed under 
Federal inspection, and the surveillance of imported meats to certify 
their wholesomeness . A significant portion of the program consists of 
objective samples where there is no reason to suspect excessive residues. 

During 1965 and 1966, 5,036 objective samples were obtained from 
animals slaughtered in federally inspected establishments. About 71% 
of these samples contained residues of chlorinated organic pesticide 
chemicals. DDT and its metabolites, IDE and DDE, were found in about 
66% of the samples. The next most frequently found pesticide chemicals 
were, in decreasing order of frequency, BHC, toxaphene, lindane, 
dieldrin and methoxychlor , with in incidence range of 2-4.5%. 
Heptachlor epoxide was found in 1.7% of the samples. Chlordane and 
endrin were reported in several samples. About 45% of the residues 
found were below 0.1 ppm on a fat basis and 66% were below 0.5 ppm. 

Data obtained on 2,259 random samples of domestic red meat and 1,430 
samples of imported red meat during the first 9 months of 1967 are 
tabulated in the Appendix, Table 25A and Figure 25A. 



23 



3556 



A comparison of the data obtained on domestic samples thus far in 1967 
with that obtained in 1965-196b indicates an increased incidence of DDT 
compounds primarily in the range T-0.10 ppm in 1967. The incidence of 
dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, BHC and lindane shows an increase ranging 
10-31% of samples examined. The incidence of methoxychlor and toxaphene 
has decreased to about 0.1% of samples examined. The distribution among 
the different quantitative levels of residues has not changed greatly. 

Generally, the same kinds and levels of residues were found in imported 
red meats. Although the limited data does not provide a basis for a 
firm conclusion, it appears that dieldrin and BHC residues may be more 
common in imported meats, while heptachlor epoxide residues may be less 
common. 

Except for DDT compounds on domestic and import samples and dieldrin 
and BHC on import samples, over 95% of the residues were below 0.1 ppm 
on a fat basis. Additional data will be required to evaluate the 
significance of these findings. 



24 



3557 



Food and Urug, Administration 

Residue Levels in Foods 

1. Surveillance and Compliance Programs 

The Food and Drug Administration surveillance and compliance programs 
were expanded substantially beginning with fiscal year 1963. FDA now 
collects and examines 25,000 samples annually in addition to inspecting 
the growing areas in order to determine the actual practices being 
followed. Quantitative multi-residue methods of analysis using gas- 
liquid chromatography at routine sensitivity levels of approximately 
0.03 ppm on most crops were in common use beginning in FY 1964. These 
methods measure more than 60 common chlorinated organic and organo- 
phosphorus pesticide chemicals. 

A majority of the samples collected in this program were categorized as 
"objective" samples. Objective samples are those collected where there 
is no suspicion of excessive residues or misuse of the pesticide 
chemical. Only the objective samples are used in this report and the 
findings are considered to be generally representative of the food 
supply. 

In general, during the past four fiscal years about half of the samples 
contained residues of one or more pesticide chemicals. About 3% of 
the samples were found to exceed legal tolerances or, in absence of 
legal tolerances, administrative guides for excessive residues. Ship- 
ments, or lots, of food found to contain excessive residues are removed 
from food channels where possible. Follow-up procedures are used to 
prevent other portions of a lot found to contain excessive residues 
from reaching the consumer. Exportation of food containing excessive 
residues is not permitted unless it complies with the laws of the 
importing country. There are no substantial differences in the residues 
in foods produced in the United States and those imported from other 
countries . 

Although approximately one-half of the samples contain residues, a 
majority of the residues are at very low levels. Over 75% of the 
individual pesticide residues found were below 0.11 ppm and 95% of the 
residues were below 0.51 ppm. This general pattern of residue levels 
is observed when the data is considered by specific pesticide chemical, 
food category, domestic and imported products, or on an annual basis. 
Therefore, the average level of residues within a food category is 
quite low and the percentage of lots containing residues in excess of 
2 ppm of any residue is very low. Generally, foods sampled in the 
surveillance program undergo further processing or preparation prior 
to consumption. 



25 



3558 



Market basket samples are obtained from retail stores bimonthly in the 
5 regions, prepared for consumption and examined for pesticide residues 
at sensitivity levels substantially lower than those used in the exam- 
ination of surveillance samples. Much additional analytical time is 
required to attain these lower levels of sensitivity and to confirm 
the results. The proportion of individual food items used in the study 
was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Economics 
Research Division, for the high consumption level of a 16-19 year old 
male. Each sample represents a two-week supply of food. Food items 
are composited into 12 classes of similar foods for more reliable 
analysis and to minimize the dilution factor. 

The results obtained during the past three years have shown that the 
amounts of pesticide chemicals in this high consumption diet, approxi- 
mately twice that of the normal individual, are well below the acceptable 
daily intakes established by the FAO-WHO Committee, except for aldrin 
and dieldrin combined. The daily intake for these compounds calculated 
from the total diet samples has been approximately equivalent to the 
FAO-WHO acceptable daily intake for the past three years. 

Table 1, attached, shows detailed information on WHO-FAO acceptable 
daily intakes compared with the daily intake calculated from these 
studies. Table 2 shows the average milligrams of the total chlorinated 
organic pesticides found in the 12 food classes in each of the three 
years. Table 3 shows the daily intake of 15 pesticide chemicals most 
frequently found and the incidence of positive composites for each of 
the three years. No significant changes are observed with respect to 
kinds or amounts of residues, with the possible exception of kelthane. 

The frequency of occurrence and sensitivity of the method must be con- 
sidered in attaching significance to the calculated daily intake. We 
are unwilling to conclude, for example, that the daily intake of 
carbaryl exceeds that of DDT. The method for carbaryl is relatively 
insensitive, 0.1-0.2 ppm, and relatively few positive findings serve 
to unduly influence the calculated value. Carbaryl was not identified 
as a common component of the dietary intake. It was included in Table 1 
because an international acceptable daily intake was available for 
comparison and in recognition of the specific analysis of the total 
diet samples for carbaryl residues. 

It is noteworthy that the combination of foods in meat, fish, poultry 
and dairy products account for over half of the intake of chlorinated 
organic pesticides. There are few registered uses of pesticide 
chemicals known to result in residues in meat and poultry. No 



26 



3559 

TABLE 1 
DIETARY INTAKE OF PESTICIDE CHEMICALS 

Milligrams/Kilogram body weight/day 



Compound 


WHO-FAO 

Acceptable 

Daily Intake 


Tota 
1965 


.1 Diet Studies 
1966 


1967 


Average 
3 Years 


Aldrin 
Dieldrin 
Total 


0.0001 


0.00001 
0.00008 
0.00009 


0.00004 
0.00009 
0.00013 


0.00001 
0.00005 
0.00006 


0.00002 
0.00007 
0.00009 


Carbaryl 


0.02 


0.0021 


0.0005 


0.0001 


0.0009 


DDT 
DDE 
TDE 
Total 


0.01 


0.0004 
0.0003 
0.0002 
0.0009 


0.0005 
0.0003 
0.0002 
0.0010 


0.0004 
0.0002 
0.0002 
0.0008 


0.0004 
0.0003 
0.0002 
0.0009 


Dichlorvos 
Diphenyl 


0.004 
0.125 




Not determined 
Not determined 




Gamma BHC 


0.0125 


0.00007 


0.00006 


0.00007 


0.00007 


(lindane) 












Bromide 


1.0 


0.39* 


0.22* 


0.29* 


0.30* 


Heptachlor 
Heptachlor Epoxide 

Total 0.0005 


0.000003 

0.00003 

0.000033 


0.00005 
0.00005 


0.000001 

0.00002 

0.000021 


0.000001 

0.00003 

0.000031 


Malathion 


0.02 


- 


0.0001 


0.0002 


0.0001 


Diazinon 


0.002 


- 


0.00002 


- 


0.000005 


Dimethoate 


0.004 




Not determi 


.ned 




Phosphoamidon 


0.001 




Not determined 




BHC 

Kelthane 

Endrin 


- 


0.00003 
0.00004 
0.000009 


0.00004 
0.00015 
0.000004 


0.00003 
0.00018 
0.000004 


0.00003 
0.00013 
0.000006 


All Chlorinated 
Organics 




0.0012 


0.0016 


0.0012 


0.0013 


All Organo- 

phosphorus 
All Herbicides 




0.00012 


0.00014 
0.00022 


0.00025 
0.00005 


0.00013 
0.00013 



Total bromide present - includes naturally occurring bromides 

27 



3560 



TABLE 2 



Chlorinated Pesticides in Ready-to-Eat Foods 
Total Diet Samples - Food and Drug Administration 



Composite 

I. Dairy Products (Mg.) 

% 

II. Meat, Fish & Poultry (Mg.) 

% 



average milligrams per day 
1964-56 1965-66 1966-67 



III. 


Grains & Cereal 


(Mg.) 

% 


IV. 


Potatoes 


(Mg.) 

% 


V. 


Leafy Vegetables 


(Mg.) 
% 


VI. 


Legume Vegetables 


(Mg.) 

% 


VII. 


Root Vegetables 


(Mg.) 

% 


nil. 


Garden Fruits 


(Mg.) 
% 


IX. 


Fruits 


(Mg.) 

% 


X. 


Oils, Fats 






& Shortening 


(Mg.) 

% 


XI. 


Sugars 5. Adjuncts 


(Mg.) 
% 


XII. 


Beverages 


(Mg.) 
% 



0.010 
12.2 



0.032 
39.0 



0.008 
9.8 



0.002 
2.4 



0.004 
4.9 



0.003 
3.7 



0.002 
2.4 



0.010 
12.2 



0.007 
8.5 



0.018 
14.5 



0.058 
46.8 



0.009 
7.3 



0.003 
2.4 



0.004 
3.2 



0.001 
0.8 



0.001 
0.8 



0.011 
8.9 



0.015 
12.1 



0.014 
17.5 



0.028 
35.0 



0.006 
7.5 



0.001 
1.3 



0.002 
2.5 



0.008 
10.0 



0.018 
22.5 



0.003 0.004 0.002 

3.7 3.2 2.5 

0.001 T T 
1.2 



T = less than 0.001 



mg 



28 



r 



3561 



rH to 60 
•H J-1 S 



(NrH^OO OOfHOOO 

OOOOO ------ 



<-f o 
OOOOOOHOOH 



OOOOO 



o o o o o o 



\X) rH 0^ ro v£) 



0\ 0\ \0 i—\ c^ 
CO 00 ro rH ro 



m vD c^j r-- 

O U^ <N1 rH 





v> 




,-1 




< 


>> 


u 


eJ 


M 


M 


>J 


Q 


PS 




tJ 


« 




?: 


w 


<; 


u 




l-H 


w 


tJ 


I ) 


►-I 


T". 


H 


Ui 


C/1 


n 


u 


M 


Ot 


I i 




•y. 


m 


M 


rH 


bJ 


b 


ts 


C3 




W 


> 


^ 


< 


H 




a 




M 



^ tfl M 

•H 4-1 S 



•H iJ 60 
Q M 



<rc^'HOO ooorgooooo 

OOOOO OOOOOOOOOH 



OOOOO 



ro O I — CO CO 



OOOOOOOOO 



OOrOr^r^OOP^coo 
r^Iv£^m(^slro^ococo^ocNl 



1— loofoin-j- (Mts) r— im fo 

rO^rHOO OO LOOO O 

OOOOO OO IrHOO lOHH 

OOOOO OO ooo o 



in m -3- u~i 00 



to vO 



<• vO tN 

r~~ in -a- 



T) 


x) 


■rt 


(1) 


(1) 


(U 


C 


d 


c 


■H 


•H 


•H 


Fi 


R 


fi 


(fl 


m 


tfl 


X 


X 


X 


(U 


0) 


<u 


tn 


tn 


tn 


<u 


0) 


QJ 


^ 


4J 


■U 


•H 


•H 


•H 


tn 


t/1 


Cfl 


o 


o 


O 


D. 


a 


a 


S 


E: 


ta 



•H 0) jr -H 

M c a X 



H w w cu c 

Q Q Q -H -H 
Q Q H Q .J 



(0 o 


■u 


tfl 


•r( O 


*H 


J= 




•H 


4-1 CX 


01 


43 


)-< 1 


N 


4J 




l-l 


a w u 


iH 


)-i 


T3 <T 


en 


M 


pL- 


T) 


0) 33 


n1 


tn 


.-1 • 


■H 


01 


<_) 


c 


PC oa 


S 


<_) 


< r^J 


M 


Sti 


a. 





29 



3562 



registrations have been granted which are calculated to result in 
residues in milk. Therefore, there are environmental factors con- 
tributing "unavoidable residues in these commodities. 

The use of fungicides and anti-scald agents on fruit prior to shipment 
is a common, but not invariable, practice in the major fruit producing 
areas in the United States. The compounds most frequently encountered 
during surveillance inspections are sodium ortho-phenylphenate, copper 
carbonate, ethoxyquin, diphenylamine and diphenyl. These compounds are 
applied by various means to the fruit; for example, through washes, 
waxes, wrappers and on pads enclosed in the shipping container. 

Inspectional observations have not revealed misuses or misapplications 
of these chemicals which might result in residues above tolerance 
levels. 

Analyses are rarely made on the finished product, since these compounds 
are not detected in the multi-residue analytical procedure routinely 
employed in the surveillance program. Where analyses have been made, 
no residues in excess of established tolerances have been found and 
the levels found were substantially below tolerance levels. 

Tables 4-14 summarize the data obtained from samples examined as 
shipped in interstate commerce and as imported into the United States 
during fiscal years 1964-1967. Comparative averages in ppm for 
specific chemicals are shown for the raw product and the portion of 
the total diet sample most closely related to the raw product in the 
following food categories: 



Table 


4 - 


Large Fruits 


Table 


5 - 


Small Fruits 


Table 


6 - 


Grains & Cereals (Human) 


Table 


7 - 


Leaf Sc Stem Vegetables 


Table 


8 - 


Vine and Ear Vegetables 


Table 


9 - 


Root Vegetables 


Table 


10 


- Beans 


Table 


11 


- Eggs 


Table 


12 


- Nuts (except peanuts) 


Table 


13 


- Processed Foods 


Table 


14 


- Grains (animal) 



Each table shows the number of samples examined, domestic and imported, 
the percent samples with residues, the percent with residues exceeding 
guidelines. The incidence and average level of the 10 most commonly 
found pesticide chemicals in all foods are listed for each class of 



30 



3563 





1 
o 




u 




> 




T) 




to 




(1) 




rr-, 


vO 






1 


.H 










(U 


■H 




1-1 


n 


D 


F 


< 






to 


' 


•r) 


<r 


U 


vO 


•H 


a^ 


n 










(1) 


n) 


C 


-u 


3 


o 


■-> 


H 



^ 4-1 O. -M 



y] CO 


01 


OJ 01 


-H 


BO s: 


>-i 


c o 




ra ffl 


OJ 



H O O 

o o 



m ^ lT) o <t <3- 






•JC -K -K -K 





rn 


m 


(11 


-r) 


OJ 


01 


-r) 


(U 


T 


s 


•H 


C 


T1 


x) 


-1 


■H 






!.■> 


R 


m 


m 




« 


01 


OJ 


u 



ifl c c OJ 



1-4 M H 

0) OJ 
0.1 Oh 



^oocOr-in-oOtHOO 



C 0) to 
to T3 x: 
x: 3 4J 



-C OJ c >^ c -H 

c a x: a u a jz 

•H to D* T3 to x: 4-1 



o o -H x: 



IJ -O -C to -rH 



HUU C0J-Ot_)-T3O.X-H „^ „ ^^ 

QC):3-H-H,-HScoJo-Ctoojtoaj4-> 

aQHJa<mW33HHCj;«!0-iHW 



31 



3564 



<u 



o <t '-0 or 



<U OJ 

-a u in r^ 

■H M !1 r-l 

U <U 

C OK 



O fM 



n) E o .-1 r-1 



a. o 
> o c o 



O H H H t- H H 



O C H H H O 



CM O 

o^ in 



•u -H a> u 



'C; 00 c^ <r CM --H ;n o 
o ^ '-K a> CM c; o .— I 



iT) r; 4J 



to CJ 


n) 


,_! 


<J 


o 


1 


• u 


^ 


H 


O 0) 


(11 




:^ cu 


a. 





uj:(anc:)j::cc 



HWL.0 C (UXIrj-a CLX 
^ Q Q -f-l 'H f— ( -r* <- /ii o 
O Q H J Q < 



32 



3565 





o 




4J 




> 




•o 




fl 


nj 


11 


(U 




a: 


V4 


vD 




01 


CT^ 


1 


o 










(/) 


•^ 




<u 








c 


l-l 


a 


■H 


Q 


e 


to 


< 


Cll 


u 




to 


o 


' 


iJ 


, 


<r 


OJ 




^0 


•H 


T3 


O^ 


Q 


C 
O 








QJ 


ra 




c 


u 


4J 


3 


o 


tt! 


>^ 


H 


tJ 



r^nt^4^-a-<ft^r». 



H H H H H 



«n t»n 



Ol-'f-'i-<(->f-ih'l->f-ii^' 



r^GOtncvji-iooo 



J= 3 c U 



T3 0) O -O 



18 0) 5J iJ 

X ci 3 O 

UJ -o 

in u w aj 



(0 C C (D 



H IJ til = 

Q Q Q -H -rJ 
Q Q H J Q 



^■c coxx:i-i x-oocj: 

"J— ircct)Otii\joaij::ii)-'Ht« 
cQ[iin::f-iSucL.2:oxccL. 



33 



3566 



-< o 0,-i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o 
OOOHHHHE-<!-'0 



t-H CM C O -O >3- 
<)■ CT\ r^ O o ,-) 



(U -H o 3 



O O H H O 
O O O 



HHOH 1 HHof^H 



O- t^ X) O 
^ O O <t 



m CO in o 

m O CM .-^ 



O H H O O H 



D. .-I 
Q. to 



O <r ^ r^ r-l 

O <t r- m o 



O O -J 

-3^ n vo 



CT\ ON CM o 
CM O O O 



T3 tt) O T3 



to - 


to 


(11 




X 










~ to 




.c 



CO nj 


« 


C 


c a 




OT 


0) 


V ■-I 






(J 


o o 






u 


i' H 



a n _ . - .. 
o a H .J Q 



(0*0*'^ — I :0 (X 4J T3 

O^^^-i J-iAJtOtOOtfi 

c (u -a u -3 e. >• V- .^ ;•: 

~ - 5' o to -C o 

cQ uj Lr: f-i &■ H CL- 



3567 



O ^ w 

u a o 



^H ^ ri (N r>i 

r) O -H o o 

O O O O 0-- 

d d d d d 



H H H H H H H 



CM «s O 00 



.(-,(-, . (^ ^ (-, (1 .HHHi 



OOOOr^CMt-tiOfOOPO en 



n ^ ^ 



H ■E-cHHH .HHHH 



t»linvO-»>0<MvOfM>»-*OcM 



(-• -^i l-> 



00 CO m CM 00 



O en CM "-I CM -< 



41 


3 


^ 


^ 


C 


•o 


< 


3 










B 


n 


(0 





eg w V i-i 



(D 4-1 GO 0) 



CO C C 41 



X 41 « C f4 O 
C U X 73 <d X C 

tg o o a N 



HWW C 4IT50t3 dX-^-^ I- SI 
Q H ,J O < 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 14 



3568 



OHHHH HHH 





T> 




o 









b. 




4J 




«t 




tu 




o 




u 




>• 




T3 




« 








C2 


vO 




cr\ 




•-' 




«-i 


01 


•H 




M 


a 


o 


fa 


< 


w 




w 




Xj 


<t 


v 


•Ji 




a\ 


a 










<u 


a 






3 


o 


"-> 


H 



o ^. r- 



O -^ oo ON nO f* fn 



<0>(-'(->(-'0(->C>(->(->f-i 



73 U) O TJ 



X X 3 O 



•3- c>< .-I 

C>Ol-'lriOf-<irilr'l-'f-<H(->l->(-<(-' 



infocxjovxirsjoo^^ooo 



-I c c '-< c o 01 



-1-* nj o- M (0 -^ ij 



•U U T3 CL 



n] O u N to c0 

o. n ^ u 

OJ -W (Q V 



3569 



Bl 






(11 


T) 


t/j 


r-* 


O 


OJ 


o 


O 


,-4 


h 


Ci^ 


X> 


ffl 




m 


CO 


JJ 


4J 




to 


(U 


j-i 


w 


« 


(U 


1 


<u 




o 


> 


a 


4J 


aj 


,— 1 


> 




to 


XI 


3 


4-t 


to 


01 


o 


m 


4) 


H 


as 


►4 



to to 
a.x> 



CM vD vO r^ 



U .-1 i-H 



g rn 

a. •-* 



OHHHHHE-if-'HO ■ 



iniAiAinirinf^tvjcMfN 





t« 


W) 


(I) 


•o 


« 


aj 


•o 


(11 


3 


3 


•rH 




T7 


T) 


3 


-( 


•r^ 


■r-l 


CI 


<-• 


(0 


lyi 




m 


1) 


<U 


U 


>; 


K 


1-4 


o 



0) -H •!-< O 



-nj C C <U 



VI (U 


(1) .-1 


o 


y 


• M 


t^ H 


tu 


<u 


X Oli 


cu 



OHHHHHHHHHHH 



rMCT^CM.-<vDOOOOO 



r-i C O C 

x; 0) -i-i o 
o J2 j: c 

to Dl U -H 

4-1 to to N 
HWUCtUTSO-OCLXl-itO 



Q Q Q ■r^ 



a: c 0) o to ••-I 



i >> e- 



in to O 



■« 5 

c (1) 2 

to -o -^ 

j: 3 AJ 

tn c « 



O " 
II z ^ 



qqhjo<«uJ3:hO'C> 



37 



3570 



E-< H H I H 



r^ r~ O^ in O 



{-^ t^ l-i l-i f-t 






d e 



E n CO (0 

9 v V at 
X oi oi e 

^ x: ^ 

10 4J 4J Oj 
« -i-l -W T3 

-< a 9 ^ 

a 3 

B -u u o 

race 

CO u a> ^ 

u u o 

• u u 

O 01 01 

z a< a. 



«) 



^ w 



_ .^ C C O J= 

« -o -r^ -w cd a. 
•a i-i 1^ ki u fs 

UU B 0IT3U-O CLX 

QQ-w.-lr-i3Cca)0 
QHJQ<(aWXH 



38 



3571 



c c „ 



u a. o o 



H f-> • H H H H H 



tn ^ O 






•O 41 O -O 



QO iJ 00 V 



QQE-i-JO<PaW 



39 



3572 



OHOOOE-'HE-'HE-H 

o o o o 



00 00 r^ 



rH r^ ^ CTN ro 
m CO u-i cNi i^ 



00 ;n r^ CM 
ro ^D o o 



O O O O O 



O O O O O O O 



omcTicNioinr^mooo 
Or^ONio-sOrsior^OLn 





C/l 


m 


CD 


-) 


0) 


(U 


T1 


n) 


T 


-) 




a 


Ti 


T3 


3 






•H 


( '; 


R 


(/) 


m 






11) 


<u 


1-1 


X 


OS 


ci 


o 




^ 


r; 


m 


m 


AJ 


-u 


OJ 


(U 


•H 


•^^ 





^^cc^o<DOl^> 



x: 0) o >^ -c-i c 



jc m x: ■^^ n 



o x; 

n! Vj ^ .-I ij 
ra ra oj 0) 



40 



3573 



t-it-i-'i-ii-'i-'i-'t->t-' 






E >. 

a « 



,. "* "^ 

•• (0 <a 01 

•D 0» «» T3 

4) 3 r --J 

C -D T) 3 

^ -rf -^ O 

E B (0 

CO 01 41 IH 

X oc b: o 



--^ 3 3 C 

a CO 

E u u p 

a c c 01 

CA 0> 01 '^ 

u u o 

o o> 0) 

z cu cu 



c VI e c u X X 

q} -O •<-> 1-4 <0 ^ ij 

'X7 '*'* ^ krf u CO CO 



„ „ Q -r^ -W ^ 

Q Q H J Q < 



X C 0> O CO 
PQ U X H £ 



41 



3574 



foods. In addition, the tables list the incidence and average of all • 
chemicals found in more than 1% of samples in tlie food category. The 
incidence level is not shown for the organophosphorus compounds because 
all samples were not examined for this class of compounds until 1966. 
The incidence level is not shown for carbaryl because not all samples 
were examined for carbaryl residues. 

The data from which the summary tables were prepared are given in 
detail in tables and graphs in the Appendix. These tables show the 
distribution of each residue within arbitrarily selected ranges of 
levels by year for domestic and imported samples. The graphs show 
the cumulative total, in percent, of various levels of residues in 
domestic and import samples. 

Generally, the same kinds of pesticide residues were found in domestic 
and imported products. Where the positive findings for a chemical 
were significant, 5% or more of the samples, the levels were about 
the same. More than half of the samples examined contain residues 
ana about one-third of the samples contain more than one residue. 

Generally, the same kinds of pesticide chemicals are found in the foods 
after preparation for consumption, but there are substantial reductions 
in the levels. For example, the average levels for DDT found in ready- 
to-eat foods are about one-tenth the average in the raw product. 

There have been no significant trends or changes in the incidence or 
levels of residues of chlorinated organic pesticide chemicals observed 
in the surveillance and compliance programs in either domestic or 
imported foods during the past A years. This observation is confirmed 
by the market basket samples used in the total diet studies on food 
ready for consumption. 

An improved analytical procedure for organophosphorus pesticide was 
used beginning with the 1966 surveillance programs. In some cases 
the data reported in the various tables may reflect what appears to 
be a significant increase in the residues of organophosphorus 
chemicals. Although there may be some increase in the use of organo- 
phosphorus pesticides, we ascribe the higher incidence of these residues 
to the improved analytical procedures. 

Pesticide residues found in vegetable oil seeds and their products 
during 1964-1966 are summarized by commodity and product in Tables 15- 
21. More detailed data for these commodities is not presented. Data 
for fiscal year 1967 was not developed because of the rather limited 
number of samples. However, no significant changes were observed in 



42 



Level 
ppm 


Seed 

% 


T-0.03 


65.2 


0.04-0.10 


17.8 


0.11-0.50 


15.8 


0.51-1.00 


1.0 


1.01-1.50 


0.2 


1.51-2.00 




2.00 





3575 



TABLE 15 

Vegetable Oil 
Seeds and Products 
Distribution of Residues by Products 
in Different Quantitative Ranges 
Fiscal Years 1964, 1965, 1966 

Percent of Positive Samples 



Meal Crude Oil Refined Oil Oleomargarine 
% % % 7, 



71.4 43.0 33.3 68.4 

15.1 17.7 23.1 10.5 

10.1 28.5 23.1 21.1 

2.1 6.6 7.7 

0.8 2.4 12.8 

0.4 0.5 
1.3 

T - less than 0.001 ppm 



43 



3576 



TABLE 16 

Average Level and Incidence of Specific 

Pesticide Residues in Soybean Products 

Fiscal Years 1964-1965-1966 





Soybeans 


Crude 


Oil 


Mea; 


L (Cake) 


Refined 


Oil 


No. Samples 
% w/Residues 


550 
26.7 




98 
34.7 






143 

14.0 


23 

17.4 






Percent 
Samples 


Average 
ppm 


Percent 
Samples 


Average 
ppm 


Percent Average 
Samples ppm 


Percent 
Samples 


Average 
ppm 


CDT 


9.6 


0.006 


16.3 


0.015 


7.0 


0.005 


13.0 


0.003 


TDE 


0.7 


T 


7.1 


0.006 


1.4 


T 


- 


- 


DDE 


2.7 


T 


6.1 


0.002 


3.5 


0.001 


- 


- 


Dieldrin 


8.0 


0.002 


17.3 


0.013 


1.4 


T 


4.3 


T 


Lindane 


2.2 


T 


2.0 


T 


4.9 


0.001 


- 


- 


Toxaphene 


8.0 


0.004 


4.1 


0.024 




- 


4.3 


T 


Endrin 


9.8 


0.008 


6.1 


0.013 


0.7 


T 


- 


- 


BHC 


2.9 


T 


11.2 


0.004 


0.7 


T 


- 


- 


Chlordane 


0.9 


T 


- 


- 


0.7 


T 


- 


- 


Fiscal Year ; 


L967 
















No. Samples 
% w/Residues 


89 
61.8 




17 
64.7 






55 
20.0 


10 
10.0 





No significant changes in specific chemicals and levels frc 
those tabulated above. 

T - less than 0.001 ppm 



44 



3577 



TABLE 17 

Average Level and Incidence of Specific 
Pesticide Residues in Cottonseed Products 
Fiscal Years 1964-1965-1966 





Seed 




Crude 0: 


LI 


Meal (Cake) 


Refined 


Oil 


No. Samples 
% w/Residues 


23 
78. 


3 




226 
53.5 




186 
39. 


8 






41 

41. 


,5 




Percent 
Samples 


Average 
ppm 


Percent Average 
Samples ppm 


Percent 
Samples 


Average 
ppm 


Percent 
Samples 


Average 
ppm 


DDT 


69.5 




0.154 


29.2 


0.077 


28.5 




0.028 


12.2 




0.024 


TDE 


13.0 




0.029 


35.4 


0.093 


12.9 




0.003 


17.1 




0.016 


DDE 


13.0 




0.005 


15.0 


0.012 


16.1 




0.005 


12.2 




0.010 


Dieldrin 


4.3 




0.015 


2.7 


T 


1.6 




T 


2.4 




T 


Lindane 


4.3 




0.003 


8.4 


0.008 


8.6 




0.003 


2.4 




0.018 


Toxaphene 


30.4 




0.023 


1.3 


0.010 


1.1 




0.003 


12.2 




0.140 


BHC 


8.7 




0.017 


2.7 


Q004 


4.8 




0.008 


- 




- 


Chlordane 


8.7 




0.004 


2.2 


0.017 


6.5 




0.012 


2.4 




0.007 


Fiscal Year 
No. Samples 
% w/Residues 


1967 

4 
25. 


.0 




36 
52.8 




62 
35. 


.5 






5 
60 


.0 



No significant changes in specific chemicals 
and levels from those tabulated above. 

T = less than 0.001 ppm 



45 



3578 



TABLE 18 

Average Level and Incidence of Specific 

Pesticide Residues in Peanut Products 

Fiscal Years 196A-1965-1966 





Nuts 


Crude 


i Oil 


Meal 


(Cake) 


Refined Oil 


No. Samples 


177 


36 






31 






10 


7, w/Residues 


26 


.6 


75. 







61.3 






33.3 




Percent 


Average 


Percent 


Average 


Percent 


Average 


Percent 


Averagi 




Samples 


ppm 


Samples 


ppm 


Samples 


ppm 


Sampl 


es 


ppm 


DDT 


13.5 


0.025 


66.7 


0.466 


45.2 


0.140 


20 




0.060 


IDE 


1.7 


T 


41.7 


0.128 


22.6 


0.026 


20 




0.007 


DDE 


9.6 


0.001 


58.3 


0.090 


38.7 


0.025 


20 




0.032 


Dieldrin 


8.5 


0.008 


22.2 


0.017 


22.6 


0.006 


20 




0.007 


Lindane 


2.8 


0.002 


5.6 


0.001 


3.2 


T 


- 




- 


Toxaphene 


1.7 


0.006 


2.8 


0.008 


- 


- 


- 




- 


Endrin 


1.1 


T 


2.8 


0.008 


- 


- 


- 




- 


BHC 


3. A 


0.007 


8.3 


0.002 


12.9 


0.006 


10 




0.002 


Fiscal Year 


1967 


















No. Samples 


29 




I* 




6 






1 




7. w/Residues 


58. 


6 


75, 





50 


.0 




100 





No significant changes in specific chemicals 
and levels from those tabulated above. 

T ■» less than 0.001 ppm 



46 



I 



3579 



TABLE 19 



Average Level and Incidence of Specific 
Pesticide Residues in Corn Products 



Percent of Samples 







Grain 


Crude 


0: 


LI 


Refined Oil 


No. Samples 




819 


27 






8 


% w/Residues 




13. 


4 


25. 


,9 




25.0 




Percent 


Average 


Percent 




Average 


Percent Average 




Sampl 


es 


ppm 


Samples 




ppm 


Samples ppm 


DDT 


5.7 




0.007 


14.8 




0.067 


12.5 0.038 


TDE 


1.2 




0.003 


11.1 




0.060 


12.5 0.002 


DDE 


2.9 




T 


11.1 




0.016 


- 


Dieldrin 


4.4 




0.001 


11.1 




0.013 


- 


Lindane 


2.6 




T 


- 




- 


- 


Toxaphene 


- 




- 


- 




- 


- 


Endrin 


0.1 




T 


- 








Chlordane 


- 






3.7 




0.080 




Fiscal Year 1967 
















No. Samples 




213 




1 






2 


% w/Residues 




45. 


5 













No significant changes in specific chemicals 
and levels from those tabulated above. 

T " less than 0.001 ppm 



47 



3580 



TABLE 20 

Average Levels of Chlorinated Pesticide Residues 

in Vegetable Oil Seeds and Products 

Fiscal Years 1964-1965-1966 

Parts per Million 
Crude Meal Refined Oleo- 
uct Oil or Cake Oil Margarine 



Total Diet 
Composites 



DDT 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.006 
0.154 
0.025 
0.007 
0.015 



0.015 
0.077 
0.466 
0.067 
0.097 



0.005 
0.028 
0.140 



0.003 
0.024 
0.060 
0.038 
0.022 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.003 
0.001 



0.006 
0.093 
0.128 
0.060 
0.072 



0.003 
0.026 



0.016 
0.007 
0.002 
0.010 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.005 
0.001 



0.002 
0.012 
0.090 
0.016 
0.016 



0.001 
0.005 
0.025 



0.010 
0.032 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.002 
0.015 
0.008 
0.001 
0.004 



0.017 
0.013 
0.006 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.003 
0.002 



0.008 
0.001 



0.001 
0.003 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.004 0.024 

0.023 0.010 

0.006 0.008 

0.017 0.015 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.013 
0.008 
0.004 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.017 
0.007 



0.004 
0.004 
0.002 



0.008 
0.006 



Soybean 

Cottonseed 

Peanut 

Corn 

TOTAL 



0.080 
0.017 



0.006 0.004 

*Salad dressings, salad oil, mayonnaise, shortening i peanut butter. 74 composites 6/64-4/67 
T - less than 0.001 ppm 



48 



3581 



TABLE 21 

Incidence of Specific Residues 
in Oleomargarine 

(1) Average of findings Fiscal Years 

1964, 1965 and 1966 

(2) Average of findings Fiscal Year 1967 

(1) (2) 



No. 


Samples 




53 






23 




7. w, 


^Residues 




18.9 






17.4 








Samples 




Average 


Samples 




Average 






Percent 




ppm 


Percent 




ppm 


DDT 




18.9 




0.026 


13.0 




0.014 


TDE 




5.7 




0.002 


13.0 




0.014 


DDE 




7.5 




0.001 


8.7 




0.034 


BHC 




3.8 




T 


4.3 




T 


Die] 


Idrin 


_ 






4.3 




T 



T = less than 0.001 ppm 



49 



3582 



the relative incidence, kinds or levels of pesticide chemicals in the 
commodities or products for the entire period. No samples were found 
exceeding tolerances, except for dieldrin in soybeans, where the 
tolerance is zero. Although the average levels of residues in vege- 
table oil seeds and their products are very low, a majority of the 
residues are not sanctioned by tolerances. Most of the chlorinated 
organic chemicals are found in the oil fraction and are mostly removed 
in the refining process as is shown in the results on surveillance 
samples of refined oils and oleomargarine and confirmed in the oils, 
fats and shortening components of the total diet samples. There are 
potential problems of residues in oil seed meals even at low levels 
when used as animal feed. 

Dairy products have been mentioned as contributing substantially, 
13.6%, to the total dietary intake of chlorinated organic chemicals. 
Tables 22-24 summarize the findings of residues in dairy products, 
domestic and imported, for fiscal years 1964-1967 inclusive. The data 
from which these tables were prepared are given in detail in the 
Appendix. 

This representative annual sampling of milk and dairy products 
marketed in the U.S. during this period shows that DDE, dieldrin, DDT, 
heptachlor epoxide, TDE, BHC, lindane, aldrin, heptachlor and methoxychlor 
account for 99% of the chlorinated organic residues found. More than 
20 other chemicals were found in one or more of the 16,478 samples of 
domestic and imported dairy products examined. A substantial majority, 
95%, of the samples were below 0.5 ppm on a fat basis and 71.5% were 
below 0.11 ppm. 

Table 24 shows that the average levels and kinds of pesticide chemicals 
found in the objective samples are in good agreement with the findings 
on the dairy portion of the total diet samples collected at a different 
point in the distribution chain. 

There are no known approved uses of pesticide chemicals which are 
calculated to result in residues in milk above the legal tolerance 
level. Their presence in milk fat results from indirect sources and 
misuse. Steps have been taken to minimize the indirect sources by 
reducing the approved uses and use patterns of some of the more persis- 
tent chlorinated organic pesticides. The lower average levels of 
dieldrin and heptachlor epoxide in 1967 may reflect this reduction if 
confirmed in 1968. 



50 



3583 



I S5 



ma>o-4ooc^OfnoooN 



og u 4J « 
^ 9 » -^ 



C ■-< ^ O 



V 

c vi c u 

QaH.-]Q<Xea 



•g ^ 



a 4J 

V 41 



51 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 15 



3584 



o o o o o 



>Oin<Mpn>oc<iO>c<-i 



« 

eo 

• B 

u a 

« a 

> 
< 



(SI N 
o o 



C PL< 



CM -* ^ CM CM .-I 



> a 

O « 

.. gg (0 M 

■O «l «> « 

« 3 3 -^ 

C •o -o O 

•«4 fl -H H 
e CO « 

« « « Vj 

X OS etf o 
u 

JC £ to 

CD U 4J « 

e u u «i 

« C C -O 

CO «l U -r^ 

U U 3 

• M M U 
O « «l 
X f^ ^ 






52 



3585 







0^ 




vO 


vO 






i-l 




OS 


a\ 










iH 


i-H 


CO 




-* 




.H 


.H 


4J 




vO 


r^ 


•H 


•H 


U 




0^ 


so 


)-l 


I-l 


3 




M 


On 


a 


Ou 


•o 






iH 


<: 


< 


O 




</} 








u 




M 


)-i 


1 


1 


(1- 




ra 


« 










<u 


<U 


<r 


vD 


>. 




i" 


>-■ 


^ 


v£) 


u 








o\ 


ON 


■H 




r-i 


.H 


i-i 


.H 


rt 




nj 


CO 






Q 




o 


O 


0) 


0) 




,--^ 


0) 


in 


C 


c 


C 


0) 


•H 


•H 


3 


3 


■M 


•r-l 


bh 


PL^ 


'-> 


■-) 


cn 


n) 


M 


Id 






iH 


j3 


O 


O 






« 




14-1 


l*J 


u> 


in 


U 


4J 






0) 


0) 


•H 


n) 


U) 


Ul 


^ 


rH 


E 


U-4 


00 


60 


o. 


a 


OJ 


^.^ 


C 


c 






j: 




■H 


•H 


r3 


cd 


o 


C 


■a 


T3 


c/1 


CO 




o 


c 


c 






(U 


•r-( 


•H 


•H 


u 


^ 


-a 


rH 


U-( 


U-t 


0) 


HI 




i-H 






■H 


•H 


o 


•H 


0) 


0) 


Q 


Q 


•H 


s 


M 


OO 






■u 




(0 


n) 


■-I 


i-H 


0) 


M 


l-i 


^ 


nJ 


(0 


dj 


dJ 


(U 


1) 


u 


JJ 



OONCMvDCMi— irOiHiHi/^ 

-croooooooooo 
oooooooooo 



<rp^r~-oncx3mi— I 
M^r— I— 1^1— ii-lOOO 
ttimoooooooo 

•U "— ' • •! 

o oooooooo 



< < H fn 



T-i r — r^rOLnr^LTi^i— I 
a,--N C0iHrnOr-|u-iOO 
ECNOOOOOOOO 

rt ^-- 

CO oooooooo 



.vO-a--3-rOtNOOOOO 

oooooooooo 

OOOOOOOOOO 



1— I (N m -3- 



c c o X 

n) -r-l 03 o 



Q -H Q 0) Q 33 -H tH 

QQQ3:Hpaj<s 



a iJ 
s 



53 



3586 



This data shows that the average level of individual pesticide 
chemicals found in the various food categories is substantially 
below the quantities sanctioned by U.S. tolerances and administrative 
guidelines. The combined residue load of all pesticide chemicals 
found in the various food categories is far below sanctioned limits 
when calculated by proportionate parts of individual pesticides within 
similar chemical classes. 

Inspection of the tables and charts in the Appendix show relatively 
uniform patterns of residue among the various quantitative ranges of 
residue levels, pesticide chemicals, food categories and years. 
There is a difference in order of magnitude in the incidence of 
residues above 0.5 ppm, even in those products and chemicals where 
the tolerance is much higher. Additional study is required to 
determine the full significance of this information. There are 
relatively few instances where the kinds and amounts of pesticide 
chemicals found on domestic foods differ from those found on imported 
foods and in such cases only one or two pesticide chemicals are 
involved. 

In rather general terms, the data supports the following conclusions: 

(a) Small amounts of chlorinated organic and organophosphorus 
pesticide chemicals are commonly present in foods as 
shipped in interstate and international commerce. Even 
smaller amounts of these chemicals are found in food when 
ready to eat. Herbicides and carbamate type pesticides 
are found infrequently in the total diet samples and 
cannot be recognized as a common component of the dietary 
intake of pesticide chemicals. 

(b) The current dietary intake of pesticide chemicals in the 
United States is below safe levels established by U.S. 
and international authorities. 

(c) The current legally sanctioned tolerances are substantially 
higher than the average amounts actually found in foods 

and for a vast majority of the individual lots where residues 
are actually present. The proportion of food containing 
residues at or above the tolerance level is exceedingly 
small . 

(d) Many unsanctioned residues are found on foods, more as a 
result of environmental factors than from misuse. The lack 
of a legal sanction, or approval, for residues in or on 



54 



r 



3587 



food does not insure that foods will remain free of such 
residues. Some of these are being found through the use 
of improved and more sensitive analytical procedures. 
Improved methods are employed in the programs as soon as 
they are available. 

(e) The tolerance and control system employed by the U.S. has 
been successful in maintaining a food supply within estab- 
lished and safe limits of pesticide chemicals needed in 
the production of food and fiber. 



55 



3588 



Education, Information, and Coordination 

The results of the registration, research, monitoring, surveillance, and 
compliance programs concerned with pesticides and pesticide residues are of 
limited value unless some mechanism is established to carry this information 
to other scientists, to those who advise on the use of pesticides, to those 
who use the pesticides, and to those who consume the commodities protected 
by pesticides. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts a continuing nationwide infor- 
mation and education program on pesticide safety and pest control. The audi- 
ence for this program is both the general consuming public and specific 
interest groups including housewives and gardeners, farmers and ranchers, 
commercial applicators and food processors, dealers and manufacturers. 

The Department makes use of a wide variety of communications techniques and 
media to disseminate information. These include television and radio spot 
announcements and features, newspaper and magazine articles, safety cartoons, 
teaching aids for the schools, publications both for the lay public and the 
scientist, motion pictures and exhibits, and other channels. Regional and 
local schools and training courses are conducted for pesticide applicators, 
pest control operators, dealers, and other specialized groups. 

Pesticide registrations are published in the USDA Summary of Registered 
Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Uses. As new registrations are granted, the 
appropriate information is published in loose leaf form and sent to all 
holders of the USDA Summary. At periodic intervals, the Summary is updated 
to incorporate the registrations granted since the last publication date. 
Approximately 6,000 copies of the Summary are distributed nationally and 
internat iona lly . 

A Pesticide Coordinator has been established within the Extension Service in 
each of the 50 States. The Pesticide Coordinator serves as a focal point for 
the receipt and dissemination of information on pesticides, pesticide usage, 
established tolerances, safe and proper usage, storage and handling of pesti- 
cide chemicals. The Coordinator also develops and maintains liaison with 
appropriate State agencies, such as State Departments of Agriculture, Public 
Health, Fish and Game, Resources and Conservation, Forestry, Recreation and 
other groups, organizations or associations having an interest in the safe 
and effective use of pesticides. 

The Food and Drug Administration conducts a consumer information service 
thereby providing current information on the status of pesticides. 

Each of the 17 Field Districts provides a Consumer Consultant who works 
closely with the various consumer groups such as Women's Clubs, Parent-Teachers 
Organizations, and similar groups. The Consumer Consultant indicates the need 
for the safe use and storage of pesticides, the need for reading and following 
the directions on the label, and provides printed informational material for 
distribution to the consumer groups. In these activities, the Consumer 
Consultants work very closely with the members of the State Extension Services. 

56 



3589 



The entire area of pesticides is coordinated under the activities of the 
Federal Committee of Pest Control. This Committee is composed of represent- 
atives of the Departments of Agriculture; Defense; Health, Education and 
Welfare; and Interior. There are four subcommittees within the Federal Com- 
mittee on Pest Control. The membership of the subcommittees is drawn from 
the four Departments. The subcommittees and their functions are: 

1. Research Subcommittee. Evaluates all federally financed pest control 
research to determine completeness of programs, duplication of effort and 
makes recommendations to the parent committee for its consideration. 

2. Monitoring Subcommittee . Evaluates and coordinates all federally financed 
programs in monitoring the presence and effect of pesticides in the environ- 
ment. The Pesticide Monitoring Journal Is published under the direction of 

this committee. 

3. Information Subcommittee . Coordinates the pesticide informational activ- 
ities of the four Departments. 

4. Program Review Subcommittee . All federally financed pesticide programs 
must be reviewed by the Federal Committee on Pest Control. The Program Review 
Subcommittee reviews these programs from the standpoint of safety to the 
applicators and the general public; safety to nontarget organisms, such as 
fish and wildlife; need for controlling the pest; and suitability of suggested 
pest control materials and methods. 

The effectiveness of the Federal Committee on Pest Control can perhaps best 
be Illustrated by the fact that, while it has no statutory authority over the 
various Departments of the Government, the recommendations of this Committee 
have been followed in all cases during the three years of the Committee's 
existence. 



57 



3590 



CONCLUSIONS 

Results of residue analyses demonstrate that the U.S. system for establishing 
tolerances and enforcing pesticide regulations has been effective; the food 
that American farmers produce is good, safe, and nutritious. 

Actual pesticide residues found on U.S . -produced foods are as low, in the 
main, as the lowest of the several national tolerances of other nations. 
Commodities imported into the United States generally contain the same levels 
of chemicals as do domestically produced products. 

Total diet studies over a 4-year period reveal that ingestion of pesticide 
residues is lower than amounts judged to be safe by a joint committee on 
pesticides of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 
and the World Health Organization, and by the U.S. Food and Drug Administra- 
tion. 

The formulation and successful enforcement of pesticide regulations in the 
United States is the product of close cooperation between the industry, the 
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration of the Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare, the State departments of agriculture, the 
Cooperative Extension Services, the land-grant universities and colleges, and 
an informed public. 



58 



3591 



SUMMARY 

The United States is committed by law, policy, and the traditions of many 
decades to assure that the food supply of the Nation is safe, clean, and 
wholesome. The United States is committed to full enforcement of these laws, 
and accordingly, has developed criteria and protocols that are effective, 
workable, and enforceable. Within this primary goal, the United States seeks 
means that will permit its achievement with minimal dislocation of production 
or trade. 

The statutory authority for the regulation of pesticides and pesticide resi- 
dues entering Interstate commerce has been established by the Congress of the 
United States. Under these statutes, the responsibility for registration of 
pesticides and pest control materials has been delegated to the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. The establishment of tolerances for pesticides in or on 
human food and animal feeds has been delegated to the Food and Drug Adminis- 
tration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The basic laws 
are the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentlclde Act; the Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act; and the meat and poultry Inspection acts. 

To obtain registration, a distributor must submit copies of his proposed 
labeling with adequate research data to support all of the claims made for 
the product to the Department of Agriculture. The data and the proposed 
label are carefully reviewed by specialists in pharmacology, chemistry, ento- 
mology, agronomy, plant and animal biology and bacteriology. The data must 
establish that the material, when used as directed, 

1. will not result in hazard to the user or to the consumer of 
the treated commodities, 

2. will not cause injury to crops or objects to which it is 
applied or to beneficial animals which are exposed, 

3. will provide the pest control that is claimed on the label. 

If all the specialists are convinced that the product can be used effectively 
and safely, and will not leave illegal residues on food or feed when all 
label warnings and directions are followed, it is accepted for registration 
and is registered. 

When a petitioner or other interested party applies for registration of a 
product under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act -- with 
directions for use on food or feed crops or in a manner which is likely to 
result in residues on food or feed -- he is informed that registration will 
not be issued until a finite tolerance or exemption is established. 

The petitioner then must assemble and submit to the Food and Drug Administra- 
tion and to the Department of Agriculture adequate residue data to show con- 
clusively the level of residues likely to result. He must also submit ade- 
quate safety data to prove that the residues, in or on the food, would be 



59 



3592 



safe. In addition, the petitioner is required to provide an analytical 
method that will routinely detect and measure residues of the chemical. The 
analytical method must be usable in regulatory programs. 

The Department of Agriculture evaluates the data and the proposed labeling. 
It certifies to the Food and Drug Administration that the pesticide is satis- 
factory for the proposed use, and expresses an opinion on the adequacy of the 
residue data. In many cases, the Department will certify usefulness of the 
pesticide, but may require changes in the label prior to final registration. 
Specialists in the Food and Drug Administration then evaluate the chemistry 
and toxicity data to determine if a tolerance is justified. 

If the residue chemistry and safety data are found to be adequate, the toler- 
ance is established and the Department of Agriculture issues a registration. 

If the data are determined to be inadequate to justify the proposed tolerance, 
the Food and Drug Administration will refuse to establish the proposed toler- 
ance and may establish a tolerance at a lower level, or a zero tolerance if 
the data warrant such action. The Department of Agriculture then grants a 
registration when justified on the basis of the tolerance established by the 
Food and Drug Administration. 

Upon registration, the Department of Agriculture publishes and distributes 
the appropriate information in the USDA Summary of Registered Pesticide Uses. 
The Food and Drug Administration, upon establishment of a tolerance, publishes 
the appropriate information in the Federal Register. 

The Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration maintain a 
nationwide surveillance program on pesticides and pesticide residues in inter- 
state commerce. In the Department of Agriculture, a force of 31 inspectors 
working out of Washington, D.C., and five field stations, systematically in- 
spect and sample pesticides in warehouses and in sales outlets. The pesti- 
cides are inspected for registration, adequacy of information on the label, 
and for other important aspects. The inspectors also sample representative 
pesticides and submit the samples for chemical analysis and biological 
activity. 

The Food and Drug Administration surveillance programs have been expanded 
substantially. This agency now collects and examines 25,000 samples annually 
in addition to such inspections in the growing areas as are necessary to 
determine the actual practices being followed in the growing areas. Quanti- 
tative multi-residue methods of analysis using gas-liquid chromatography at 
routine sensitivity levels of approximately 0.03 p. p.m. on most crops were 
in common use beginning July 1963. 



data presented in this report are from samples collected on an essentially 
liora basis where there was no suspicion of excessive residues or misuse of 



The 

random ,,_ ^ __ __ 

the pesticide chemicals. The findings are considered to be generally 
representative of the food supply. 



60 



3593 



In general, during the past 4 years, about one-half of the samples contained 
residues of one or more pesticide chemicals. About 3 percent of the samples 
were found to exceed legal tolerances or, in the absence of legal tolerances, 
administrative guidelines for excessive residues. Wherever possible, foods 
containing excess residues were removed from the market. Over 75 percent of 
the individual residues found were below 0.11 part per million, and 95 percent 
of the residues were below 0.51 part per million. This general pattern is 
observed when the data are considered by specific pesticide chemical, by food 
category, by domestic and imported products, or when considered on an annual 
basis. The average level of residues within a food category was quite low, 
and the percentage of lots containing residues in excess, to 2 parts per 
million was very low. 

The formulation of adequate pesticide regulations, like any other regulation, 
must be firmly based on research and use experience. Within the United 
States, as in many countries, industry, educational institutions, and State 
and Federal laboratories have utilized their combined efforts to develop, 
test, and evaluate chemical methods and other methods for pest control. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts, and otherwise supports, compre- 
hensive programs involving pesticides and related activities. The objective 
is to develop and encourage the use of those means of effective pest control 
which provide the least potential hazard to man, animals, and their 
environment . 

The Department also supports research in private and public agencies through 
contracts and grants. Major grant funds are allocated to State Agricultural 
Experiment Stations and Schools of Forestry through procedures authorized by 
Congress under the Hatch and Mclnt ire-Stennis Acts. 

The pesticide-related research activities of the Food and Drug Administration 
are designed to support and strengthen the efforts to establish and enforce 
pesticide residue tolerances. The activities fall into the two major areas 
of chemical research and biological research. 

The chemical research on pesticide residues in foods is two-fold: It involves 
(1) establishing the chemical identity of the residue, including significant 
conversion products, and (2) developing, improving, and validating methodology 
for measuring the amount of such residue. 

The development of adequate methodology for the analysis of pesticide residues 
is a continuing problem and requires a major share of the research effort. 
The biological research program is directed toward evaluating the hazards of 
pesticide residues and their conversion products by acquiring information on 
the effects of these materials on animals and man. 

The pesticide regulation system in the United States is effective, and 
provides protection to the user of the pesticide and the consumer of the 
commodities treated with pesticides. 



61 



3594 



.^^■^^" ''^^. 







REPORT TO THE CONGRESS 



Need To Improve Regulatory 
Enforcement Procedures 
Involving Pesticides a.,,,,,. 

Agricultural Research Service 
Department of Agriculture 



BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL 
OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPT. 10.1968 



3595 




COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 
WASHINGTON. D C 205« 



B-133192 



To the President of the Senate and the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives 

Here is our report pointing out a need for the Agri- 
cultural Research Service of the Departntient of Agriculture 
to improve regulatory enforcement procedures involving 
pesticides. 

Copies of this report are also being sent to the Di- 
rector, Bureau of the Budget, and to the Secretary of 
Agriculture. 



J/M^^JtA 



^ /vfixf^ 



Comptroller General 
of the United States 



3596 



COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S NEED TO IMPROVE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT 

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS PROCEDURES INVOLVING PESTICIDES 

Agricultural Research Service 
Department of Agriculture B-133192 

DIGEST 



WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE 

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is responsible for enforcing 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act--the basic con- 
sumer protection law in the area of pesticides. The law requires that 
all pesticide products shipped across a State line be safe and effec- 
tive and be registered with ARS before being sold to the public. 

To ensure that products being sold comply with the law, ARS obtains 
samples of products and tests them. Under the law, ARS may take action 
to remove products from the market, cancel the registration of products, 
and report to the Department of Justice for prosecution those who ship 
products that violate the law. 

Because over 60,000 pesticide products are registered with ARS--virtu- 
ally affecting every segment of the public— the General Accounting Of- 
fice (GAO) wanted to find out how the law was being enforced to protect 
the public. 



FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

GAO found that, in taking action at locations against misbranded, 
adulterated, or unregistered products, ARS, with few possible excep- 
tions, did not obtain quantity and shipping data to determine whether 
shipments of the same products were available to the public in other 
locations. 

As a result, the actions taken may not have removed from the market 
products which, in some instances, were potentially harmful. (See pp. 
8 to 13.) 

GAO found that ARS operating guidelines did not include procedures for 
determining when shippers which had apparently violated the law would 
be reported to the Department of Justice for prosecution. There have 
been no actions by ARS to report violators of the law for prosecution 
in 13 years. This was true even in instances where repeated major 
violations of the law were cited by ARS and when shippers did not 
take satisfactory action to correct violations or ignored ARS notifica- 
tions that prosecution was being contemplated. (See pp. 14 to is.) 

rear Sheet 



I 



3597 



GAO found also that, at the time of its review, ARS was not publishing 
the notices of judgments of the courts ordering products off the market 
as required by the law. (See pp. 22 to 23.) 

RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS 

GAO is reconmending that ARS establish and implement procedures to pro- 
vide for: 

—obtaining shipping and product data, 

, —reporting violators of the law for prosecution, and 

—publishing notices of judgments. 

ACSSCY ACTIONS 

ARS has agreed to obtain the data necessary to support actions to re- 
move products from the market and to use the data as a basis for obtain- 
ing samples and other documentary information on the product at every 
location possible, in order to remove the maximum amount of the product 
from the market. 

ARS has revised its operating guidelines concerning shippers to now re- 
quire that cases be forwarded for prosecution in instances where (1) the 
evidence indicates that the violation was willful, (2) the violation is 
of a serious nature and is the result of apparent gross negligence, or 
(3) the company has engaged in repeated violations. 

ARS has made plans to publish the backlog of notices of judgments as 
soon as possible and to publish future notices at least every 6 months. 

ISSUES FOR FUFTHER CONSIDERATION 

None. 



LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 
None. 



3598 



Contents 

Page 

DIGEST 1 

INTRODUCTION 3 

BACKGROUND 3 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 

Need to establish procedures involving pesticide 

enforcement actions 7 

Enforcement actions may not have resulted in 
the removal of misbranded, adulterated, or 
unregistered products from the market 8 
Alleged violators of the FIFRA not reported 

for prosecution 14 

Legislation proposed to improve regulation 

of pesticides 18 

Conclusion 20 

Recommendation to the Administrator, Agricul- 
tural Research Service 21 
Need to establish procedures involving publica- 
tions of notices of judgments 22 
Recommendation to the Administrator, Agri- 
cultural Research Service 23 



SCOPE OF REVIEW 



A ppendix 



25 



APPENDIXES 

Principal officials of the Department 
of Agriculture responsible for ad- 
ministration of activities discussed 
in this report I 29 

Letter dated May 22, 1968, from the 
Acting Administrator, Agricultural 
Research Service, to the General Ac- 
counting Office II 30 



3599 



COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S NEED TO IMPROVE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT 

REPORT TO TEE CONGRESS PROCEDURES INVOLVING PESTICIDES 

Agricultural Research Service 
Department of Agriculture B-133192 

D I^ G E S T 

WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE 

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is responsible for enforcing 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act--the basic con- 
sumer protection law in the area of pesticides. The law requires that 
all pesticide products shipped across a State line be safe and effec- 
tive and be registered with ARS before being sold to the public. 

To ensure that products being sold comply with the law, ARS obtains 
samples of products and tests them. Under the law, ARS may take action 
to remove products from the market, cancel the registration of products, 
and report to the Department of Justice for prosecution those who ship 
products that violate the law. 

Because over 60,000 pesticide products are registered with ARS— virtu- 
ally affecting every segment of the public— the General Accounting Of- 
fice (GAO) wanted to find out how the law was being enforced to protect 
the public. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

GAO found that, in taking action at locations against misbranded, 
adulterated, or unregistered products, ARS, with few possible excep- 
tions, did not obtain quantity and shipping data to determine whether 
shipments of the same products were available to the public in other 
locations. 

As a result, the actions taken may not have removed from the market 
products which, in some instances, were potentially harmful. (See pp. 
8 to 13.) 

GAO found that ARS operating guidelines did not include procedures for 
determining when shippers which had apparently violated the law would 
be reported to the Department of Justice for prosecution. There have 
been no actions by ARS to report violators of the law for prosecution 
in 13 years. This was true even in instances where repeated major 
violations of the law were cited by ARS and when shippers did not 
take satisfactory action to correct violations or ignored ARS notifica- 
tions that prosecution was being contemplated. (See pp. 14 to is.) 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 16 



3600 



GAO found also that, at the time of its review, ARS was not publishing 
the notices of judgments of the courts ordering products off the market 
as required by the law. (See pp. 22 to 23.) 

RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS 

GAO is recommending that ARS establish and implement procedures to pro- 
vide for: 

--obtaining shipping and product data, 

—reporting violators of the law for prosecution, and 

—publishing notices of judgments. 

AGENCY ACTIONS 

ARS has agreed to obtain the data necessary to support actions to re- 
move products from the market and to use the data as a basis for obtain- 
ing samples and other documentary information on the product at every 
location possible, in order to remove the maximum amount of the product 
from the market. 

ARS has revised its operating guidelines concerning shippers to now re- 
quire that cases be forwarded for prosecution in instances where (1) the 
evidence indicates that the violation was willful, (2) the violation is 
of a serious nature and is the result of apparent gross negligence, or 
(3) the company has engaged in repeated violations. 

ARS has made plans to publish the backlog of notices of judgments as 
soon as possible and to publish future notices at least every 6 months. 

ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
None. 



LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 
None. 



3601 



INTRODUCTION 



The General Accounting Office has reviewed the manner 
in which the Agricultural Research Service, Department of 
Agriculture, has carried out regulatory enforcement activi- 
ties to prevent the interstate marketing of unregistered, 
adulterated, or misbranded pesticides. Our review, made pur- 
suant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), 
and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67), 
was directed primarily toward an evaluation of the adminis- 
tration of pesticide enforcement activities, rather than to 
an evaluation of the administration of other Department or 
ARS activities involving pesticides. 

Because over 60,000 pesticides products are registered 
with ARS--virtually affecting every segment of the public-- 
we wanted to find out how ARS carries out regulatory en- 
forcement activities to protect the public. Our review 
covered the enforcement actions initiated by ARS during 
fiscal year 1966 as well as related events occurring during 
the period February 1955 through May 1968. The scope of our 
review is described more fully on page 25. 

BACKGROUND 

It is the policy of the Department of Agriculture to 
encourage the use of those means of effective pest control 
which provide the least potential hazard to man and animals. 
According to the Department, pesticides are generally the 
most effective and, in many instances, the only available 
means for fighting pests that are destructive or endanger 
human health. In protecting man, animals, plants, farm and 
forest products, communities, and households against depreda- 
tion by pests, the Department has a vital concern for the 
health and well-being of people who use pesticides and those 
who use products protected or treated by pesticides. 

Statistics published by the Department indicate the 
importance of pesticides as well as the scope of their use 
in this country. The Department reported that during 1965 
nearly $1 billion worth of pesticides were used in the pro- 
tection of agricultural and forest products, that crop and 



3602 



livestock production in the United States would drop by 
about 25 to 30 percent if pesticides were to be completely 
withdrawn from farm use, and that approximately 15 percent 
of all pesticides sold were purchased for home and garden 
use--a total of over 50 million pounds of product preparations, 

Major programs of the Department--many of which are con- 
ducted in cooperation with State and local governments, other 
Federal agencies, educational and private organizations, and 
industry--are used in carrying out policy objectives. In ad- 
dition to Federal laws and regulations to govern the movement 
and sale of pesticides in interstate commerce, there are pro- 
grams of the Department which include maintaining quarantine 
barriers against foreign pests, monitoring pesticide residue 
levels in meat and poultry products, and conducting research 
and public education and information programs to find better 
and safer pest control methods and to promote the safe use 
of pesticides. 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act (FIFRA) of 1947 (7 U.S.C. 135-135k) provides the basic 
legal authority for regulating the interstate marketing of 
pesticides to protect the interests of both the user of 
pesticides and the consumer of products protected by pesti- 
cides. The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for 
administering and enforcing the FIFRA. Authority for imple- 
menting the FIFRA is delegated to the Pesticides Regulation 
Division of the Department' s Agricultural Research Service. 

In addition to the FIFRA, related Federal laws con- 
cerned with safeguarding the public affect pesticide products. 
For instance, certain provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (21 U.S.C. 301) directly affect the 
registration of pesticides. This act, which regulates the 
amount of residue that may remain after the use of pesticides 
on food commodities moving in interstate commerce, is ad- 
ministered by the Food and Drug Administration of the De- 
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare. 

Also, individual States have laws and regulations on the 
sale of pesticides within State borders. An example is the 
Uniform State Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
developed by the Council of State Governments and adopted 



3603 



by most States. The uniform State act, which parallels the 
FIFRA, facilitates cooperation between State and Federal 
officials in enforcing uniform regulations. 

The FIFRA provides that every commercial pesticide 
formulation must be registered with the Department of Agri- 
culture before it can be sold in interstate commerce. Ac- 
cording to the Department, over 50,000 pesticide formula- 
tions based on more that 900 individual chemical compounds 
have been registered during the last two decades. Before 
registration is granted, a pesticide must meet tests which 
prove its claimed effectiveness against a particular pest 
or pests and demonstrate its safety when used as directed. 

As part of the registration req-airements, the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture regulates the contents of labels for 
pesticide products under the provisions of section 4 of the 
act. Federal regulations require that warning and caution- 
ary statements be displayed on the labels of pesticides. 
The nature and scope of the safety claim on the label must 
conform to proven facts, and all labels must bear registra- 
tion numbers indicating that the product has been accepted 
by the Department as adequate to permit both safe and ef- 
fective use when container directions are followed. 

To enforce compliance with the provisions of the FIFRA, 
ARS field inspectors, aided by deputized State inspectors, 
obtain sample products to be checked for violations of 
pesticide registration and labeling regulations. Products 
are submitted to Federal laboratories for analysis and 
testing. In this manner, ARS determines whether the prod- 
ucts being marketed are as represented at the time of their 
original registration with the agency for marketing in 
interstate commerce. 

Section 5 of the law provides authority to the Secretary 
of Agriculture for access to all records showing the deliv- 
ery, movement, or holding of pesticide products, including 
quantities of shipments, dates of shipments and receipt of 
goods, and names of consignors or consignees of shipments. 

Violations of the FIFRA include lack of Federal regis- 
tration, adulteration, and misbranding of pesticide products. 



3604 



In cases of violations of law, ARS is authorized by the FIFRA 
to (1) take action to remove the illegal shipment from the 
location where it is found (seizure action), (2) cancel the 
registration of the product, (3) report to the Department of 
Justice for criminal prosecution the person(s) alleged to be 
responsible for violating the act, or (4) use a combination 
of these actions. The act also requires ARS to notify the 
person(s) against whom criminal proceedings are contemplated. 

The act provides that the seizure of products or the 
prosecution of violators is not required in the event that 
ARS determines that the violation is minor and the public 
interest will be served adequately by a written notice of 
warning. The act provides also for the publication of all 
judgments of the courts to seize products or to prosecute 
shippers under its authority. 

In fiscal year 1966, ARS tested and reviewed 2,751 sam- 
ples of pesticide products. As a result of the work per- 
formed, ARS reported that 750 samples were found to be in 
violation of the FIFRA and that 562 of the 750 samples were 
in maJLor violation of the law. The samples determined by 
ARS to be in major violation of the law-- cases that war- 
ranted such action as seizure or prosecution--represented 
about 20 percent of all the samples that were tested and 
reviewed in fiscal year 1966. 

Enforcement actions taken in fiscal year 1966 included 
106 actions by ARS to remove misbranded, adulterated, and 
unregistered products from the market as well as three ac- 
tions by ARS to cancel the registration of products. During 
the same period there were no enforcement actions by ARS to 
report violators of the FIFRA for prosecution. 

The principal officials of the Department of Agricul- 
ture responsible for the administration of pesticide en- 
forcement activities are listed in appendix I to this 
report. 



3605 



FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

NEED TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES INVOLVING 
PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 

On the basis of our review, we believe that there is a 
need for ARS to establish procedures for strengthening pes- 
ticide enforcement actions that may be taken against mis- 
branded, adulterated, or unregistered products or the ship- 
pers of such products. 

We found that, in taking action against products, ARS, 
with few possible exceptions, did not obtain product quan- 
tity and location data to determine whether other shipments 
of the same misbranded, adulterated, or unregistered pro- 
ducts were available to the public in other locations. As 
a result, the enforcement actions taken may not have re- 
moved violative and, in some instances, potentially harmful 
products from the market. 

In our opinion, the product quantity and location data 
of the shippers is needed by ARS to (1) evaluate the ade- 
quacy of its enforcement actions, (2) determine the types 
of supplemental actions, if any, that may be necessary to 
protect the interests of the public, and (3) facilitate ef- 
forts to locate and remove undesirable products from the 
market. 

We found also that ARS internal operating guidelines 
did not set forth the procedures to be used for determining 
when shippers that had allegedly violated the law would be 
reported to the Department of Justice for prosecution. 

In this connection, we noted that there had been no 
enforcement actions by ARS to report violators of the FIFRA 
for prosecution in 13 years, even in instances where re- 
peated major violations of the law were cited by the agency 
and when shippers did not take satisfactory action to cor- 
rect violations or ignored ARS notifications that prosecu- 
tion was being contemplated. 

In our opinion, the lack of action by ARS to report 
firms for prosecution in serious or repeated cases could 
indicate to the shippers involved--as well as to other 



3606 



shippers of pesticide products — that major violations of 
the law would be treated with minimum consequence. More- 
over, any advantages attached to the value of prosecutions 
as a deterrent to future violations of the law would be 
nullified. 

In June 1967, the Department of Agriculture proposed 
legislation to the Congress to amend the FIFRA which, if 
enacted and properly implemented, should tend to achieve 
generally more effective regulation of pesticides. The 
proposed legislation was pending in the Congress as of May 
1968. 

In our opinion, however, improved enforcement of the 
FIFRA also reqriires the establishment and implementation of 
procedures under existing provisions of the act. The de- 
tails of our findings are discussed below. 

Enforcement actions may not have resulted 
in the removal of misbranded. adulterated , 
or unregistered products from the market 

Our review showed that, in taking 106 seizure actions 
in fiscal year 1966, ARS, with few possible exceptions, did 
not obtain product quantity and location data to determine 
whether other shipments of the same misbranded, adulterated, 
or unregistered products were available to the public in 
other locations. Similarly, we found that ARS action to 
cancel the registrations of certain products in fiscal year 
1966 was not supplemented by action to obtain information 
bearing upon the quantities and locations of the products 
that had previously entered marketing channels. Sec- 
tion 5 of the FIFRA authorizes ARS to obtain such informa- 
tion from manufacturers, distributors, carriers, dealers, 
or any other person who sells, delivers, receives, or holds 
any product subject to the act. 

Our review showed that ARS did not have procedures or 
standards for obtaining shipping and product information 
from the records of shippers of products. W^ found that 
generally it was ARS practice to remove from the market 
only the amount of the product, if any, on hand at the one 
retail or wholesale outlet where the sample was collected. 
We found further that ARS inspectors were using the 



r 



3607 



authority of section 5 of the FIFRA to establish from the 
records of the one retailer or wholesaler the fact that in- 
terstate shipment had been made of the particular stock 
from which the sample was taken. 

According to ARS, the actions to seize products during 
fiscal year 1956 involved seven major types of pesticide 
products. 

Number of 
seizure actions 



Agricultural insecticides 


26 


Disinfectants 


38 


Fungicides 


1 


Herbicides 


13 


Animal insecticides 


12 


Miscellaneous insecticides 


14 


Animal biology 


2 



Total i^ 

Also, ARS reported in program publications that the actions 
to take products off the market were a significant part of 
the protection being given the public under the provisions 
of the FIFRA. 

We found that 84 of the 106 seizure actions (involving 
79 different products) resulted in the removal of part or 
all of the stock from the locations from which samples were 
taken; however, in 22 of the 106 seizure actions (about one 
out of every five such actions) the removal from the market 
of any quantity of the product was not accomplished inas- 
much as the product was no longer on the shelves or in 
storage at the one location where the sample was collected 
when the seizure was attempted. 

We found further that the 79 different products which 
had been seized were seized at only 80 different wholesale 
or retail outlets throughout the United States and that ARS 
did not obtain shipping location and product quantity infor- 
mation from the records of shippers of products, even though 
the products could be sold nationally. 



3608 



An example follows which we believe illustrates the 
need for ARS to better use its authority to obtain shipping 
location and product quantity information in order to pro- 
vide better protection to the public. 

On March 9, 1966, ARS seized 11 one-gallon containers 
of a liquid spray insecticide from an outlet in Santa Fe, 
New Mexico, because the product was contaminated with a toxic 
ingredient not named on the container. Subsequent to the 
seizure, the manufacturer of the product was notified by 
ARS of the violation of the FIFRA. On March 30, 1966, the 
manufacturer advised ARS that the wrong label had been ap- 
plied to the product and that procedures had been revised 
to avoid repetition of the error. 

On April 22, 1966, ARS informed the manufacturer that 
the mislabeling of the product had resulted in a very dan- 
gerous situation since a purchaser would be using a much 
more hazardous chemical than he believed he had purchased. 
ARS stated that the product was not acceptable as labeled 
because of the increased danger of inhalation and skin ab- 
sorption and requested more information regarding the pro- 
cedures taken to avoid a repetition. In addition, ARS 
asked for information regarding the steps taken to recall 
any other outstanding stocks that may have been similarly 
mislabeled. 

The manufacturer's reply to ARS on May 18, 1966, out- 
lined the steps that had been taken to prevent a recurrence 
of the violation but contained no information on actions 
taken to recall any other outstanding stocks of the product 
that may have been similarly mislabeled. Despite the ab- 
sence of this information, ARS notified the manufacturer on 
May 27, 1966, that any further action with respect to the 
case need not be taken. 

ARS closed the case on June 7, 1966, without estab- 
lishing the quantity or location of similarly deficient 
products that may have been available to the public. 

Our review showed that, in addition to seizures in 
fiscal year 1966, three enforcement actions were taken by 
ARS involving the cancellation of certain uses of regis- 
tered products containing specific chemical ingredients. 

10 



3609 



For instance, ARS canceled the registrations for use on 
certain crops of 475 products containing the chemicals al- 
drin and dieldrin when new scientific developments became 
available to justify changes in the registered labeling of 
products containing those chemicals. We found further that, 
in the interest of public safety, ARS canceled the regis- 
trations of 58 products containing the chemical thallium. 

Our review of the cancellation of the registrations of 
the products containing thallium showed that the action was 
taken by ARS because the general use of such products had 
resulted in numerous accidents. According to ARS, thallivim 
had been used in bait material for the control of insects 
and rodents for a number of years; however, a number of 
deaths had occurred, principally in children, as a result 
of accidental consumption of the bait material. 

In June 1960, ARS took action to limit the thallium 
content of products in an attempt to reduce the possibility 
of fatal accidents associated with the use of such products. 
In spite of the limitation, deaths continued to occur as a 
result of accidental ingestion of the products. In addi- 
tion, statistics of the Public Health Service indicated 
that there were about 400 reported cases of thallium poison- 
ing of children during 1962 and 1963. 

On August 1, 1965, ARS notified manufacturers, formu- 
lators, distributors, and registrants that the registrations 
of products containing thallium were being canceled. The 
cancellations involved 45 registrants and 58 thallium prod- 
ucts. According to ARS, the action was taken as a result 
of the continuing number of accidents associated with the 
general use of the products. The effective date of the 
cancellation of the registrations of the products contain- 
ing thallium was 30 days after the registrants received the 
notice of August 1, 1965. 

Our review showed that the action in August 1965 to 
cancel the registration of the products involved was not 
supplemented by action to obtain information on the quan- 
tities and locations of products that had previously en- 
tered marketing channels. We found that, subsequent to the 
cancellation of the registrations, thallium products con- 
tinued to be available for public consumption and that 



I 



I 



11 



3610 



efforts ARS made to protect the public, such as attempts to 
locate thallium products, were being made without knowing 
the locations or quantities of the products involved. We 
found also that a product containing thallium was still 
available to the public in January 1968 and that the extent 
and duration to which such products remained available to 
the public were unknown. 

Our review showed that in November 1966- -14 months 
after the cancellation of registrations--an ARS memorandum 
of instructions to agency field inspectors discussing the 
availability of thallium products stated that: 

" Recent reports indicate that these products are 
still available at the retail level. Please in- 
crease your surveillance of hardware, drug, gro - 
cery, novelty stores etc. to determine if they 
are still on the shelves . If encountered and 
the shipment was made prior to August 1965, you 
may be able to get the dealer to voluntarily 
destroy the merchandise. If not, you should 
bring the matter to the attention of the local 
authorities. If the shipment was made after 
August 1965, we can take action based on a vio- 
lation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act. In either case, you should 
check the wholesaler or distributor from whom 
purchased to determine if larger sized lots are 
available . Seizure action will be taken when 
possible." (Underscoring supplied.) 

Our review showed that ARS inspectors located 15 lots 
of products containing thallium during the period January 1 
through June 30, 1967. ARS identified three of the 15 lots 
as shipments made subsequent to September 1, 1965, and took 
action to remove them from the market. We found further 
that the remaining 12 lots were identified by ARS as ship- 
ments made prior to September 1965 and that six of the 12 
lots were voluntarily destroyed by the dealer, three lots 
were referred to State authorities when the dealer refused 
to voluntarily destroy the merchandise, and three lots were 
removed from sale by the dealer pending return to the ship- 
per for credit. 



12 



3611 



On August 9, 1967, a representative of the General Ac- 
counting Office visited about 20 retail stores in Washing- 
ton, D.C., to determine whether products were being sold in 
violation of Federal law. As a result, about 100 packages 
of a product containing thallium were located and brought 
to the attention of ARS, The merchandise, which had been 
on the market prior to the cancellation of the registra- 
tions in 1965 was removed from the market on August 31, 
1967. 

After notifying ARS of the availability of the thallium 
products, we noted that an agency inspector canvassed 22 
additional retail stores in Washington, D.C., and suburban 
Maryland, The inspector located products containing thal- 
lium in six, or about 27 percent, of the 22 outlets visited. 
Furthermore, on January 29, 1968, a representative of our 
Office located about 65 more packages of a product contain- 
ing thallium in suburban Maryland. The products in these 
instances--as previously — had been in marketing channels 
prior to the cancellation of the registrations. 

We were informed by ARS officials that, because of the 
continuing availability to the public of thallium products, 
three firms were requested in 1967 to make an effort to 
locate and remove from the market stocks of products con- 
taining thallium. We were informed also that ARS would 
continue its surveillance for thallium products until such 
products could no longer be found. 

We believe that, under the provisions of the FIFRA, 
appropriate information pertaining to locations and quan- 
tities of products could have been obtained by ARS in con- 
junction with its enforcement actions to seize products and 
to cancel the registrations of the thallium products. In 
our opinion, such information would be needed by ARS to 

(1) evaluate the adequacy of its enforcement actions, 

(2) determine the types of supplemental actions, if any, 
that may be necessary to protect the interests of the pub- 
lic, and (3) facilitate efforts to locate and remove un- 
desirable products from the market. 



13 



3612 



Alleged violators of the FIFRA not 
reported for prosecution 

Our review showed that during the 13-year period from 
February 1955 through February 1968, alleged violators of 
the FIFRA were not reported to the Department of Justice 
for prosecution even though, in some instances, prosecution 
of such violators, in our opinion, appeared warranted. 

We found that, during fiscal year 1966, ARS notified 
242 shippers of pesticide products that criminal proceed- 
ings against them were contemplated. The charges to be 
brought against the 242 shippers involved 456 samples of 
products that were determined by ARS to be in maior viola- 
tion of the act. We found that 77, or about 32 percent, of 
the shippers were responsible for 291, or about 64 percent, 
of the samples violating the law. According to ARS records, 
each of the 77 shippers had violated the law on more than 
one occasion in fiscal year 1966 and two of the shippers 
were known by ARS to have violated the law on 20 separate 
occasions during this period, as illustrated by the follow- 
ing table. 



Number 


of 


Number 


o 


f samples in 


shippe 


;rs 


violation 


per shipper 


2 






20 


1 








10 


1 








8 


4 








7 


3 








6 


6 








5 


12 








4 


13 








3 


35 








2 



21 

In our opinion, such statistics indicate that misbranded, 
adulterated, or unregistered products are shipped most often 
by the same firms. 

According to ARS internal operating guidelines, action 
to report violators for prosecution is resorted to only 

1^ 



3613 



when all other methods have failed to obtain required cor- 
rections, such as when a firm has had several major viola- 
tions and apparently has made little or no effort to bring 
its products into compliance with the act. In accordance 
with section 6.c. of the FIFRA, the purpose of the notifica- 
tion of contemplated prosecution is to list the alleged vi- 
olations and to offer a firm an opportunity to make any ex- 
planation desired within 20 days. 

During our review, we noted a lack of action by ARS to 
report firms for prosecution even in instances when notifica- 
tions of contemplated prosecutions were ignored. 

For instance, our review showed that ARS collected a 
sample of a hospital disinfectant in Portland, Oregon, on 
January 25, 1965. The shipping records collected with the 
sample indicated that the product was shipped to the dealer 
in Portland from the manufacturer in Chicago, Illinois, 
during June and October 1964. The sample, a report of the 
collection, and shipping records related to the containers 
at the one location in Portland were sent on January 29, 
1965, to an ARS bacteriology laboratory in Beltsville, 
Maryland. 

On February 19, 1965, ARS completed its analysis of 
the sample. The analysis showed that the product was in 
violation of the FIFRA because, when used as directed, it 
could not be relied upon to kill a bacteria (staphylococcus) 
that causes drug-resistant bacterial infection, although 
this claim was made on the label. On March 4, 1965, ARS, 
as a result of the analysis, determined that the product 
was not effective as a hospital disinfectant and that en- 
forcement action should be instituted. 

On June 1, 1965, ARS informed the shipper of the dis- 
infectant that prosecution under the provisions of the FIFRA 
was contemplated for shipping a product in violation of the 
law. In response to ARS, the shipper requested on Au- 
gust 3, 1965, that a sample of the deficient product be 
made available for analysis so that a confirmation or denial 
of the ARS charges could be made. 

On September 14, 1965, ARS sent a sample of the defi- 
cient product to the shipper and informed him that his case 



15 



3614 



would be held open for the time necessary to study and com- 
ment on the sample. In a letter dated December 20, 1965, 
ARS again informed the shipper that the case was being held 
open and that the receipt of his explanation to the contem- 
plated prosecution was pending. We noted, however, that in 
a memorandum dated March 4, 1966, ARS, in discussing the 
contemplated prosecution, concluded that the examination of 
samples from future shipments of the product should be 
made. ARS stated that: 

"A subsample of our official sample was forwarded 
on September 14, 1965 for his [shipper's] confir- 
mation of sample failure. We have not received 
any reply to this letter nor to our follow-up 
letter of December 20, 1965- In view of the fact 
that the firm has had ample time to run tests to 
confirm our findings to their satisfaction, and 
has not replied to our follow-up letters above, 
it is recommended that this case be placed in 
Temporary Abeyance [held open] pending examina- 
tion of samples from future shipments of the 
product." 

Our review showed that on June 15, 1965, ARS had col- 
lected another sample of the hospital disinfectsint from a 
different shipment to the same dealer in Portland, Oregon. 
The sample was sent on June 18, 1965, to the bacteriologi- 
cal laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland. On July 16, 1965, 
the laboratory reported that the product was again in vio- 
lation of the FIFRA in that the labeling made claims to be- 
ing a disinfectant which kills an antibiotic resistant bac- 
teria; whereas, when used as directed, the product would 
not kill the bacteria or disinfect hospital instruments, 
utensils, and equipment or hospital operating rooms, deliv- 
ery rooms, nurseries, maternity wards, and patient rooms. 
The laboratory report recommended that the product be 
seized and the shipper of the product be notified of ARS ' s 
intention of prosecuting him in an action separate from the 
seizure of the product. 

On July 30, 1965, ARS, in justifying the need for the 
enforcement actions, stated that: 



16 



3615 



"The product is represented as a hospital disin- 
fectant. *** When used as directed, the product 
would not be effective as a hospital disinfec- 
tant. A previous sample of this product I.D. 
No. 47076, was obtained at the same dealer and 
found to be ineffective." 

On August 30, 1965, ARS informed the shipper that 
prosecution under the provisions of the FIFRA was also con- 
templated for shipping the second disinfectant. In a 
follow-up to this contemplated prosecution, ARS, in an Oc- 
tober 22, 1965, letter to the shipper, stated that: 

"No reply has been received and the matter is be- 
ing called to your attention in the belief that 
it may have been overlooked. We should point out 
that once a regulatory action of this type has 
been initiated, we do not have the authority to 
hold the matter open indefinitely." 

We noted, however, that on March 22, 1966, ARS again deter- 
mined that additional samples should be collected and that 
the case would be held open. 

Our review showed that during fiscal year 1966 ARS 
collected 127 samples of products manufactured by the ship- 
per, of which 36, or about 28 percent, were determined by 
ARS to be in violation of the FIFRA. Our review showed 
further that the shipper was notified of contemplated pros- 
ecutions on six separate occasions involving 20 samples 
that were determined by ARS to be in maior violation of the 
law. We found, however, that in no instance was the en- 
forcement action taken to report the shipper to the Depart- 
ment of Justice for prosecution. Moreover, we noted that, 
from the end of fiscal year 1966, the shipper of the hospi- 
tal disinfectant had continued to violate the provisions of 
the FIFRA. 

For instance, we noted that in October 1966, ARS can- 
celed the registration of the hospital disinfectant. The 
cancellation was made pursuant to the failure of the manu- 
facturer to comply with revised labeling requirements of 
the FIFRA. The changed labeling requirements were brought 
about by an amendment to the FIFRA on May 12, 1964, and 

17 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 17 



3616 



revisions of the regulations under the FIFRA. The manufac- 
turer was notified of the new labeling requirements on 
September 15, 1964, December 7, 1965, and August 1, 1966. 
Nevertheless , our review showed that in August 1967 , ARS 
collected a sample of the unregistered product that was 
shipped in interstate commerce during May 1967. 

The sample was tested by ARS on September 21, 1967. 
The laboratory tests showed--as on previous occasions-- 
that, in addition to being unregistered, when the product 
was used as directed, it could not be relied upon as a hos- 
pital disinfectant. The laboratory report again recommended 
that the shipper be informed of a contemplated prosecution. 
We found, however, that on Jcinuary 23, 1968, ARS determined 
that this case also would be held open pending the examina- 
tion of additional samples. 

Our review showed that in other instances also shippers 
ignored ARS notices of contemplated proceedings or did not 
explain the causes of violations to the satisfaction of the 
agency. We noted, however, that the ARS internal operating 
guidelines did not set forth the follow-on procedures to be 
used to determine when shippers that had allegedly violated 
the law would be reported to the Department of Justice for 
prosecution. 

We believe that the lack of enforcement action by ARS 
concerning the prosecution of shippers could impair the 
achievement of the objective of pesticide regulation en- 
forcement to protect the interest of the public. In our 
opinion, the lack of action by ARS to report firms for 
prosecution in serious or repeated cases could indicate to 
the shippers involved- -as well as to other shippers of 
pesticide products- -that major violations of the law would 
be treated with minimum consequence. Moreover , any advan- 
tages attached to the value of prosecutions as a deterrent 
to future violations of the law would be nullified. 

Legislation proposed 

to improve regulation of pesticides 

Our review showed that legislation proposed by the De- 
partment of Agriculture to amend the FIFRA to provide for 



18 



3617 



more effective regulation under the act was introduced in 
the Senate on Jione 29, 1967 (S. 2057, 90th Cong.), and in 
the House of Representatives on July 27, 1967 (H. R. 11846, 
90th Cong.) . 

The identical legislation introduced in both houses 
would add new tools with which to enforce the FIFRA. The 
amendment, which was pending in the Congress as of May 1968, 
would require registration of all establishments engaged in 
making pesticides; permit inspection of establishments as 
well as conveyances being used to transport, sell, or hold 
pesticides in interstate commerce; and provide additional 
controls, civil penalties, and injunctive authority to en- 
force and restrain violations of the act. 

According to the Department, the provision for regis- 
tering establishments calls for the suspension of such reg- 
istration if the establishments are not conducting opera- 
tions in accordance with good manufacturing practice. Au- 
thority for factory inspection would make it possible for 
the Department to inspect the operations of a company to 
ascertain whether proper materials, precautions, and con- 
trols were being used. 

The Department, in discussing the proposed legislation, 
reported to the Congress that, under the provision for civil 
penalties, violations could be handled which were of suffi- 
cient importance to warrant some action other than a writ- 
ten notice of warning, as presently provided for in the 
FIFRA, but not of such nature as to warrant criminal prose- 
cution. Moreover, as stated by the Department, injunctive 
authority would make it possible to more effectively carry 
out the responsibility of the Department to prevent the in- 
terstate movement of pesticides. 

On the basis of our review, we believe that the legis- 
lation proposed by the Department would add valuable tools 
with which to enforce the FIFRA and, if enacted and prop- 
erly implemented, should tend to achieve more effective 
regulation of pesticides. In our opinion, however, achiev- 
ing proper enforcement of the FIFRA should include also the 
implementation of improved procedures under existing provi- 
sions of the law. 



19 



3618 



Conclusion 

On the basis of our review, we believe that there is a 
need for ARS to establish procedures for strengthening pes- 
ticide enforcement actions that may be taken against mis- 
branded, adulterated, or unregistered products or the ship- 
pers of such products. 

We found that, in taking actions against products, ARS, 
with few possible exceptions, did not obtain product quan- 
tity and location data to determine whether other shipments 
of the same misbranded, adulterated, or unregistered prod- 
ucts were available to the public in other locations. 

In our opinion, the product quantity and location data 
of the shippers is needed by ARS to (l) evaluate the ade- 
quacy of its enforcement actions, (2) determine the types 
of supplemental actions, if any, that may be necessary to 
protect the interests of the public, and (3) facilitate ef- 
forts to locate and remove undesirable products from the 
market. 

We found also that ARS internal operating guidelines 
did not set forth the procedures to be used for determining 
when shippers that have allegedly violated the law would be 
reported to the Department of Justice for prosecution. 

In our opinion, the lack of action by ARS to report 
firms for prosecution in serious or repeated cases could 
indicate to the shippers involved--as well as to other 
shippers of pesticide products--that major violations of 
the law would be treated with minimum consequence. More- 
over, any advantages attached to the value of prosecutions 
as a deterrent to future violations of the law would be 
nullified. 



20 



3619 



Recoimnendation to the Administrator . 
Agricultural Research Service 



We recommend to the Administrator of ARS that procedures 
be established and implemented involving the taking of en- 
forcement actions, particularly with respect to (1) obtain- 
ing shipping and product data and (2) reporting violators of 
Federal law for prosecution. 



By letter dated May 22, 1968 (see app. II), the Acting 
Administrator, ARS, commented on the need for establishing 
procedures involving pesticide enforcement actions, as dis- 
cussed in this report, and agreed with our findings and rec- 
ommendations . 

In outlining the steps taken with respect to removing 
violative products from the market, the Acting Administrator 
commented on the use of seizure actions as well as the use 
of recalls by the manufacturers of products. The Acting Ad- 
ministrator stated that, in instances where a shipper re- 
fused to voluntarily recall a product from the market, ARS 
would (1) obtain data concerning shipments of the product 
from the shipper or manufacturer as a first step in obtain- 
ing the evidence necessary to support seizure actions and 
(2) use shipping data as a basis for obtaining samples and 
other documentary information relative to the product at 
every location possible with a view toward initiating the 
maximum number of seizure actions. 

In commenting on the need to establish procedures in- 
volving the prosecution of shippers, the Acting Administra- 
tor stated that the present operating guidelines require 
that cases be forwarded for prosecution in instances where 

(1) the evidence indicates that the violation was willfull, 

(2) the violation is of a serious nature and is the result 
of apparent gross negligence, or (3) the company has engaged 
in repeated violations. 

The Acting Administrator stated also that a prosecution 
file related to the shipper of the hospital disinfectant 
discussed on pages 15 to 18 of this report had been prepared 
by ARS and was currently being processed. 

21 



3620 



NEED TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES INVOLVING 
PUBLICATIONS OF NOTICES OF JUDGMENTS 

On the basis of our review, we believe that there is a 
need for ARS to establish procedures which specify the fre- 
quency of publishing notices of judgments of the courts in 
cases arising under the provisions of the FIFRA. Section 6.e, 
of the FIFRA requires that the Secretary of Agriculture, by 
publication in such manner as he may prescribe, give notice 
of all judgments entered in actions instituted under the au- 
thority of the act. 

According to ARS, which has been delegated the authority 
of prescribing procedures necessary for the publication of 
the judgments, the purpose of the publications is to dissem- 
inate to the public — principally through libraries--the re- 
sults of court decisions involving pesticide products and 
the shippers of pesticide products. The publications in- 
clude information as to the specific violations of the 
FIFRA, the dates various legal actions are taken, and the 
final decree of the court regarding the disposition of seized 
goods and the penalty imposed on the violator. 

Our review showed that ARS had not established proce- 
dures to implement the provisions of section 6.e, of the 
FIFRA. We found that, from the inception of the FIFRA in 
1947, 18 publications summarizing the results of 515 judg- 
ments had been issued by ARS. Our review of the 10 most 
recent publications showed that such documents had been ap- 
proved for publication at intervals averaging about 6 months. 
We noted also that the number of judgments per publication 
ranged from a low of 15 to a high of 35 and that a total of 
245 judgments had been summarized in the documents. 

We found, however, that the last such document had been 
approved for publication by ARS in November 1964 and that as 
of December 1967 there was an accumulation of about 250 judg- 
ments of various Federal district courts throughout the coun- 
try which had not been published. There follows, for this 
period, a summary showing for 6-month periods the number of 
unpublished judgments that became available for dissemina- 
tion. 



22 



3621 



From 




Through 




Unpublished 


Month 


Year 


Month 


Year 


iudgments 


Prior to 










January 


1965 






32 


January 


1965 


June 


1965 


20 


July 


1965 


December 


1965 


21 


January 


1966 


June 


1966 


34 


July 


1966 


December 


1966 


27 


January 


1967 


June 


1967 


59 


July 


1967 


December 


1967 


57 



Total 



250 



Moreover, we noted, from projections by ARS , that enforce- 
ment actions involving future judgments of the courts are 
expected to total about 900 during the period of fiscal year 
1968 through fiscal year 1970. 

On October 26, 1967, we were informed by an ARS offi- 
cial that continuation of the publications had been neglected 
after the employee assigned to compiling information neces- 
sary to the issuance of the documents had retired. However, 
subsequent to our bringing the matter to the attention of ARS, 
we were informed further that action to resiime the publica- 
tions was being taken. 

It is our view that disseminating information on deci- 
sions involving pesticide products and shippers of pesticide 
products that violate the law contributes to the education 
and welfare of users and prospective users of pesticides as 
well as of other segments of the public. We therefore be- 
lieve that procedures should be established by ARS to ensure 
that such information is published and made available, to 
the maximum extent practicable, on a frequent and regular 
basis. 

Recommendation to the Administrator . 
Agricultural Research Service 

We recommend to the Administrator of ARS that procedures 
specifying the frequency of future publications of notices of 
judgments be established and implemented. 



23 



3622 



In his letter of May 22, 1968, the Acting Administrator 
informed us that he anticipated that the backlog of notices 
of judgments would be published by December 31, 1968, and 
that thereafter ARS would publish notices of judgments at 
intervals of not more than 6 months. 



2U 



3623 



SCOPE OF REVIEW 

We reviewed (1) the legislative history and authority 
which established the pesticide enforcement activity, 
(2) pertinent policies, procedures, and practices estab- 
lished by the Department and ARS for carrying out enforce- 
ment actions to seize products, prosecute shippers, and 
cancel product registrations, and (3) certain information 
of the Food and Drug Administration and the Public Health 
Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare re- 
lated to enforcement activities. 

Our review, performed principally in the offices of 
the Pesticides Regulation Division of ARS at Washington, D.C., 
included visits to retail outlets selling pesticides in the 
States of Maryland and Virginia and in the District of 
Columbia. 



25 



3624 

APPENDIXES 

PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION 

OF ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT 



APPENDIX I 



Tenure of office 



From 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



To 



SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: 
Orville L. Freeman 

DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION: 
Nyle C. Brady 
George L. Mehren (note a) 



Jan. 1961 Present 



Dec. 1963 Aug. 1965 
Sept. 1965 Present 



AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE 



ADMINISTRATOR: 

Byron T. Shaw 

George W. Irving, Jr. 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, REGULATORY 
AND CONTROL: 

Robert J. Anderson 

Francis J. Mulhern (acting) 

Francis J. Mulhern 

DIRECTOR, PESTICIDES REGULATION 
DIVISION: 

Justus C. Ward 
Harry W. Hays 



June 1954 
Mar. 1965 



Mar. 1965 
Present 



Mar. 1963 Nov. 1966 
Jan. 1967 May 1967 
May 1967 Present 



Nov. 1961 June 1966 
July 1966 Present 



^By a memorandum dated October 5, 1965, the Secretary of 
Agriculture delegated the duties and responsibilities of 
the Director of Science and Education to Dr. George L. 
Mehren, Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Consumer 
Services, pending the appointment of a new Director. 



29 



3625 



APPENDIX II 
Page 1 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20250 



OFFICE OF AOMINIffTRATOR 



MAY 22, 1968 

Mr. Victor L. Lowe 
Associate Director 
United States General 

Accounting Office 
Washington, D.C. 205^4^ 

Dear Mr. Lowe: 

This is in response to your request for our comments on the draft of your 
proposed report to the Congress on the need to improve regulatory enforce- 
ment procedures involving pesticides. Agricultural Research Service, 
Department of Agriculture. 

First of all, let me say that we appreciate the opportunity to comnent on 
your report . We also appreciate the spirit in which your investigation 
was conducted and the attitude of the members of your staff who partici- 
pated in the investigation. Your investigation is in harmony with, and 
supplementary to, our own continuing study of our enforcement policy and 
procedures under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 
And the objectives of your recommendations, as set forth in your report, 
coincide with our aims in effectively carrying out the provisions of the 
Act. I am sure that the findings in your report will be of benefit to 
us in our future evaluations of enforcement activities under the Act. 

The principal findings in your report are (l) that enforcement actions 
may not have removed misbranded, adulterated, or unregistered products 
from the market, (2) Ihat repeated violators of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act have not been prosecuted, (3) that pro- 
posed legislation, if enacted and properly implemented, would achieve 
generally more effective regiilation of pesticides, and (U) that there is 
a need to establish procedures involving publications of notices of 
Judgments. We cannot disagree with these findings. In fact, we have 
recognized the need for more effective enforcement action in the areas 
covered by your report and have taken steps which we believe will greatly 
strengthen and improve our enforcement program in these areas. 

In your meetings on the proposed report with members of our staff, you 
have emphasized the desirability for a direct response to the report. 
In view of what has been said above, we do not feel it necessary to com- 
ment in detail on your basic findings. Instead, we believe that the 
most direct response to your report is to inform you of the significant 

30 



3626 



APPENDIX II 
Page 2 

changes which have been made in our enforcement policy and practice since 
the period covered by your investigation, and of our present enforcement 
activities as they relate to the matters refeirred to in the report. 

In setting forth cerLain of the changes which have taken place in our 
enforcement policy and practice, we wish to emphasize that we are still 
in a transitional stage. As you are aware, the changes which we are 
making require time — and personnel--to fully accanplish. Because of 
present personnel limitations and budget questions, we are unable to 
accurately pinpoint how and when we will be able to completely implement 
the enforcement policy which is presently in effect. However, we hope 
the discussion below will not only inform you of our present policy and 
practice in the areas covered by your report, but also inform you of 
additional steps we intend to take in these areas. 

I. Removal of Violative Products from Market 

A, Seizure and Recall Actions 

Section 9 of the Act authorizes the seizure of products found to be in 
violation of certain provisions of the Act. This is the only direct 
authority in the Act for the removal of violative products from channels 
of trade. 

Seizure actions under the Act have increased as our sampling program and 
analytical work have increased. In fiscal 196?, I89 seizure actions 
were initiated. Daring the first six months of fiscal I968, 240 seizures 
were processed. We believe that this increased seizijre activity has had 
an effect beyond the removal of violative products frcan the market. In 
our opinion, there has been a commensurate increase in the awareness on 
the part of industry that enforcement is being emphasized under the Act. 
This opinion is based primarily upon the numerous telephone calls and 
meetings we have had relative to our seizure actions, and the represen- 
tations by members of industry of their desire to cooperate with the 
Department in our efforts to carry out the provisions of the Act. 

However, in spite of this notable increase in the number of seizures 
under the Act, we recognize that the effectiveness of seizure actions 
is limited by the nature of the enforcement action Itself. Due to the 
length of time which it takes to process actions in this Department and 
the United States Attorneys' offices, there are inevitably a certain num- 
ber of cases in which seizure action is recommended but where no product 
is foxxnd to seize. In addition, only the particular amount of product 
from which a sample is obtained is affected by any one seizure action. 

During the past year we have reviewed, and we are continuing to review, 
our seizure program with a view toweird making more effective use of our 
seizure authority. We do not believe that exercise of our seizure author- 
ity, in and of itself, can effectively remove all violative products from 
the market. We do believe, however, that the seizure authority can be an 
effective enforcement tool when used in conjunction with, and as an 
integral part of, other enforconent procedures. 

31 



3627 



APPENDIX II 
Page 3 

The Federal Insecticide^ Fungicide, and Rodentlcide Act contains no pro- 
vision relating to the recall of products. However, we believe that 
cooperative action by a manufacturer in recalling defective or hazardous 
products is the most efficient and effective means of removing such 
products from channels of trade. 

For our purposes, recalls fall into two general categories --company ini- 
tiated recalls and Pesticides Regulation Division initiated recalls. A 
company initiated recall is one in which the manufacturer takes steps to 
withdraw the product from the market, without a request from the Pesti- 
cides Regulation Edvision, upon being informed cf the Division's findings 
with respect to a particular shipment. Attachment 1 ^^ee GAO note_7' lists 
thirty instances, primarily in the months of November and December 196? > 
where companies have voluntarily withdrawn products from the market, or 
brought outstanding shipments of products into compliance with the Act, 
following citations. Such recalls have noticeably increased In recent 
months. We expect this type of voluntary cooperative action on the part 
of industry to further increase. 

A Pesticides Regulation Division initiated recall is one in which the 
Division specifically requests a manufacturer to withdraw a product from 
channels of trade. Normally, such a request to a manufacturer would not 
be made until documentary evidence was available to support strong legal 
action. In extreme cases, such as a case involving a potentially haz- 
ardous product, we would make such a request without the necessary 
documentary evidence to support legal action. 

Daring the last six months of 1967, four recalls of products were ini- 
tiated by manufacturers at our request: 

1. Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation — Loxene and Loxsit (penta- 
chlorophenol ) . All salesmen, distributors, and customers 
of company were directly contacted and 21,^4-50 pounds of 
Loxene and 9^18? pounds of Loxsit were returned. 

2. American Riverside Company, Inc., — U-MIL-0-U4C (sodium 
pentachlorophenate ) . All salesmen, distributors, and cus- 
tomers of company were directly contacted and 385 gallons 
of this product withdrawn. 

3. F, C. Stuartevant Company — Lilly's Ant Cups (sodium arse- 
nate — ant bait packaged in bottle caps). All distributors 
and dealers of company contacted. Interim report shows 
that 1,511 dozen returned to company and lU,760 units 
being held by company for destmction. 

k. 0. E. Linck Company — Tat-Mo-Go (strychnine sulphate). 
Recall letters sent to 128 consignees. Interim report 
shows k6S dozen returned to company. Company inventory 
of i+O, 000 packaged units being held for relabeling. 

GAO note: Agency attachment not included in this report. 

32 



3628 



APPENDIX II 
Page 4 



In the above actions, the recalls were supervised by a Supervisory Inspec- 
tor of the Pesticides Regulation Division. This included supervision of 
company action in sending recall notices to all consignees or customers, 
and the reviewing of replies and responses to the recall action. Destruc- 
tion, relabeling or other disposition of the returned merchandise is also 
under the supervision of o\xr Supervisory Inspectors. The completeness 
of the action in the above cases, as in any other recall action, is 
judged upon the basis of the responses received to the recall notices. 

We intend to make increased use of recalls in our enforcement program. 
It is our intention to Initiate a recall action in cases involving prod- 
ucts which are hazardous or completely ineffective. It is believed that 
increased use of the recall procedure is consistent with our enforce- 
ment objective of obtaining maximum public protection with the least 
expenditure of public funds. 

In your report it is recommended that procedures be established with 
respect to obtaining product shipping and location data to assure that 
pesticide products which represent the greatest health hazard are 
afforded the necessary depth of coverage. The obtaining of this data 
would become important if a shipper refused to voliontarily recall a 
product in a situation where we felt the recall of the product from the 
market was necessary. In any such case, we would obtain data concerning 
shipments of the product from the shipper or manufacturer as a first 
step in obtaining the evidence necessary to support seizure actions. We 
would use shipping data as a basis for obtaining samples and other docu- 
mentary information relative to the product at every location possible 
with a view toward initiating the maximum number of seizure actions. 

II. Criminal Procedure 

A. Citations 

Our citation procedxire (notice of contemplated proceedings) is part of 
the criminal procedures set forth in Section 6 of the Act. This Section 
provides that whenever economic poisons or devices are I'ound to be in 
violation of the Act, a notice shall be given to the person against whom 
crimineil proceedings are contemplated. This citation procedure is appli- 
cable to all criminal violations of the Act and is a statutory prerequisite 
to criminal prosecution. The primary purpose of this procedure is to give 
the person cited an opportunity to submit any facts or explanation relevant 
to the alleged violation. 

Because of the natiire and purpose of the citation procedure, we believe 
it to be our most effective enforcement tool. However, to be effective 
in accomplishing the purposes of the Act, we also believe it must be 
utilized as something more than a routine notice of violation — and the 
person cited must be aware of the true piurpose and nature of the citation. 



33 



3629 



APPENDIX II 
Page 5 

We carefully review the answer to each citation from the standpoint of 
(1) the nature of the violation, (2) the explanation given by the person 
cited as to the reason for the alleged violation, and (3) the assurances 
given that such violation will not recur. These matters are also empha- 
sized in all our meetings and discussions with industry representatives 
concerning the alleged violation. With the setting up of a section to 
handle prosecutions, we have emphasized these matters in our citation 
charge sheets (See Attachment 2). [See GAO note.] 

Under Section 6 of the Act we axe not required to send to the Department 
of Justice for prosecution any matter where we make a determination that 
the public interest will be served by a suitable written notice of warn- 
ing. We are now specifically calling to the attention of the person 
cited that our "closing" letter is intended to serve as a notice of 
warning under Section 6 (See Attachment 3)« [See GAO note.] 

We believe that through our citation procedure we can most effectively 
obtain corrective action, not only with respect to the particular product 
involved, but also with respect to the entire product line of the company 
cited. For example, we have been informed by companies that as a result 
of our citations they have taken steps to (l) review all manufacturing 
procedures to reduce or eliminate contaminations, (2) set up quality con- 
trols to assure the effectiveness of their products, and (3) initiate a 
complete label review for elLI products. In addition, as noted above, 
numerous companies have as a result of our citations initiated a recall 
of violative products. 

B. Prosecutions 

In your report you indicate that prosecutions under the Act are necessary 
for a strong enforcement program. We agree. Not only are prosecutions 
contCTiplated by the Act, but the enforcement of the Act through criminal 
prosecutions supports and strengthens our other enforcement activities as 
well. 

In Deconber I967 a Prosecutions and Imports Section was created in the 
Pesticides Regulation Division. This Section became sufficiently staffed 
in January I968 so that work could be commenced on setting up procedures 
for the handling of prosecutions. We are currently reviewing all cases 
in the recent past to determine whether criminal prosecution should be 
recommended . 

On page 19-23 of your report, you refer to numerous alleged violations 
of the Act on the part of a shipper of disinfectants. We are aware of 
the past history of this company and a review of all actions relative to 
this company during the past year became the first order of business of 
the Prosecutions and Imports Section. A prosecution file relating to 
this company has been prepared and is currently awaiting review. 

GAO note: Agency attachment not included in this report. 



3k 



3630 



APPENDIX II 
Page 6 

The present operating guidelines for the referral of cases for prosecu- 
tion are that we vill forweird for prosecution cases where (l) the 
evidence indicates that the violation was willful^ (2) the violation is 
of a serious nature (e.g., significant deficiency of active ingredient 
or contamination) and is the result of apparent gross negligence, or (3) 
the company has engaged in repeated violations. 

III. Related Enforcement Activities 

lUring the past year significant changes have been made in our enforce- 
ment activities in other areas. Although certain of these areas were 
not specifically referred to in your report, our enforcement activities 
in these areas are directly related to the removal of violative products 
from channels of trade. For this reason, we will refer to them briefly. 

A. Imports 

It is the responsibility of this Department and the Department of the 
Treasury to jointly regulate the importation of all economic poisons 
and devices. Effective regulation of imported pesticides and pesti- 
cidal devices is essential if we are to prevent violative imported 
products from reaching the ultimate consumer. During the past year, 
we have made a complete review of our import program and have initi- 
ated procedures designed to more effectively regulate the importation 
of pesticides into this country. Attachment k /See GAO note_J7' sets forth 
our present policy and procedures with respect to imports. 

B. Cooperation with States 

We believe that the ranoval of violative products from the market can be 
more effectively accomplished if close liaison exists between the Depart- 
ment and State regulatory agencies. The Act contemplates that the 
Department will cooperate with State regulatory agencies in carrying out 
the provisions of the Act. Uliile close cooperation has existed between 
the Division and State agencies in the registration of products, there 
has been no practical or effective cooperative program in the area of 
enforcement. IKiring the past year, the Pesticides Regulation Division 
held four regional conferences to which State regulatory officials 
were invited. One of the primary purposes of these conferences was to 
discuss enforcement problems with State officials, and to explore the 
areas in which there could be effective cooperation between the Federal 
and State agencies. 

As a result of our meetings with State officials, we intend during the 
next fiscal year to make certain recommendations to the States which, if 
agreeable to any of the State agencies, will, in our opinion, improve the 
efficiency of Federal — State regulatory activity in the pesticide chemical 
field. These recommendations will involve (l) the referral by Pesticides 
Regulation Division to the States of cases involving apparent violations 
of both the Federal and State acts, but where specific evidence establish- 
ing Federal Jurisdiction is lacking, (2) the direct referral to our 

GAO note: Agency attachment not included in this report. 

35 



3631 



APPENDIX II 
Page 7 

Supervisory Inspectors of State analytical reports, (3) the establishment 
of a procedure whereby States are informed of registration cancellations 
involving potentially hazardous products, and {h) the establishment of a 
procedure whereby States are informed of recalls initiated by Pesticides 
Regulation Division. 

IV. Legislation 

In your report you stated that proposed legislation, if enacted and prop- 
erly implemented, would achieve generally more effective regulation of 
pesticides. As you know, legislation of the type referred to in your 
report was drafted by the Department in I965 and was transmitted to the 
Congress in August of that year. The proposed legislation was intro- 
duced in Congress in 1965 and again in I96T. It is presently pending 
in the Congress. 

V. Notices of Judgment 

You noted in yo\ir report that notices of judgment under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticlde Act had not been published since 
November 196U and recommended that procedures involving the frequency 
of future publications of notices of judgment be established and imple- 
mented. You also noted that action to resume the publications has been 
taken. 

Work on a new format for notices of judgment was commenced in J\ine of 
1967. To date 100 notices have been prepared. There are presently 
pending 375 cases which require notices. Due to the limited staff in 
the Enforcement Branch, it is Impossible to state when this backlog 
will be eliminated. However, it is anticipated that we will be cur- 
rent in our publication of notices by the end of this year. Thereafter, 
we intend to publish notices of judgment at intervals of not more than 
six months. 

Summary 

Our primary enforcement objective under the Federal Insecticide, Fungi- 
cide, and Rodenticlde Act is to uniformly enforce all the provisions of 
the Act through all means available to us under the statute. Our yard- 
sticks for measuring enforcement activity are whether such activity is 
within the framework established by the Congress, and whether the par- 
ticular enforcement action is best suited to accomplish the purposes of 
the Act. 

It is our belief that the effectiveness of an enforcement program cannot 
be judged solely upon the basis of numbers. I.e., numbers of citations, 
seizures, and prosecutions. An effective enforcement program should not 
be, merely, punitive in nature, but should emphasize corrective action. 
Its principal aim should be compliance, not piuiishment. 



36 



36-513 O - 70 - pt . 6B - 18 



3632 



APPENDIX II 
Page 8 

Ideally, we should expect an effective enforcement program to reduce vio- 
lations under the Act. We believe that the best means to accomplish this 
end are : 

1. A strong enforcement program in which we firmly, but fairly, 
enforce the provisions of the Act. Awareness on the part of 
industry that the Department can and will monitor industry 
activities and that strong enforcement action will be taken 
where wairanted, should, by itself, go a long way to achiev- 
ing compliance with the Act's provisions. 

2. Cooperation by industry. We emphasize that industry also 
has an enforcement responsibility, and that our enforconent 
program under the Act includes cooperative industry action 
in any problem area. 

Sincerely yours. 



■ o» 



R. J. Anderson 

T^ , c ActinP' Administrator 

Enclosures 5 r_ ^.^ . -, «ctiriu 

LSee GAO note. J 



GAO note: Agency enclosures not included in this report, 

37 



3633 



JOURNAL 

of 

PUBLIC LAW 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES: PRESENT AND FUTURE 



By 
Douglass F. Rohrman 

Reprinted from 

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW 

Volume U, Number 2 

Copyright, 1968 

by Emory University Law School 

Atlanta, Georgia 30302 



3634 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES: PRESENT AND FUTURE 

Douglass K. Rohrman* 

I. Introduction 

The primary concerns of man have always been survival and 
improvement of his condition. As population and social organization 
increased, there has developed greater ability to manipulate and control the 
environment. In the process, damage has been inflicted upon man and his 
surroundings. Advances in environmental control have often entailed a 
certain degree of risk which society has been forced to weigh and either 
accept, alter or reject. 

One of civilization's major steps toward controlling the environment has 
been the domestication of food plants. Beginning in the early eighteenth 
century, new scientific discoveries made possible a more increased 
agricultural production. Land area for agricultural use increased vastly. 
Higher crop yields resulted from the innovation of crop rotation principles 
and the development of better soil management practices. Consequently, 
growth in food production and supply has contributed significantly to the 
population explosion of the last two hundred years. 

A more subtle and far more recent historical development has been the 
concern over man's health and safety, it has been gradually realized that the 
future welfare of the human race depends upon vigorous programs to 
safeguard health while maintaining a more intensified agricultural output. 
With improved agricultural organization and resultant crop abundance, the 
natural eventuality was an increased problem with pests. Lven a casual 
observation of world history reveals many references to pestilence and 
plague; indeed, the course of civilization's development has been markedly 
changed by these problems. As a result of pests, man has had to cope with 
disease, dikomfort and significant economic loss.' Pest control has been and 

* A.B., Duke University, 1963; J.D., Northwestern University. 1966. Formerly a Legal 
Coordinator, Pesticides Program, Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Protection and 
tnvironmentai Health Service, United States Department of Health, tducation and Welfare 
(1966-68). 

I. Sci' H ZiNssiR, Rats, Licl and History (1935); Horsfall. A Socio- hcoiwniic 
t-valiiaiion. in RisilARCti in Pisticidis 3 (1965); Metcalf, How Many Insects Arc Therein the 
World?, 51 Hnt. News 219 (1940); Sabrosky, How Many Insects Are There'', 1952 The 
YiARBOOK oi Agriclitlri 161; United Slates Dep't of Agriculture, Protecting Our hood. 
1966 Tm YiARBOOK OI Agricllture 1. 



3635 



352 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

will continue to be a very real necessity.- This, in turn, makes obvious the 
need for pesticides.' "Pesticides have made a great impact [on society in the 
United States] by facilitating the production and protection of food, feed, 
and fiber in greater quantity and quality; by improving health; and by 
keeping in check many kinds of nuisance insects and unwanted plants."^ 
Pesticides, at least for the present, have also made pest control a financially 
feasible activity, one which does not have to compete with other critical 
economic demands.' Rapid population growth and the resulting decrease in 
land available for agriculture necessitate greater crop yield per acre and 
reduction of losses and spoilage in stored foods. Hven in a country with 
agricultural surpluses, one cannot ignore the contribution which insecticides 
and herbicides have made to increasing the food supply. If insect control, 
coupled with other factors, did not make it possible for farmers to produce 
food at a higher rate, we would simply require more agricultural workers and 
more cultivated land or face starvation. Pesticides also have become integral 
in other phases of the economy, since many commodities must be protected 
from insects and other pests during the manufacturing process and 
subsequent distribution." 

Qualifying the virtues of pesticides, however, is the increasingly ample 
evidence of environmental contamination by chemical residues. During the 
two decades of intensive advancement in this field, significant amounts of 



2. A. Mallis, Handbook of Pest Control (1964); Lylel, Can Insects Be Eradicated?, 
1952 The YhARBOOK of Agriculture 197; Pratt & Litig, Insecticides for the Control of Insects 

of Public Health Importance, United States Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare Training 
Guide (1967). Only in the past century has there been a scientific approach in the control 
of pests. In 1888, the Department of Agriculture imported the ladybird beetle from Aus- 
tralia to control the cottony cushion scale in citrus orchards. Since that time, pest control 
activities have grown to tremendous capacities. !iiee note I 1, injra. Kor an excellent overall view, 
see National Acad. Sci., Scientific Aspects of Pest Control (1966). 

3. The dramatic effectiveness of new pesticides has somewhat overshadowed the continuing 
efforts toward non-chemical pest control. Kor a short study of insect control by way of other 
insects, see Burks, Insects, Enemies oj Insects, 1952 The Yearbook of Agriculture 373. For 
insect resistant crops, see Painter, Insect Resistance in Crop Plants (1951); Packard & 
Martin, Resistant Crops the Ideal Way, 1952 The Yearbook of Agriculture 429; Snelling, 
Resistance uj Plants to Insect Attack, 1 BoT. Rev. 543 (1941). Research is being conducted 
presently in the effects of parasites, insect diseases, predators, ecology and physical forces {e.g.. 
gamma rays, radiant energy, high frequency sound) on insects. Other studies have included 
attractants and chemical communication as "bait" for insect traps. See also Sailer, Revival in 
Biological Control, 22 Ac. Chem. 5 (1967); Wilson, Pheromones. Scientific American, May, 
1963, at 100. 

4. Report of thi President's Science Advisory Committee, Use of Pesticides 2 
(1963). 

5. /^. at3. 

6. Id. 



3636 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 353 

pesticides have been dispersed. Pesticides are detectable in man and animals, 
food, feed, clothing and natural surroundings. Although these compounds 
persist usually in small quantities, their toxicity, variety and persistence may 
eventually affect human health. Crops of all types are treated which formerly 
were left unprotected. Expanding suburbs have accounted for some of the 
increased use of pesticides by homeowners on lawns and gardens and in 
dwellings. Termite and structural pest control have become lucrative and 
expanding enterprises. 

While the consequences of acute exposure are obvious, some of the more 
subtle risks must still be evaluated." "Precisely because pesticide chemicals 
are designed to kill or metabolically upset some living target organism, they 
are potentially dangerous to other living organisms."" Some pesticides are 
highly toxic in concentrated amounts, and in unfortunate instances they have 
caused illness and death of people and animals. Although acute human 
poisoning is a measurable and significant hazard, it is relatively easy to 
identify and control when compared to potential, low-level chronic toxicity 
which has been observed in the laboratory. '^ In both chronic and acute cases, 
human toxicity is often difficult to determine. The hazard or danger 
presented by a certain compound can be measured only in relation to 
practical conditions, although it can be predicted, to a limited extent, from 
its toxicity or inherent ability to injure living organisms. Conversely, toxicity 
may be guessed from results or accidents but not accurately without a known 
dosage. 

Along with the need for these many compounds, therefore, are 
concomitant hazards, both direct and indirect. The presence of any foreign 
chemical in air. water or food is not a matter to be dismissed lightly. The 
problem of pesticide poisoning faces us all. Inevitably, as population and its 
related necessities grow, so do these hazards if neglected or left unchecked. 

II. Statutory Rigltation ok Pisticides 
This leads to a consideration of the means by which society in the United 

States has attempted to alleviate these potential health and agricultural 
problems. It has been man's experience that leaving control of dangers to 
individuals or group self-help, while often practical and beneficial, generally 
does not accomplish anything more than momentary success. Ideally, 



7. Id. 

8. Id. 

9. Id. Of recent interest are the discoveries which indicate that pesticides interact with other 
compounds to create more poisonous "synergistic" etlects. .Sec Durham. I lie Inicraciion oj 
Pesticides with Other hacturs. 18 Residue Rev, 21 (1967). 



3637 



354 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

regulations and laws set permanent standards that perpetuate the control 
which self-help accomplishes only in a sporadic fashion. The law, 
philosophically and practically, is a type of guaranty to keep man from 
harming, misusing or destroying himself, his property, another person or 
another's property. To support this guaranty, the law has generally 
developed a system of remedies, many of which spring from statutory 
proscriptions, applicable to a variety of injuries and legal wrongs. With this 
in mind, part of the justification for enactment of pesticide laws can be based 
upon the need to provide this statutory guaranty to individuals and society 
and to make available standardized remedies for injuries due to use, both 
wrongful and incidental, of these compounds. 

Legal control over the use of pesticides has been both indirect and direct. 
Indirect control is maintained by federal and state registration or "labeling" 
laws and by regulations setting tolerances for residues on agricultural 
commodities. Direct control is accomplished by means of use and 
application laws, such as applicator's licensing statutes. Often, additional 
direct control may exist by way of specific regulations prohibiting the use of 
particular pesticides in certain situations. Historically, outright prohibition 
of the sale or use of a compound has met with opposition and such control 
generally has been moderated. Views on pesticides range all the way from the 
assertion that their use should be altogether barred or minutely regulated to 
the contention that their advantages so greatly overshadow the disadvantages 
that little or no regulation is necessary. Generally, a middle ground position 
has been the basis of statutory reasoning, mitigating to a large extent both 
extremes. Limitations on who can use a material or how it can be used rather 
than on the freedom to use it at all have been applied in most cases except 
those involving the most dangerous of compounds and methods. 

A. Federal Pesticide Laws 

In 1910, in order to protect consumers from substandard or fraudulent 
products. Congress passed the Federal Insecticide Act.'" This legislation was 

10. Act of April 26. 1910, 36 Slat. 331, 7 U.S.C. §§ 121-34. Passed on April 26. 1910, the 
original Federal Insecticide Act was entitled "An*Act for Preventing the Manufacture. Sale or 
Transportation of Adulterated or Misbranded Paris Greens, Lead Arsenates, and Other 
Insecticides and Also Fungicides, and For Regulating Tral'tic Therein, and tor Other 
Purposes." It was repealed by force of Act of June 25, 1947. 61 Stat. 172. For an example of the 
administration of the old Act. sec United Stales v. Sani-Pine Corp., 153 F.2d 1015 (2d Cir. 
1946); Parke. Davis & Co. v. United Stales, 255 F. 933 (5lh Cir. 1919); United Stales v. Powers- 
Weightman-Rosengarten Co.. 21 1 F. I69(S.D.N.Y. 1913); United Slates v. 681 Cases. More or 
Less, Containing "Kitchen Klenzer." 63 F. Supp. 286 (t.D. Mo. 1945). "Although in a few 
states, insecticide laws regulating the sale of paris green and lead arsenate were in effect prior to 
1910. a number of other slates by 1915 passed laws similar in many respects to the Federal 
Law." H. Sill PARI). Till Cm MisTRY and Action oi Insicticidi s 7 (1951). 



3638 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 355 

the only step the federal government took to regulate pesticide sale and use 
for some thirty-seven years. The reasons for this delay are made more 
obvious after an examination of economic history. Neither the domestic 
demand for new and additional types of potentially harmful pesticides nor 
technological development had reached a level to merit additional 
legislation." During World War 11, large scale tests were run in a number of 
areas to control insect pests. The knowledge gained from this work and 
increased industrial capacity led to original and startling developments in the 
field of synthetic pesticide manufacture.'' Until the post-World War II era, 
however, there was no apparent need for pesticide legislation other than the 

1 1. "From 1910 until World War II, the pesticide evolution in the chemical age was a very 
slow and deliberate process. New means of controlling insects did not appear frequently and 
even new fungicides were hard for research specialists to tlnd." Ward. A Dynamic Statute lur 
Pesticides. 1966 Thi Yi arbook oi Agriclitlri 271. Prior to World War II. the manufacture 
of pesticides consisted largely of inorganic products such as calcium arsenate, lead arsenate, 
paris green, copper sulfate, fluorine compounds and ground sulfur, along with botanical 
insecticides pyrethrum dust and extract, rotenone dust and nicotine sulfate. Since the advent of 
DDT, there has been a trend toward organic compounds, tach year many new pesticides enter 
the market. One advantage in the increased manufacture of synthetic organic pesticides lies in 
the domestic availability of basic materials needed for their production. The United States is 
dependent to some extent on imports of arsenic and lead (for lead arsenate). Supplies of 
pyrethrum and rotenone are entirely of foreign origin. The Census of Manufacturers valued 1939 
production of ail pesticides at $75 million. According to the United States Tariff Commission, 
sales of synthetic organic pesticides alone totaled $150 million in 1951. $133 million in 1952, 
$118 million in 1953, $124 million in 1954 and reached $302,955,000 in 1961 and $346,441,000 
in 1962. These figures do not include other pesticides, which amounted to $160 million in 1953, 
$175 million in 1954 and over $190 million in 1955. See Arrington, World Survey of Phst 
Control Products 1-2 (1956). The same work is valuable for coverage of world pesticide 
production. Manufacturers" dollar sales of synthetic organic pesticides rose 90 per cent from 
I960 to 1965 and the value of ail pesticides (domestic and export) rose 46 per cent from I960 to 
1964. United Stales production of organophosphorus insecticides as a class rose 18 per cent in 
1965 over the year before. Calcium arsenate and lead arsenate have by no means disappeared 
from the market: 140 million pounds of DDT as well were produced in 1965. In 1963 there were 
twenty-one separate companies which produced basic pesticides, nine of which were considered 
to have 90 per cent specialization. These twenty-one companies employed 2,714 employees with 
a gross payroll of $20,256,000; 3,432,000 man hours were employed in producing $187,503,000 
worth of basic pesticides, many of which are mixed and compounded into numerous other 
formulations. New capital expenditures in 1963 for these companies were $13,269,000. 1963 
Index of Manufacturers. See Hearings on S. Res. 27 Before the Subcomm. on 
Reorganization and International Organizations oj the Senate Conini. on Governmental 
Operations. 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. I, at 8-32 (1963), for an excellent summary of pesticide 
production. See also D. Frear, Pesticide Handbook-Hntoma (19th ed. 1967); Howard. 
Production and Distribution oj Pc\ticides. in Oc( upatiowi Hi ai tii Aspects of Pesticidls I- 
9 (1964); Wellinan, Industry's Rate in the Development o/ Pesticides, in SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF 
PlstControi 355 (1966). 

12. .Sec Knipling, I he Control o/ Insects Aflecting Man. 1952 Till Yi ^RB()<)K oi 
.Agrkli n ri 4H6. 



3639 



356 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

somewhat limited coverage of the 1910 Act simply because domestic 
pesticide production was still on a relatively small scale. 

Following the war, agricultural development and pesticide technology 
reached such a level that legislators recognized the need tor additional 
protection of the consumer and the general public. The use of pesticides 
increased not only in volume but also in variety and application technique. 
The employment of specialized products for specific controls became more 
general." Prompted by these facts. Congress, in 1947, passed the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenlicide Act (Fll RA)1' 

The FIFRA completely supersedes the 1910 legislation. It is designed as 
a regulatory measure. '^ Any product which can be termed an "economic 
poison" and classed as an insecticide, fungicide or rodenticide must be 
registered with the Department of Agriculture before it may be marketed in 
interstate commerce.'" While "economic poison" as used in the Act has been 
popularly redefined to mean "pesticide," the law defines an "economic 
poison" as: 



13. hor a short, but intormalive picture ot trends in pesticide production, see D. Fri:ar, 
supra note 1 1, at 27-29. For a list of pesticide manulacturers and their products, see Id. at 59- 
299 and 300- 14. 

14. 61 Slat. 163. 7 U.S.C. i;;^ 121-35 (1964). The House Committee on Agriculture 
concluded before passage oflhis .Act that "since 1910 great changes have occurred in the field of 
economic poisons and the present law is not inadequate." 1947 U.S.C. Cong. Skrv. 1200. See 
also Anderson. OHicial Registration oj Pesticides, in Sen ntiiic Aspi;cTS OF Phst Control 
385 (1966); Harris a: Cummings. tiilonenient ot the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and 
Rodenlicide h/ //; rlic i niled Stales. 6 Ri siDLi Ri \ . 104 (1964); Reed, 7 he Federal .Acl of 
1947, 1952 Till Yi arbour oi Agriclltlri 310; Ward, I he Functions oJ the Federal 
Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 55 A\i. J. Plb. Himtii 7 (1965). 

15. "It should be emphasized that the basic purpose of this law is protection of the general 
public from personal and economic injury, including not only the purchases of products subject 
to the Act but all individuals who may come into contact with them or materials which may 
have been treated with them." Harris & Cummings. supra note 14. at 106. 

16. Sec 7 U.S.C . >5 135b (1964). Registration is good for five years and is renewable. 7 
U.S.C. ^ I35b(l) (1964) and 7 C.I.R. § 362.10 (1968). The registration process takes around 
lour to six weeks from the time of original submission providing supportive data is adequate. 7 
U.S.C. J; 135b(a) states that an economic poisoii "distributed, sold, or offered for sale in any 
Territorv or the District of C olumbia. or w hich is shipped or delivered for shipment from any 
Slate. I erritory. or the District of C olumbia. or which is received from any foreign country shall 
be registered with the Secretary . . . ." I his clau.se sets up the relevant commercial transactions 
to which 1 II R\ applies, which are. generally speaking, interstate in nature. It should be 
stressed thai exports are not subject to this ,\ct. Sec 7 U.S.C. fj I35a(b) (1964) and 7 C.F.R. 
§ 362.31 (1968). While "economic poison" is defined in 111 R A. a more complete definition i.s 
found in 7 C.I .R. ij;} 362.2(c). 362.101 (1968). It should also be understood that professional 
applicators carrying economic poisons across state lines are not subject to the act. 7 C.F.R. 
;j 362.100(1968). 



3640 

THl: LAW OF PESTICIDES 357 

(I) any substance or mixture of substances intended for prevent- 
ing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any insects, rodents, ne- 
matodes, fungi, weeds, and other forms of plant or animal life or 
viruses, except viruses on or in living man or other animals, which 
the Secretary shall declare to be a pest, and (2) any substance or 
mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, de- 
foliant or desiccant." 

The Pesticides Regulation Division of the Department of Agriculture 
requires statements from the manufacturer on the composition of the 
product, the names of the crops on which the product is to be used and the 
specific conditions under which it is to be applied." /Xpplications for 
registration are reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, the Public 
Health Service and the Department of the Interior and are usually granted if 
these prerequisites are met, if the proposal meets the standards of good 
agricultural practice and if the use of the product does not constitute a 
danger to wildlife or create a public health hazard. Any manufacturer, seller, 
shipper or distributor may register a substance under the Act, but the shipper 
is primarily responsible for compliance.'" The shipper, however, may exempt 
himself from primary compliance requirements by way of specific guaranties 
found in the Act.-" 

The hlKRA provides for seizures in cases where pesticides are adulter- 
ated, misbranded, unregistered or insufficiently labeled or when devices are 
misbranded.-' Other means of enforcement within the Act are criminal fines 



17. 7 U.S.C. ^ 135(a) (1964). 

18. Labeling language to be used is set out in 7 CM .R. i}§ 362.104. 362.5, 362.6 (1968); 
labels lor large eontainers are governed by 7 C.h.R. §ij 362.6. 362.108 (1968). Ingredient 
slalemenls must tollou the regulations under 7 C.E.R. t}!j 362.7. 362.103 (1968). Advertising 
policies are found in 7 C.K.R. § 362.107 (1968). More complicated and precise statements are 
necessary lor those pesticides considered highly toxic to man. 7 C.E.R. § 362.8 (1968). hot 
interpretations concerning statement of net contents, see 1 C.E.R. § 362.104 (1968). Warning 
or caution statements are covered in 7 C.E.R. §§ 362.9, 362.116 (1968). Details con- 
cerning registration are found in 7 C.E.R. § 362.10 (1968). Interpretations concerning 
directions for use are found in 7 C.E.R. § 362.105 (1968). lor a case involving improper 
labeling, scr Wise V. Hayes. 58 Wash. 2d 106.361 P.2d 171 (1961). The Pesticide Control .^ct of 
1967. or Senate Bill 2057 (1967). now in committee, would require registration of pesticide 
manufacturers. Ibrmulators. etc.. coupled with appropriate regulations designed to insure safety 
in these establishments. 7 C.E.R. § 362.122 (1968) is an important section to consider when 
dealing uith safety claims and claims of non-toxicity. See note 47, inlni. for interdepartmental 

agreement on registrations. 

19. The section on prohibited acts, 7 U.S.C. § 135a (1964). deals with the shipping of 
goods. 

20. .S(r7 D.S.C. i} I35e (1964) and 7 C.I R. i) 362.11(1968). 

21.7 U.S.C. ij 135g(1964). This section sanctions seizures for confiscation by a process of 



3641 



358 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

and prison terms.-- All manufacturers, distributors, dealers and carriers who 
deal in these materials are required to keep accurate books and records.-' 

Information required on the label constitutes, as a practical matter, one of 
the most important considerations for the manufacturer of pesticides. No 



libel for condemnation in cases where an economic poison is (a) adulterated or misbranded, (b) 
not registered pursuant to 7 U.S.C. {; 135b (1964), (c) improperly labeled under 7 U.S.C. 
i}§ l35-i35k (1964), (d) a white powder not properly colored under the same sections, or (e) in 
situations where a device is misbranded. Precise delineations of "adulteration"" and 
"misbranding"" are found in 7 C.t.R. §ij 362.13, 362.14 (1968). "Coloration"" is covered by 7 
C.t.R. ij 362.12 (1968). After analysis of a pesticide and a finding of irregularities, a report is 
made to the Department of Justice which instructs a federal marshal to seize the compound. 
Thereupon, the substances become the property of the United States Government. From this 
generally one of four things happens: (a) the owner of the seized pesticide agrees to 
condemnation by consent, a decree is issued to that effect and appropriate action subsequently 
will be arranged (usually destruction); (b) often, when goods are abandoned and no action is 
taken by the owner, the Government simply destroys them; (c) the owner files a claim and brings 
an appropriate action in the proper Kederal District Court to oppose the libel of condemnation; 
or, (d) the pesticides can be reclaimed and reconditioned to meet KIKRA standards by consent 
to which both parties agree (often this involves a mere word change on the label or, in rarer 
cases, a complete reprocessing of the chemicals). Procedures under KIFRA are much the same 
as under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-92 (1964), 
except the latter deals with condemnation of contaminated raw agricultural commodities which 
rarely can be reconditioned. Under § 346 of the FDCA. when a tolerance is violated, the food is 
considered "unsafe"" within the meaning of § 342(a) dealing with adulterated food. .Adulterated 
food is subject to seizure under § 334 and ultimate destruction under § 334(d). For a case 
involving remilling of rice which had a high lindane residue in violation of the FDCA. seeOrkin 
Fxterminaling Co. v. Gulf Coast Rice Mills, 343 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Civ. App. 1961). Sec also 
Victrylite Candle Co. v. Brannan, 201 F.2d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1952), cert, denied. 345 U.S. 975 
(1953) (seizure of mosquito candles); Hoy, Food Seizure Litigation. 9 Am. Jur. Trials 59 
(1965). 

22. 7 U.S.C. § 135f (1964). This section, amended in 1964. by Act of May 12. 1964, Pub. 
L.No. 88-305. 78 Stat. 190. deleted certain provisions of FIFRA. As it stands now, any person 
violating 7 U.S.C. § 135(a)(1) (1964) (which deals with registration and misleading claims) is 
guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000. Persons violating any 
provision other than sj I35a(a)(l). [i.e.. those who violate labeling provisions, special marking 
provisions, adulteration and misbranding sections, coloring provisions; or those who alter, 
deface, detach or destroy a label; or refuse to supply the Secretary with certain information or 
give false guaranty as defined in 7 C.F.R. §§ 362.11. 362.109 (1968): or wrongful revealing of 
formulas] may be subject to a misdemeanor fine of $500 for the first offense and a fine of not 
more than $1,000 or one year imprisonment for each subsequent offense. An offense five years 
alter a prior conviction is deemed to be a first offense. Fnforcement procedures are set out in 7 
C.F.R. ij 362.15(1968). 

23. 7 U.S.C. § 135c (1964). Under this section any duly authorized employee of the fed- 
eral, state or local authorities must have reasonable access to and right to copy the books 
and records of any person relevantly delineated under this section. The evidence obtained un- 
der this section, however, cannot be used in a criminal prosecution. See United States v. 
Weinreb. 99 F. Supp. 763 (S.D.N.Y. 1951). 



3642 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDFS 359 

name or statement on the label of an economic poison may be false or 
misleading with respect to usefulness, composition and other material 
factors.-^ Warning and caution statements are set out in detail.-- Ingredient 
statements must meet the standards of good manufacturing practice and 
accuracy.-'' Statements of net contents must appear prominently on the 
label. -^ Directions for use must appear on all containers.-' 

Classification of pesticide toxicity leads to other labeling complications. 
Four basic classes of economic poisons are delineated under the KIFRA. 
First, there are those considered highly toxic to man; such compounds are 
subject to special labeling regulations.-'* Somewhat less toxic compounds are 
subject to lesser requirements because their toxicity is generally one-tenth 
that of the first class. '° The third class, which still requires caution on the part 
of the user, is considered one-tenth as potent as the second class." Finally, 
the fourth class is considered safe and requires no precautionary state- 
ments.'- All warning statements are required to be concise and easily under- 
stood. 

In 1959, with industrial production and innovation at a peak. Congress 
passed the Nematocide, Plant Regulator, Defoliant and Desiccant 
Amendment.^' The FIFRA thereby was extended to those materials named 

24. 7 U.S.C. § 135(2) (1964) defines such activity as "misbranding." See 7 C.F.R. 
§ 362,14 (1968). it is well to note that a name registered with the United Stales Patent Office, it" 
not fradulent. will generally comply with FIFRA standards. Accepted names are found in R. 

CASWtLI. ACCHPTABLE COMMON NaMKS AND ChtMICAL NaMES FOR THE INGREDIENT 

Statement on Fconomic Poison (Pesticide and Plant Growth Regllators) Labels 
(1967). For further information see Harris & Cummings, supra note 14, at 108-1 1 and 7 C.F.R. 
§ 362.104 (1968). The Federal Trade Commission recently proposed new rules concerning the 
advertising of economic poisons. Such rules would coincide with FIFRA and make false or 
misleading advertising an unfair trade practice. Rule of January 24, 1968. See also FTC v. 
Woodbury Chemical Co., no. C-1035, (Jan. 20, 1966), which attacked inconsistencies between 
advertising and proscribed USDA labels for 10 per cent parathion granules. 

25. 7 C.F.R. § 362.116 (1968); sec McClanahan v. California Spray-Chem. Corp., 194 
Va.832,75S.F.2d712(1953). 

26. 7 C.F.R. § 362.103(1968). 

27. 7 C.F.R. §§ 362.104, 362.6(e) (1968). This interpretation, issued in February, 1965, is 
an obvious precursor of today's fair packaging legislation and the recent attention being given to 
protection of the consumer in the area of weights and measures. Purity of economic poisons and 
the violation of such standards (adulteration) are discussed in7C.I .R. § 362.13 (1968). 

28. 7U.S.C.§ 135(z)(2)(c) (1964); 7C.F.R.§ 362.105(1968). 

29. See 1 U.S.C. § 135a(3), 7 C.F.R. ij§ 362.103(a)(2), 362.1 16(b)(2)(i), (1968). For a 
case involving the death of two workers from inadequately labeled parathion, ee Hubbard-Hall 
Chemical Co. V.Silverman, 340 F. 2d 402 (IstCir. 1965). 

30. 7C.F.R.§ 362.1 16(b)(2)(ii) (1968). 

31. 7 C.F.R. § 362.1 16(b)(2)(iii) (1968). 

32. 7 C.F.R. § 362.1 16(b)(2)(iv) (1968). 

33. 7 U.S.C. § 135 (1964). Further, in 1962, the regulations were changed to include an 



3643 



360 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

in the amendment, and registration requirements were also applied to them. 

In 1964, Public Law 88-305 was added." This amendment eliminated the 
controversial "registration under protest" section which allowed the sale of 
an unregisterable product when a protest was duly filed. The Secretary of 
Agriculture at the same time was authorized to require pesticide labels to 
bear a federal registration number." Simultaneously, the FIFRA was re- 
vised to require conspicuous labeling of poisonous and potentially hazardous 
pesticides."' Manufacturers were also required to remove unwarranted safety 
claims from the labels.'" 

In addition to the I TFRA, its amendments and regulations, the Federal 
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938" places limitations on pesticide resi- 
dues in foods where these materials are necessary for the production of a food 
supply. All pesticides must have either a stipulated tolerance or an exemption 
which recognizes them as safe. Fxtensive hearings have been held over a 
period of years in an attempt to establish such tolerances: however, because 
of unclear procedural guidelines, divergent points of view and the ever- 
changing methodology in the pesticide industry, a significant amount of 
work has never produced a truly complete set of standards.'" 

The so-called Miller Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic .Act was 
passed in 1954.""' This amendment provides that any raw agricultural 
commodity may be condemned as adulterated if it contains a residue of any 
pesticide chemical which has not been formally exempted as safe or which is 



expanded definition of "pest" to bring under regulation more materials used in repelling birds, 
reptiles, predatory animals, certain fish, plant diseases and weeds. This redefinition brought 
under USDA surveillance about 2,000 more products put out by some 800 firms. Anderson, 
OJJicial Registration oj Pesticides, in Scientific Aspects of Pest Control 385 (1966). 

34. Pub. L. No. 88-305, § 7 (May 12, 1964), deleted the protest section in 7 U.S. C. § 135b 
(1964). See Hearings on S. Res. 27. supra note 1 1, pt. 1, at 96-97 (1963), for list of pesticides that 
had been registered under protest. 

35. Pub. L. No. 88-305, § 1 (May 12, 1964), added to 7 U.S.C. § 135(2)(b) (1964). the 
words "other than the registration number assigned to the economic poison" which revised the 
misbranding regulations. 

36. 7C.L.R. § 362.9(1968). 

37. 7C.F.R. § 362.122(1968). 

38. 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-92 (1964). For an older article, see Dunbar, Insecticides and the 
Pure Food Law, 1952 The Yearbook of Agriculture 314. 

39. For the tolerances and exemptions from tolerances for pesticides on or in raw 
agricultural commodities, see 21 C.F.R. § 120 (1968). The basis for these regulations is 21 
U.S.C. § 34b (\964). See also United States v. Bodine Produce Co., 206 F. Supp. 201 (D. Ariz. 
1962) (DDT tolerance on lettuce): Atlas Powder Co. v. twing. 201 F.2d 347 (3d Cir. 1952), cert, 
denied. }45 U.S. 92} 0953). 

40. Pub. L. No. 87-791 (August 28, \95ii), amending 2\ U.S.C. § 346a (1964). 



3644 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDKS 361 

present in excessive amounts." It gives the Secretary of Health, Education 
and Welfare the power, previously handled unsuccessfully by hearings, to 
establish residue tolerances and provides in detail the procedure to be 
followed.'- The manufacturer, for example, must submit information (which 
is kept confidential) on the chemical identity of the compound; its toxicity to 
laboratory animals; the amount, frequency and time of application to the 
specific crop or crops covered; data to indicate the magnitude of residues 
remaining following the recommended application; and finally, the tolerance 
requested with supporting data." The Department of Agriculture then must 
certify that the chemical is useful for the production of the crop or control of 
the pest in question.'' The tolerance proposed by the petitioner must reflect 
the amount of residue likely to result when the pesticide is used in the manner 
proposed."" On the other hand, exemptions from tolerances can be granted 
when no hazard to human health is exhibited by the use of a certain quantity 



41. 21 U.S.C. § 342 (1964) refers to adulterated food; 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(B) (1964), 
refers, in turn, to the prohibited acts section, 21 U.S.C. § 346a (1968). Sf^'o/jo Porter & Kahey, 
Residues on Fruits and Vegetables, 1952 The Yfarbook of Agricllture 297. Pesticide Chem. 
Reg. § 23, 20 Ked. Reg. 1473 (1955), explains tolerances on vegetables. Foods, it is generally 
agreed, may be adulterated regardless of whether they are, in specific cases, injurious to health 
when a tolerance has been set. If there is no tolerance, then the government must prove a 
possibility of injury to human health under the statute. See United States v. Bodine. 206 K. 
Supp. 201 (D. Ariz. 1962). "Raw agricultural commodities" is defined in 21 C.K.R. § 120.1(e) 
(1968). See also Durham, Pesticide Residues in Foods in Relation to Public Health. 4 Residue 
Rev. 33 (1963). 

42. 21 U.S.C. § 346a(d) (1964). Such tolerances are subject to the prerequisite of shipment 
in interstate commerce and the government, in the case of adulteration of a raw agricultural 
commodity, has the burden of proof that the goods were adulterated at the threshold of or 
during interstate commerce. Pasadena Research Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 169 h.2d 
375 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 335 U.S. 853 (1948). See also the regulations concerning tolerances, 
2IC.F.R. § 120(1968). 

43. 21 U.S.C. § 346a(d) (1964). Data submitted in accordance with this section is 
guaranteed confidentiality as stated in 21 U.S.C. § 346a(f) (1964). See Roark, How Insecti- 
cides Are Developed. 1952 The Yearbook of Agriculture 202. 

44. 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(3) (1964); 21 C.h.R. § 120.4 (1968); 7 C.K.R. § 363 (1968). 
Testing and analysis of economic poisons under HI RA is governed by 7 C.K.R. § 362.110 
(1968). 

45. 6Ve21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(3) (1964); 21 C.K.R. § 120.4 (1968); 7 C.K.R. § 363(1968). 
In some instances, because of the characteristics of the pesticide, the way it is likely to be used or 
because no studies have been made of the compound, a zero tolerance (no residue allowable) has 
been set. Zero tolerances have come lu be quite controversial and there is an indication that they 
may be deleted in favor of finite tolerances of a minimal nature. 21 C.K.R. § 120.5 (1968). in 
setting tolerances, a safety factor of 100 is taken into account. See Hearings on S. Res. 27, 
supra note 1 1. pi. 7. at 1319-34 (1963). for an account of Dow Chemical Company's expijriments 
evaluating the safety of a pesticide chemical. See also D. Krear. supra note 1 1, at 33-57. for a 
comprehensive list of tolerances. 



3645 



362 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

of pesticide on or in a certain commodity/' Thus far, there have been no 
reported cases of illness or death in the United States from pesticide residues 
on food when formulations have been used according to label directions. 
However, there have been several instances in which inordinant amounts of 
pesticides have contaminated food, thus leading to significant 
epidemiological problems. 

The FIFRA and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supplement each 
other and are interrelated by law and in practical operation.^' In most cases, 
an interpretation of one will apply with equal force to the other, it has been 
the policy of the Department of Agriculture not to register any new pesticide 
unless either a tolerance has been established for it under the Miller 
Amendment, it has been exempted under that section or it has been shown 
adequately that no residues will result from the proposed use of the product. 
The zero tolerance concept, however, has given way to outright denial of 
registration for those pesticides considered highly toxic to man and animals. 
Conversely, a tolerance will normally not be granted by the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare until an application for registration has been 
filed with the Department of Agriculture. Most manufacturers file 
application for registration and at the same time petition for a tolerance or 
an exemption from tolerance specification, so that the two applications may 
be processed simultaneously.^* 

An additional federal act which has an indirect bearing on this general 
field of law is the Williams Bill, passed in 1958.^'' it regulates the additives in 
processed foods and covers any material "intentionally" or "incidentally" 
added to foods. Pesticides added to foods might be covered by this section, 

46. See 21 C.F.R. §§ I20.100I-.10I8 (1968) for exemptions. These exemptions are only 
for pre-harvest applications. See 21 C.F.R. § 121.2 (1968) for tolerances in processed foods. 

47. it is well to note that since 1964 a three-way agreement has existed between the 
Departments of Agriculture; Health, Education and Welfare; and the Interior providing for 
coordination in the review of pesticide registration applications. In addition, the Federal 
Committee on Pest Control (FCPC) coordinates federal pest control activities to see that the 
total public interest is served in terms of safety and effectiveness. See FC PC. What It Is, What 
It Does (1967) [U. S. Government Pamphlet 0-250-459 (30)]; Hearings on S. Res. 288 Before 
the Subcomm. On Reorganization and International Organizations oj the Senate Comnt. on 
Governmental Operations, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., app. Ill & IV to pt. I (1964); Anderson, The 
Federal Committee on Pest Control, in Scientific Aspects of Pest Control 367 (1966). See 
also 32 Fed. Reg. 13202 (1967) for outline of FCPC functions and procedures. 

48. Registration is specifically covered in FIFRA under 7 U.S. C. § 135b (1964) and in the 
regulation under 7 C.F.R. § 362.10 (1968); petition for a tolerance or for an exemption is 
covered in 21 C.F.R. § 120.7 (1968). Other detailed provisions for review of tolerances are 
found in 21 C.F.R. § 120.8(1968). 

49. See2\ U.S.C. § 348(1968). 



3646 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 363 

such as tumigants used to retard insect contamination during storage or 
shipment. Normally, however, an example of an intentional additive would 
be the emulsifier added to ice cream; incidental additives would include 
liners or casing for packages which might dissolve in a food or beverage.'" 
As a matter of current interest, the so-called "Delaney Clause" in the Food, 
Drug and Cosmetic Act stipulates that no material which is capable of caus- 
ing cancer under any condition may be permitted in any food.-' This again 
only skirts the field of pesticide laws but has generated a great deal of con- 
troversy. '- 

From time to time, new regulations and interpretations are promulgated 
under the authority of the FIFRA to facilitate effective coverage of that 
area duly delegated to the Department of Agriculture.-- In addition, the 
Department of Agriculture sets up guidelines which, while lacking the force 
of law, delineate matters of policy. ^ Food and Drug Administration 
tolerances have fluctuated often with the expanding variety of uses developed 
for old compounds and the constantly increasing flow of new products and 
formulations employed in agriculture and pest control. Therefore, new 
tolerances are being issued constantly; these changes and additions demand 
almost day to day scrutiny by those responsible for compliance. 

B. State Pesticide Legislation 

Generally, there are two types of state pesticide laws. First, registration 
statutes specify certain controls over the distribution and sale of pesticides in 
intrastate commerce. In addition, some states have set up pesticide tolerances 
for agricultural commodities sold within the particular jurisdiction. 
Secondly, there are a group of laws considered peculiar to the states, which 
regulate w ithin the state the use and application of the substances themselves. 

The laws dealing with registration were generally modeled after the 



50. D. Frear, supra note 1 1, at 32. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 121. 2-. 8 (ivooj ^pcs.utiucs as luud 
additives) and 21 C.F.R. § 121.102 (1968) (adjuvant exemptions). 

51. 21U.S.C.§ 348(c)(3)(A) (1964). 

52. There is a great diversity of opinion as to carcinogenicity of some pesticides. For a 
discussion of this problem see Hearings on S. Res. 27, supra note 1 I, pt. I. at 673-7 16 (1963). 

53. 7 U.S.C. § 135d (1964), empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to make rules and 
regulations. FIFRA regulations can be found in 7 C.F.R. § 362 (1968) and USD.A 
interpretations are found m 7 C.F.R. §§ 362.100-.122 (1968). 

54. Guidelines are often supplements to interpretations and rules and are informational in 
character, providing recommendations as to the use, sale and shipment of pesticides. See U.S. 
Dep't ok Agricli.turk, Guide for the Use oe Insecticides (1967); U.S. Dep't of 
Agriculture, Saee Use of Agriculturai and Househoid Pesticides (1967). A recent 
USDA guideline against warranty disclaimers is strengthened by Udell v. Rohm and Haas Co., 
64 Wash. 2d 44 1.392 P.2d 225 (1964). 



3647 



364 JOLRNAl. OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

FlhRA by way of the Council of State Governments' so-called "Uniform 
State Pesticide Act/' Some state registration legislation automatically ex- 
empts those products which bear the federal registration number and appro- 
priate labeling. However, those products marketed solely in intrastate com- 
merce will ordinarily have to be registered with the appropriate state official. 
Labeling requirements under state statutes are generally less stringent than 
those dictated by the FIFRA: therefore, compliance with federal law will 
normally meet the commands of state authority. Registration laws of this 
type have been adopted in more or less similar form by forty-seven of the fifty 
states. Only Alaska. Delaware and Indiana are without state labeling 
regulations. -- 

State registration laws are relatively uniform when compared to use and 
application laws. Other than the Federal Aviation Agency regulations, no 
applicable federal counterpart to these laws exists since they regulate 
activities which are by their nature normally intrastate. Some states have 
taken significant steps to insure ample licensing provisions, specific 
provisions as to the use of pesticides, inspection of equipment and other 
regulations. Other states, however, either have no laws dealing with pesticide 
use or have what might be considered only partial coverage of the problem. 
While the lack of uniformity is evident, such divergence can be explained in 
part by the varying needs and desires of the people in different areas. Yet it is 
certain that the greatest short-coming in the field of pesticide laws today 
must be the incomplete coverage within the states over the use and 

55. Alaska does, however, have an [Enabling Act which authorizes the registration of 
products and the issuance of regulations. Also, Indiana does control to some extent the use of 
pesticides by way of aeronautics regulations. Reg. No. 2, Ind. Aero. Comm. (1951). Indiana has 
recently been considering control of custom applicators, a proposal which has met with little 
past success. Delaware in 1968, did ratify the Council of State Governments" "Pest Control 
Compact" as a first step toward needed legislation. For a summary of state activities see Petty, 
Functions oj Slate Committees on Pest Control, in Scientific Aspects of Pest Control 374 
(1966). Also, of importance is the federal disclaimer of jurisdiction over pest control operators 
except in cases of coloring of compounds. This opens for state control the activities of these 
businesses. 7 C.K.R. § 362.100 (1968). The federal Government does in fact exercise some 
control over the use of pesticides by requiring agricultural aircraft operators to obtain 
certificates when they are engaged in the spraying of economic poisons. Certification is awarded 
by the LAA only when certain standards are met by the pilot. No pilot may, under these 
regulations, dispense an economic poison that is registered under KIKRA (1) for a use other than 
that for which it is registered, (2) contrary to any safety instructions or use limitations on its 
label or (3) in violation of any federal law or regulation. See 14 C.K.R. § 137 (1968). These rules 
do not relieve the agricultural aircraft operator from more stringent state laws which may be in 
elfect. Assurance in the safety and efficacy of the use of pesticides in agriculture is the primary 
motive for passage of these rules which went into elfect on January 1, 1966. 30 Fed. Reg. 8104 
(1965). Also, on the federal level, as of January 1, 1968, children sixteen and under may no 
longer be employed in the handling and application of most dangerous pesticides. 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 19 



3648 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 365 

application of these potentially harmful substances, which have been known 
to cause injury through negligent and uninformed handling. Undoubtedly, 
these deficiencies can be overcome by centralized efforts exerted against each 
individual state problem.'* However, more practically, a uniform act should 
be presented to the states in order to fill gaps existing in current state codes 
and to be adopted, in whole or in part, with or without variations, to suit 
particular circumstances, it is noteworthy that uniformity was stressed by 
the House Committee on Agriculture before the passage of the FIFRA so as 
to minimize conflicts between state laws.-' 

While there is much that could be said in support of uniform state pesticide 
use and application acts, there are very definite problems of enforcement that 
vary from state to state. Pragmatically, state and local officials have found it 
difficult to enforce licensing, inspections, examinations and technical rules 
over the use of pesticides. Insufficient appropriations and surveillance 
difficulties in controlling negligent and careless use are two major problems 
which face enforcement officers. Some states already have adequate means 
to supervise custom applicators, pest control operators and the like. Other 
states have poorly or liberally enforced powers in existence. Still others have 
no system through which control over these persons is maintained. A 
licensing system would, in reality, reduce the apparent threat to public health 
from pesticide contamination. Effective legislation would have to provide 
assurance that persons subject to the law are knowledgeable as to the 
characteristics and effects of the compounds and that they are proficient in 
techniques for avoiding dangers to human and animal life, as well as the 
dangers of damage to property, both public and private. States which now 
have controls over large scale users have met with success as varied as the 
laws themselves. However, it is clear that a program of enforcement is only 
as effective and vigorous as the agencies who administer it. Having well- 
written laws is one thing; adequate enforcement is quite another. 

The great number of state statutes, both registration and use and 
application, are listed in appendix A. The list is a compilation of the major 
pieces of pesticide legislation now in force in the United States.'" 



56. See Curran, The Preparation oj Stale and Local Health Regulations. 49 Am. J. PuB. 
Health 314 (1959). 

57. 1947 U.S.C. Cong. Serv. 1200, 1201. 

58. For excellent compilations of laws in full text revised periodically, see Chemical 
Specialities Manufacturers Association, Fconomic Poisons (Pesticides) Laws (Rev. 
1967); National Agricultural Chemicals Association, Law Guide (Rev. 1967); Manual 
OF Pesticide Use and Application Laws (Rev. 1967). 



3649 



366 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

III. Pesticide Use Liability 

Statutory regulations exist to prevent improper or negligent use of 
pesticides. When this objective is not achieved, the result is death, injury or 
property damage. By over-dosage a farmer can destroy his own crop; 
through improper usage he can damage that of a neighbor. While not as 
clearly documented as the possible damage to vegetation when a substance is 
not given proper precautionary attention or is used improperly, the dangers 
of pesticide poisoning to man and domestic animals are of great concern.''' 
One study in southern Florida has shown that pesticides "are definitely the 
most significant causative agents in accidental death by poisoning of 
children."*" Each year, many children are poisoned by pesticides because of 
improper storage of those compounds, negligent disposal of containers in 
which dangerous residues may be present and the placing of deadly chemicals 
in soft drink bottles. Careless placement of pesticides within reach of young 
and inquiring hands has led to several tragedies. Children are, however, only 
a segment of the total pesticide mortality problem. In 1961, there were 119 
deaths in the United States due to pesticides, with most of them ascribed to 
identifiable materials."' A little under one-half of the fatalities were adults. 

The increased number of deaths and injuries resulting from the use of 
pesticides has led to more litigation in this area. However, poisonings have 
occurred in a violent manner without any outward signs of cause or origin, 
thus generating serious difficulties, not the least of which centers around legal 
responsibility. For example, DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesti- 
cides owe their effectiveness in part to their long persistence after applica- 
tion. Coupled with their moderately high toxicity, the persistence of some of 
the chlorinated hydrocarbons may pose a serious problem of causation when 
poisoning occurs some time after actual application. " 



59. See A. Lehman, Summaries of Pesticide Toxicity (1965) for an indication of the 
possible dangers to man of many pesticides used today. See also Hayes, Toxicological Problems 
Associated with Useoj Pesticides, 5 Ind. & Tropical Health 1 18 (1964). 

60. Reich, Davis & Davies, Pesticide Poisoning in South Florida, at 3 (to be published in 
Arch, of Lnviron. Health 1968). Davis states also that many more pesticide poisonings were 
very probably not discovered or diagnosed as such. See Joslin, Forney, Huntington & Hayes, A 
Fatal Case oj Lindane Poisonings, Proc. Nat. Ass'n of Coroners 53 (1958) which involved 
the death of an 18 month old child who ate some lindane pellets which had been spilled in the 
family car. iVf'a/io Ganci v. Rubino, 40 Misc. 2d 2 18. 241 N.Y.S.2d981 (1963). 

61. Hayes & Pirkle. Mortality from Pesticides in 1961. 12 Arch, of Environ Health 43 
(1968). 

62. See Hearings on S. Res. 27. supra note 1 1, pt. 6, at 1 167-68 (1963); Straube, Bricker, 
Gemmell, Lawler, Coster, Corbin & Tomasek, Persistent Pesticides, 22 Ac. Chem. 20 (1967); 
Lichtenstein, Persistence and Degradation oJ Pesticides in the Environment, in Scientific 
Aspects OF Pest Control 221 (1966). 



3650 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 367 

Pesticide characteristics also increase the ways in which injury may be 
caused. Since some potentially harmful pesticides have been found to be 
absorbed readily into the fat of cattle which feed upon vegetation sprayed 
with these compounds, the appearance of chemical residues in milk may 
create another field in pesticide liability." Actually, however, the acute 
instances of pesticide poisoning, while patently important to a legal analysis, 
are not of greater concern than the less obvious, more subtle and potential 
effects of low level, long-term exposure of pesticide chemicals on man." 
Whereas most of the older compounds, such as the arsenicals, offer serious 
threats by oral ingestion or by the respiratory route (a major industrial 
hazard), many of the newer compounds have the added danger of possible 
dermal absorption. A sizable number of pesticide poisonings are known to 
have occurred either by way of direct application and gross contact, through 
improper storage and disposal of containers, or by way of acute occupational 
and environmental exposure.'- Agricultural spraymen and exterminators can 



63. Clifford, Pesticide Residues in Fluid Market Milk. 72 FUB. Health Rep. 729 (1957); 
see Dale, Gaines & Hayes, Storage artd Excretion of DDT in Starved Rats. 4 Toxicology and 
Applied Pharmacology 89 (1962); Hayes, Quinby, Walker, Elliott & Vphoh, Storage oj DDT 
and DDE in People with Degrees of Exposure to DDT. 18 Arch, of Ind. Health 398 (1958); 
Hayes, Monitoring Food and People Jor Pesticide Contact, in Scientific Aspects of Pest 
Control 3 14 (1966); Dale & Quinby, Chlorinated Insecticides in the Body Fat oj People in the 
United States, 142 Science 593 (1963). 

64. Kraybill, Federal Health Activities in the Field oJ Pesticides, in Proceedings of the 
Short Course on the Occupational Health Aspects of Pesticides 287 (E. Link & R. 
Whitakered. 1964). 

65. See. e.g.. Hayes & Pirkle, supra note 61, in which 119 pesticide deaths in 1961 were 
analyzed. Hayes and Pirkle attributed 58 per cent of these deaths to compounds in use before the 
discovery of DDT, 34 per cent were caused by newer compounds, and in 8 per cent of the 
reported cases no specific compound was attributable. 1 ifty-one percent of the cases were 
children under ten. This figure emphasized the need for control over the storage and disposal of 
pesticides which may come into the hands of children unable to comprehend the danger of the 
substances. Geographically the Hayes study pointed out that the Southwestern and mountain 
regions of the United States showed a higher ratio of pesticide deaths. The relatively small 
number of pesticide poisonings from California is noteworthy in view of the extensive use of 
pesticides in that state. A sound explanation for this is the comprehensive and well-administered 
set of laws in that state. In spite of this, a recent study reported 8jO pesticide accidents leading to 
personal injuries in California in 1965. The Pesticide Regulatory Program in California. 
Address by Hillis, International Conference on Educational Aspects of the Pesticide-Chemical 
Usage (July 10, 1967). See also Dav- Davis, Krazier, Maun, Reich & Tocci. Disturbances oJ 
Metabolism in Organophosphate Poisoning, in Industrial Medicine and Surgery Jan., 
1967, at 58. This study analyzed the deaths in Dade County, Florida, from pesticide poisoning in 
the years 1959-1965. In that period, seventy-two people died of pesticide poisoning. Twenty- 
eight of the deaths were deemed accidental, nineteen involved children and forty-two of the total 
were attributed to organophosphate pesticides (most notably, thirty-three of that number were 
killed by parathion). 



3651 



368 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

encounter almost unperceptible but dangerous dermal exposure from fine 
mists created by their equipment. Such long-term exposure to pesticides 
might be treated by a prospective plaintiff as a continuing tort, employed in 
some medical malpractice and poisoning litigation. 

While the areas of potential litigation are unlimited, the cases have tended 
to be concentrated in three areas: manufacturers and sellers, aerial spraying 
and structural extermination. 

A . Manujactunrs and Sellers 

Manufacturers and sellers may be liable for injuries which result from 
basically three means: defective products, failure to warn adequately of 
possible harmful effects to humans, animals or plant life that may occur even 
when directions are followed, and fraudulent or misleading claims."^ 
Defective products can cause serious injury to those applying a pesticide and 
to the neighboring area which, absent any negligence, normally should be free 
of harm. While federal and state laws generally demand accurate and 
comprehensive statements on labels and prospectuses concerning harmful 
effects and contraindications,"' in the case of a resulting injury, a 
manufacturer may be liable under a common law duty to warn of possible 
hazards and, at the same time, may be guilty of a statutory violation for 



Another report catalogued 129 non-t'atal pesticide poisonings in Cameron County, Texas, 
from 1961 through 1966. G. Reich, G. Galler & J. Wizeman, The Characteristics of Pesticide 
Poisoning in South Texas (United States Public Health Service, unpublished, 1967). Dermal 
exposure was found to represent 98 per cent of the cases. This report, unlike others, studied 
poisonings of 126 adult males, one adult female and only two children. By occupation, seventy- 
four were workers for spray pilots, thirty-eight were farm laborers, eight spray pilots, four 
formulators or workers in formulating establishments, one farmer, two children and two were 
unknown. Only six of these cases had been previously poisoned. Ethyl and/or methyl parathion 
were found responsible for 96 per cent of the reported poisonings. See also Wolfe, Durham & 
Armstrong, Exposure oj Workers to Pesticides. 14 Arch, of Environ. Health 622 (1967); 
Hayes, Monitoring Food and People for Pesticide Content, in Scientific Aspects of Pest 
Control 314 (1966); Arterberry, Durham, Elliott & Wolfe, Exposure to Parathion. 3 .Arch. 
OF Environ. Health 476 (1961); Reich. Davies & Davies, Pesticide Poisoning in South Florida 
(to be published in .Arch of Environ. Health 1968). 

66. Products liability is currently one of the most actively expanding fields of law, I or a 
comprehensive annotation on the liability of manufacturer or seller for injury caused by animal 
feed or medicines, crop sprays, fertilizers, insecticides, rodenticides. and similar products. see^\ 
.A.L.R. 2d 138 (1962). As to manufacturers' duty to warn generally, iff 76 A.L.R.2d 9 (1961). 
See also Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Kennedy, 224 Ark. 248. 272 S.W.2d 685 (1954) (insecticide 
manufacturer). Claims of fraud are the least used theory upon which plaintiffs have based their 
cases. But see Kramer v. Carbolineum Wood Preserving Co.. 105 Wash. 401, 177 P. 771 
(1919) (action against seller of insecticide). 

67. 5ff note \'i, supra. 



3652 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 369 

mislabeling."' Fraudulent or misleading claims can cause damage in a variety 
of ways. 1 f the substance is more potent than indicated, harm ful residues may 
occur, and in some cases, damage from over-application may result, if, on 
the other hand, a pesticide has a weak dosage, it may cause injury by nature 
of its ineffectiveness. 

Liability of a manufacturer or seller of pesticides for injury to a person or 
property allegedly caused by such compounds is in a state of change.'"'* 
Generally, however, the principles of law deducible from various jurisdictions 
may be stated briefly. A duty of care binds manufacturers and sellers of 
pesticides.'" This duty includes a duty to warn of product-connected 
dangers,'' a duty on the part of the manufacturer to subject the compound to 
reasonable tests,'- and a duty on the part of the seller to subject the product to 
reasonable inspection."- The first and second duties are partially incorporated 
in the KIFRA, the various state registration laws, commercial law and the 
law of torts. The third is a common law duty imposed as a matter of law and 
practicality. 

While a manufacturer can be held liable for an injury caused by a breach of 
these duties either by statutory violation or by way of common law 
negligence principles, the area of greatest activity is the possible liability 
under a breach of warranty theory.'^ There is considerable authority to the 
effect that manufacturers and sellers of pesticides are bound by the implied 



68. See note VU, injra. See also l> U.S.C. §§ 1263-70 (iy64) (mislabeling on the federal 
level). 

69. See 81 A.L.R.2d 138 (1962); R. HuRSH. AMtRiCAN Law oh Products Liabuity 
§§ 21:39-:49(1961). 

70. Manufacturer's duty: E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Baridon, 73 L.2d 26 (8th Cir. 
1934) (fungicide); Rose v. Buffalo Air Serv., 170 Neb. 806, i04N.W.2d431 (1960) (insecticide). 
Seller's duty: Crouse v. Wilbur-tUis Co., 77 Ariz. 359. 272 P.2d 352 (1954) (insecticide). 

71. Manufacturer's duty to warn: Orr v. Shell Oil Co.. 352 Mo. 288. 177 S.W.2d 608 
(1944); Jamieson v. Woodward &. Lothrop, 247 F.2d 23 (D.C, Cir), ceri. denied, 355 U.S. 

855 (1957). Seller's duty to warn: Crouse v. Wilbur-tllis Co., 77 Ariz. 359, 272 P.2d 352 (1954). 
The plaintiff must prove more than the injury and the use of a suspected substance. . Sir Scienlilic 
SupplyCo. V. Zelinger, 139 Colo. 568, 34! P.2d 897 (1959). 

72. Manufacturer's duly to lest: Chapman Chem. Co. v. Taylor, 215 Ark. 630. 222 S.W'.2d 
820(1949). 

73. A manufacturer's or seller's duty of inspection means that he will be held liable only 
when he sells products which contain imperfections discoverable by the e.xercise of the general 
duty of reasonable care imposed upon him. 81 A.L.R.2d 138, 149 (1962). 

74. But see 81 A.L.R.2d 138, 157-62 (1962). lor cases involving implied warranties, see 
Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal. 2d 682, 268 P.2d 1041 (1954); Diamond Alkali Co. v. 
Godwin, 100 Ga. App. 799, 112 S.t.2d 365 (1959); Van Anlwerp-Aldridge Drug Co. v. 
Schwarz, 263 Ala. 207, 82 So. 2d 209 (1955); Yormack v. Farmers' Co-op. Ass'n. 11 N.J. 
Super.416. 78 A.2d42l (1951). 



3653 



370 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and the implied warranty of 
merchantability. Both of these warranties are dealt with in the Uniform 
Commercial Code, which has been adopted in forty-nine states.'* Moreover, 
such a manufacturer or seller may bind himself by express warranties, the 
breach of which will give rise to liability for resulting injuries.'*' 

The warranty theories, while apparently simple and easily applied, are 
fraught with problems. Traditionally, warranty liability could be claimed 
only by a plaintiff who could prove that he was injured; that the injury 
resulted from the manufacturer's negligence and that he was in privity of 
contract— that is, a direct contractual relation involving the sale of the 
product — with the manufacturer." The last problem of proof, privity of 
contract, has been an important stumbling block to the plaintiff who was 
injured due to the manufacturer's negligence yet was unable to prove the 
relationship. Undoubtedly the most significant legal factor in such litigation 
is the view that privity of contract is a prerequisite to recovery in a 
negligence action growing out of a product-caused injury, it is obvious in 
most jurisdictions that absent an adequate showing of privity or an adequate 
allegation of the inherent danger of pesticides, the plaintiff may not recover 
when he or his property has been injured by a pesticide seller's or 
manufacturer's negligence. The area of privity, however, is in a state of 
transition. A few jurisdictions have altered this requirement or wholly 
obliterated it; however, many have retained the privity doctrine.'- It is 



75. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is found in Uniform 
Commercial Code [hereafter U.C.C] § 2-315; the implied warranty of merchantability is found 
in U.C.C. § 2-314. See Brown v. Howard, 285 S. W.2d 752 (Tex. Civ. App. 1955) (dealing with 
an implied warranty of merchantability for a cattlespray); Patrick v. Carrier Stevens Co., 358 
Mich. 94, 99 N.W.2d 518 (1959) (warranty of safety for a mink Ilea repellant). Louisiana has 
not adopted the U.C.C. 

76. Express warranties are governed by U.C.C. § 2-313. See also Van Antwerp-Aldridge 
Drug Co. V. Schwarz, 263 Ala. 207, 82 So. 2d 209 (1955); Sawan, Inc. v. American Cyanamid 
Co., 211 Ga. 764, 88 S.E.2d 152 (1955) (insecticide injured seed corn); Simpson v. American 
Oil Co., 217 N.C. 542, 8 S.E.2d 813 (1940) (insecticide injury); Start v. Shell Oil Co.. 202 
Ore. 99, 273 P.2d 225 (1954) (insecticide damaged lily crop); Ingraham v. Associated Oil Co., 
166 Wash. 305, 6 P. 2d 645 (1932). Express warranties which are breached generally lead to 
absolute liability on the part of the defendant. W. Prossi R. THh Law of Torts 651 (3d ed. 
1964). 

77. Seegenerally 15 A.L.R.ld }9 (\9b\).ii\ A.L.R.2d 138, 161 (1962). 

78. Of particular signitkance is Henningsen v. Bloomt'ield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 
A. 2d 69 (I960), one of the first decisions rejecting outright the requirement of privity. Other 
states besides New Jersey which have rejected the rule requiring a showing of privity by court 
decisions are Arkansas. California. Connecticut, Illinois. Iowa. Kentucky. Michigan. 
Mississippi, Missouri. New York. Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 
Arkansas and Virginia have statutes denying the lack of privity prerequisite as a defense 
available to a manufacturer or dealer of a defective product. Other states are borderline or still 



3654 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 371 

generally agreed that, in the future, the privity of contract prerequisite may 
be wholly eliminated from product liability cases, especially when dangerous 
compounds such as pesticides are involved; until then, it may continue to be 
an important factor to consider in a case of pesticide injury and subsequent 
litigation against a manufacturer or seller." It is well to note, however, that 
in a suit of this sort, no formal prerequisites to recovery may be required if, 
as a matter of law, the pesticide involved can be considered an inherently 
dangerous product.'" 

Another somewhat less common theory employed by a plaintiff suffering 
damage from a deficient pesticide is that of fraud and deceit." Here again, if 
a plaintiff alleges fraud in the sale of a pesticide in an effort to recover for 
some injury he has suffered, he may be forced to prove that he was in privity 
of contract with the manufacturer or seller. As with the warranty theory, 
however, the doctrine of privity in relation to fraud is also changing, 
although the inherent danger of the compound has had nothing to do with the 
decline of the doctrine in these cases.'- Fraudulant advertising and other 
misleading inducements will, in the future, come under closer legal 
examination as part of the trend toward more effective consumer protection. 
Recent stress put upon the necessity to disclose fully all product connected 
data will no doubt enhance the development of more extensive controls than 
are found presently in statutory and common law. 

require privity. Privity, for instance, was required in Spada v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 195 K. Supp. 
819 (D. Ore. 1961) (concerned herbicide tPTAM 6E). 

79. See note 11. supra. 

80. Generally, those who market an inherently dangerous product are held to strict 
liability, that is, no allegation of negligence must be made prerequisite to the plaintiffs recovery. 
Strict liability will never be found unless the defendant is aware of the danger and has voluntarily 
allowed the product to be marketed. Mere negligent failure to discover or prevent is not enough, 
although it may, of course, be an independent basis of liability once the defendant willfully 
markets the product which is inherently dangerous, thus becoming an insurer against the 
consequences of his conduct See generally W. Prosser, The Law of Torts 519 (3d ed. 1964). 

81. Kraud, while not often alleged in pesticide cases, usually comes about by way of express 
warranties made by the manufacturer or seller to the buyer. The elements of fraud (or its old 
common law counterpart, deceit) are first, a misrepresentation; second, knowledge or belief on 
the part of the defendant that the representation is false; third, intention by the defendant to 
induce the plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentation; fourth, justifiable reliance on the part of 
the plaintiff; and fifth, damage to the plaintiff resulting from such reliance. See W. Prossir, 
The Law of Torts 659 (3d ed. 1964) for an excellent and detailed discussion. See also Kolb.erg 
V. Sherwin Williams Co., 93 Cal. App. 609, 269 P. 975 (1928) (action against manufacturer of 
product designed to destroy citrus tree scale). 

82. See 75 A.L.R.2d 39 (1961) for complete discussion. Inherent danger will not enter into 
a case of fraud since fraud is based upon a misrepresentation of the product's nature rather than 
the dangerous consequences of the product's use. Both theories, of course, might be alleged 
simultaneously under the same set of circumstances. 



3655 



372 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW 



HMORV LAW SCHOOL 



B. A erial Spraying 

One area in which the actual use of pesticides has created a significant 
amount o^ Htigalion is aerial spraying/' Most of the cases in this field have 
involved damage to crops or vegetation; however, there are some which 
involve injury to man and animals, including wildlife.'' 

The growth of custom spraying and dusting, the rapidity of new 
discoveries, the possibility of injury to man's health, plants and animals, 
including wildlife, on lands and waters adjacent to those being sprayed or 
dusted, and the possibility of both dangerous and fraudulent practices makes 
public regulation increasingly necessary."- Cognizant of these issues, the 

83. Lor an excellent, although older discussion, sec 12 A.L.R.2d 436 (19?0) (liability for 
injury consequent upon spraying or dusting of crop). Sec alsu Burns v. Vaughn, 216 .Ark. 128. 
224 S.W.2d 365 (1949) (drift of 2.4-D in wind): Hammond Ranch Corp. v. Dadson. 199 Ark. 
846, 136 S.W.2d 484 (1940) (spray pilot killed stock with arsenic spray); S.A. Gerrard Co. v. 

Fricker, 42 Ariz. 503. 27 P.2d 678 (1933) (bees killed by aerial spraying); Lenk v. Spezia, 95 Cal. 
App. 2d 346. 213 P.2d 42 (1949) (drift of arsenic killed bees): Brown v. Sioux City. 242 Iowa 

1 196. 49 N.W.2d 853 (1951) (loss of bees and honey due to pesticide spraying); Underhill v. 
Motes. 158 Kan. 173, 146 P. 2d 374 (1944) (grasshopper poison spread in such a manner that 
cattle on adjacent farm could reach it); Traham v. Bearb, 138 So. 2d 420 (La. App. 1962) 
(damage to cotton field from weed spray used on neighboring rice field); Venie v. South Cent. 
Enterprises. 401 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. Ct. .App. 1966) (herbicide damage to strawberries); Rose v. 
Buffalo .Air Serv., 170 Neb. 806. 104 N.W.2d 431 (1960) (crops destroyed by insecticide); Young 
V. Darter, 363 P.2d 829 (Okla. 1961) (drift of pesticide); Cross v. Harris, 230 Ore. 398, 370 P.2d 
703 (1962) (sprayer ruined crops with herbicide); Stull Chem. Co. v. Boggs farmers Supply. 
Inc.. 404 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. Civ. App. 1966) (herbicide damaged crops); Pitchfork Land a: Cattle 
Co. V. King. 162 Tex. 331. 346 S.W.2d 598 (1961) (spray contractor held liable); Wise v. Hayes. 
58 Wash. 2d 106. 361 P.2d 171 (1961) (manufacturer liable lor improper labeling). Sec also 2 L. 
Harpkra F. Jamks. Law of Torts § 14.6 (1956). 

As a matter of further interest, when the United States Government conducted spraying 
operations in wildlife preserves, crop damage sustained by adjoining land owners was held non- 
compensible under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15 (1953); 
Harris v. United States. 205 F.2d 765 (10th Cir. 1953). 

84. Sec Hearings on S. JSS. supra note 47. pt. 10. at 2206; pt. 9. at 1811; and app. IV to pt. 
I, at 985 (1964); Pesticides in Relation to Wildlife. .Address by Dykstra. Conference on 
Pesticides and Public Health. May, 1967. See Hubbard Hall Chem. Co. v. Silverman, 340 L.2d 
402 (1st Cir. 1965) (parathion deaths); Gonzalez v. Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co., 239 F. Supp. 
567 (F.D.S.C. 1965) (spray pilot injury); McQuaide v. Bridgeport Brass Co.. 190 L. Supp. 252 
(D. Conn. 1960) (insecticide injury); Boyl v. California Chem. Co.. 221 L. Supp. 669 (D. Ore. 
1962) (Troix weed-killer injury). There are numerous criminal cases involving poisoning with 
pesticides, including several suicides. A report from Finland shows that deaths from suicide due 
to parathion rose from one in 1952 to ninety-four in 1957. Toivonen, Ohela & Karpainen. 
Parathion Poisoning Increasing Frequency in Finland. 2 Lanci T 175 (1959). Ttie study by 
Reich, Davis & Davies. supra note 65. revealed that suicides made up the majority of pesticide 
deaths in South I lorida from 1956-1967. In those years sixty-nine suicides \\ere reported due to 
pesticide ingestion. 

85. See Scotton. Atmospheric Transport of Pesticide Aerosols. United Slates Dep'l of 



3656 



THE LAW OF PKSTICIDtS 373 

Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health, tducation and 
Welfare limit the use of specific pesticides on certain crops through certain 
means of application, thereby alleviating hazards to the food supply and 
man's health.'" State and local regulations also have been designed to meet 
the need for public regulation in some of the areas of concern. 

Several difficult problems arise in connection with the application of 
pesticides. The question of liability for injury to persons, crops and animals 
resulting from drift of the materials is the most dramatic and one of the most 
important.'' Damage can be quite substantial and often there are significant 
evidentiary problems. There is the initial question of placing responsibility 
for the drift of pesticides. This problem can be amplified seriously when more 
than one person was engaged in spraying in the locality or when the spraying 
took place so far away that the person is unknown. Still another problem in 
this area is that of causation. Was the negligence of the applicator the legal 
cause for the injury? Or was there some intervening cause, such as a totally 
unexpected gust of wind or a freak inversion layer? 

The possibility of injury to formulators. applicators and spraymen 
themselves may become more significant legally if personal safety and 
hygiene as well as statutory controls are not given more attention. The 
workmen's compensation' implications are vast, as are the common law 
entanglements generated by employee poisoning. Long-term, daily exposure 
to minute quantities of pesticides remains a troublesome consideration. 
Scientific research is, at best, in*the first stages. The injuries or deaths that 
may have occurred have not yet come under detailed legal scrutiny. Toxicity 
levels are a definite problem because there may be differences between daily 
small-dose dermal exposure to which spraymen are subjected and the 
standardized lethal dose measurements for laboratory animals. Another 
difficulty is that several years of usage of particular pesticides by applicators 



Health, Educ. & Welfare Training Guide (1965). Around 350 million pounds of insecticides 
alone were used in the United Stales in 1962, They were, and are, distributed annually over 
ninety million acres or more {one acre out of twenty within the forty-eight contiguous states). 
Herbicides were used on just about the same number of acres with some overlap. Thus, the land 
area treated with pesticides is approximately one acre in twelve. About forty-five million pounds 
are used each year in addition in urban areas and around homes, much of this by municipal 
spraying operations and individual home owners. Sec Hearings on S. Res. 27. supra note 1 1, pt. 
1, at 41 (1963). See also note 96, injra. KAA aerial spraying statistics. Kor an interesting article 
on the drifting of TbPP, a deadly insecticide, see Quinby & Doornick, Teiraeihyl Pyrophosphate 
Poisoning hollowing Airplane Dusting. 191 J. A. MA. 1 (1965). 

86. hor a list of pesticide uses for which registration under KIKR.A has been denied, see 
Hearings on'S. Res. 27. supra note 1 1, pt. 3, at 744-48 (1963). 

87. See Chapman Chem. Co. v. Taylor. 215 Ark. 630, 222 S.W.2d 820 (1949); Lenk v. 
Spezia,95Cal. App. 2d 296. 213 P.2d47 (1949). 



3657 



374 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

with no adverse effects may have caused some workers to become lax in 
their observance of safety precautions. Also, contact with or drippage from 
sprayed foliage is of importance in the consideration of total exposure routes. 

The liability problems could be decreased if there were proper standards 
and regulations set up to minimize the human error factor associated with 
such incidents. As the House Committee on Agriculture stressed in 1947, in 
support of the FIFRA, "a great measure of protection can be accorded di- 
rectly through the prevention of injury, rather than having to resort solely to 
the imposition of sanctions for damage after injury has been done."''^ There 
is no way that an applicator of pesticides can anticipate unforeseeable, inter- 
vening or superseding causes, acts of God and the like, injuries sustained due 
to those conditions are, under our present legal reasoning, dismissed as the 
price a few must pay for living in an organized society which is constantly 
attempting to improve its condition.*'' However, experience has shown that 
statutes and ordinances, when vigorously enforced, reduce or even eliminate a 
great number of the injuries that might have occurred absent any clearly 
defined legal guidelines.'"' Where injuries still occur despite statutory 
safeguards, common law principles are usually sufficient to deal with them. 

It has been recognized that due care must be exercised by the applicator to 
see that weather conditions are correct, the time of day is right and the actual 
application is accomplished in such a way that the person or property of 
another or wildlife is not harmed.'*' To insure safety, some state laws require 
due notice of impending spray operations. ■*-' 

Normally, the owner of the premises being sprayed is liable for any 
damage caused to persons, their property or wildlife.'*' When a property 
owner hires a custom applicator to spray his fields, the rules applicable to 



88. H. R. 313, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). 

89. Of great importance to the pesticide cases involving spraying operations is the principle 
that the defendant is to be held knowledgeable of weather conditions in a particular area. W. 
Prosser, The Law of Torts 3 1 2 (3d ed. 1964). 

90. When injuries occur due to the use of a pesticide in violation of a law or ordinance, the 
negligence of the defendant may become irrebuttable and negligence "per se" liability may re- 
sult. For instance, failure to label as required by law has resulted in negligence "per se" liabil- 
ity in at least two cases. Gonzalez v. Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co., 239 F. Supp. 567 
(E.D.S.C. 1965); Perry Creek Cranberry Corp. v. Hopkins Agr. Chem. Co., 29 Wise. 2d 429, 
l39N.W.2d96(1966).5^fa/5o W. Prosser, The Law of Torts 141 (3ded. 1964). 

91. See 3 Am. Jur. 2d Agriculture § 47 (1962). See also Hearings on S. Res. 288. supra 
note 47, pt. 1 1, at 2463 (1964). 

92. Jeanes v. Holtz, 94 Cal. App. 2d 826, 211 P.2d 925 (1949); Brown v. Sioux City, 
242 Iowa 1 196,49 N.W.2d853 (1951). 

93. See cases cited supra note 83. For Federal Agricultural Aircraft Operations, see 14 
C.F.R.§ 137(1968). 



3658 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 375 

principals and agents make him liable for all the torts oi the sprayer which 
occur in the course of business, especially when ultrahazardous or inherently 
dangerous activity is involved.''^ Therefore the landowner may be liable in 
damages if he should hire an applicator who negligently sprays pesticides or 
allows drift to occur from his operations. In such a case, the applicator also 
may be jointly liable with the property owner who hired him, and this joint 
responsibility can be of importance to a plaintiff since the landowner may be 
judgment proof while the applicator may have or may be required under state 
laws to possess sufficient financial responsibility.'*' 

Most jurisdictions do characterize aerial spraying as an ultrahazardous 
activity."*' Such activity carries with it the burden of using the highest degree 
of care and can impose absolute liability upon the landowner for any injury 
to a person which is caused by the use of that sort of pesticide.'*' In such a 
case, the injured party may readily recover damages without a showing of 
negligence when he himself is free of any contributory negligence or did not 

94. "The agriculturalist or farmer may not delegate the work of dusting or spraying a crop 

with poisonous insecticides to an independent contractor [or agent] and thus [completely] avoid 
liability." 3 Am. Jur. 2d Agriculture § 47 (1962). See McKennon v. Jones. 219 Ark. 671, 244 
S.W.2d 138 (1951); Pendergrass v. Lovelace, 57 N.M. 661, 262 P.2d 231 (1953); Burke v. 
Thomas, 313 P.2d 1082 (Okla. 1957); Alexander v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 221 S.C. 477, 71 
S.li.2d 299 (1952). The ultrahazardous nature of aerial application is underlined by the unusual 
number of spray plane crashes in the United States. Such crashes hint at self poisoning as a 
cause. Since 1951 there have been from three hundred to four hundred crashes annually with 
thirty to fifty deaths. The accident rate is three times as high as other commercial flying. Reich 
& Berner, Aerial Application Accidents, 1963-1966; An Analysis of the Principal Factors (to 
be published in Arch, of Environ. Health 1968). 

95. See 12 A.L.R.2d 436, 444 (1950). See also cases cited supra note 83; Sanders v. 
Beckwith, 79 Ariz. 67, 283 P.2d 235 (1955) (operator and landowner liable); Southwestern Bell 
Tel. Co. V. Smith, 220 Ark. 223, 247 S.W.2d 16 (1952) (operator and employer liable); Parks v. 
Atwood Crop Dusters, Inc., 1 18 Cal. App. 2d 368, 257 P.2d 653 (1953); Kentucky Aerospray, 
Inc. V. Mays, 251 S.W.2d 460 (Ky. 1952); Aerial Sprayers, Inc. v. Yerger Hill & Son, 306 
S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Civ. App. 1957) (operator and landowner liable); Miller v. Maples, 278 
S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954). Manufacturers may be joined as third party defendants 

under the Uniform Contribution Among Tort Feasors Act which is the law of many states. 

96. See note 80, supra. See also Yuill, Isler & Childress, Research on Aerial Spraying. 1952 
The Yearbook of Agricuiture 252. To demonstrate the amount of aerial application taking 
place in the United States, consider the official LA A aerial application flight hours logged in 
1962: (a) monoplane: 476,966 hours; (b) biplane: 444,377 hours; (c) helicopter: 22,973. This 
gives a total in 1962 of 944,316 hours flown, it has been estimated that presently, over 1,000,000 
hours are llown annually. Reich & Berner, supra note 94. See also note 56, supra: Hearings on S. 
Res. 2<VtV, supra note 47. pt. 10. at 2171 (1964); Billings. Medical and Lnvironniental Problems 
in Agricultural Aviation, 34 Aerospace Medicine 406 (1963); Bruggink, Barnes & Gregg, 
Injury Reduction Trends in Agricultural .Aviation. 35 Aerospace Medicine 472 (1964). 

97. It is well to note the opinion of at least two legal scholars. "As the sprays have become 
better known, their obvious utility militates against imposing strict liability while their high 



3659 



^76 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • HMORY LAW SCHOOL 

assume the risk of pesticide exposure.''" The landowner is liable even if the 
sprayer is considered to be an independent contractor because the duty of 
care in the ultrahazardous spraying of highly poisonous substances cannot be 
delegated from the owner to the sprayer.'"' The same legal consequences 
apparently would follow in connection with crops or vegetation when an 
injurious herbicide is applied resulting in an injury or loss to the plant life on 
nearby property.'"" These injuries can be prevented by intelligent use and 
application of pesticides, with an awareness of the possible injurious effects 
of those materials on the surrounding environment.'"' 

('. Structural h.xtcrniinalion 

Another area involving pesticide liability deals directly with the question of 
an exterminator or pest control operator's responsibility for personal injury 
or death.'"' While most of the cases hold that the liability of one in the 
fumigation or pest control business depends upon a showing of negligence, 
several have held and still others have suggested that, by reason of the 
inherent danger of the operations, the applicator is absolutely liable without 
proof of negligence.'"- Since many jurisdictions now outlav\ such highly 
poisonous substances as sodium fluoroacetate for rat control and 
hydrocyanic gas for general pest extermination, substitute compounds and 

potential lor harm argues tor it. It is not clear what the ultimate doctrine will be but it is likely 
that most plaintilTs will recover on one theory or another ...."" 2 T. Harpi r & F. Jwii s. Law 
oi Torts ^ 14.16 (I9.>6). Sec W Prossi r. Tin 1 aw oi Torfs 519 (3ded. 1964). I or absolute 
liability in cases involving toxaphene injury to fish, see Kentucky Aerospace, Inc. v. Mays, 251 
S.W.2d46U(Ky. I962l. 

98. See W. Prossi R. Tin Law oi Torts 426, 450 (3d ed. 1964). In some slates 
contributory negligence may not be a defense to ultrahazardous activity, while in most states, 
assumption of risk is available as a defense regardless of the nature of the activity. See also Loe 
V. Lenhardt. 227 Ore. 242, 362 P.2d3l2 (1961) (strict liability of aerial sprayer). 

99. See note 94, supra: McKennon v. Jones. 219 Ark. 671, 244 S.W.2d 138 (1951); 
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Smith. 220 Ark. 223, 247 S.W.2d 16 (1952); Alexander v. .Sea- 
board Air Line Ry., 221 S.C. 477. 71 S.b.2d 299 (1952); 2 F. Harpf-r & F. Jamis. Law oi 
Torts § 14.16(1956). 

100. .SV<' Gotreaux v. Gary. 232 La. 373. 94 So. 2d 293 (1957); I rahan v. Bearb. 138 So. 2d 
420(La. App. 1962). 

101. See Wolfe & Durham, Sajeiy in ilie L se oj Pesticides. Pr<)( . oi THF SicoND F. 
Wash. FtRT. & Pest. Conf. 14 (1966). 

102. See Luthringer v. Moore. 31 Cal. 2d 489. 190 P.2d 1 (1948); Holland v. St. Paul 
Mercury Ins. Co., 135 So. 2d 145 (La. App. 1961); F.llis v. Orkin Fxterminating C o. 24 I enn. 
App. 279. l43S.VV.2d 108 ( 1940). .Sec «/^^^ Chisholm. Ihc \atttre ancIL ses oJ Itiiiiiganis. 1952 
Tni Yi vKBook oi \GRi(LiTiRi 331. Although not directly dealing with pest control 
operators, general household insecticide spray can interpretations are found in 7 C.I .R. 
§§ 362.113-117(1968). 

103. Luthringer V. Moore. 31 Cal. 2d 489, 190 P.2d 1 (1948), 



3660 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 377 

methods of greater safety may serve to change the strict liability standards 
enunciated by some courts. In some instances, such as contributory 
negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs assumption of risk or 
even the case of a person's trespassing upon fumigated property, pest control 
operators, otherwise negligent, were found not liable. However, both the 
owner of the property and the exterminator may be liable for a failure to 
warn a tenant or other person who has a right to be on the property of the use 
of pesticides.'"^ The dangers revolving around the use of pesticides in 
structures are potent, especially when tenants are present during minor 
applications or are allowed to return too soon after a major extermination 
job has been done. Exterminators are required in some jurisdictions by 
statute or common law to know the nature and effect of the pesticides they 
use. A showing of the lack of such knowledge coupled with a resultant injury 
may be sufficient to constitute negligence and justify recovery for the 
plaintiff. 

No less important are the problems created by a few unscrupulous 
exterminating companies which have been known to defraud the home owner 
in a variety of ways. False estimates of the costs and the gravity of infestation 
by termites, rats and other pests can result in serious financial outlays by the 
unwitting consumer. Partial or incomplete control of pests which necessitates 
repeat applications and ineffective control of particular problems are other 
difficulties which have required legal action. 

For the most part, however, pest control operators do excellent work of 
great importance to the community. Self-regulation by pest control 
operators' associations and statutory control by some states and 
municipalities help insure the quality of their work. 

IV. Pesticide Contamination in Transit 

One of the most extreme consequences of the increased use of pesticides is 
the spillage or leakage of poisonous compounds in transit, resulting in the 
contamination of other goods and the subsequent poisoning of man and 
animals. While there are several instances of such poisoning reaching 
epidemic proportions, it is possible that even more minor cases have 
occurred, the generation and effect of which have been labeled unknown both 
in cause and symptomology. The recent poisonings in Mexico and Colombia 
involving parathion contamination of sugar and Hour are graphic, up to date 
examples of what has happened in the past and may happen again absent a 
review of statutory adequacy. 

104. 12 tJ.^. Poisons.^ 5(1951). 



3661 



378 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

The obvious difficulties in cases of contamination, from both a scientific 
and legal viewpoint, are the cause of the contamination, the tracing of the 
poisoned agent and the eventual isolation of the affected commodities. Even 
more difficult, however, are those problems concerning public awareness and 
medical diagnosis. Many occurrences have been diagnosed incorrectly, at 
least initially, or victims have failed to report less serious cases because of 
self-diagnosis of infiuenza, stomach upset or simply lack of concern for 
personal or familial well-being. The subtlety of pesticide contamination and 
the almost passive faith of the average consumer in wholesome and non- 
contaminated goods create underlying concern in this area. 

Often, the cause of contamination has been found to be spillage or leakage 
of pesticide containers directly or indirectly on the agent. Also, with some 
frequency, spillage took place while in transit or at the time of loading or 
unloading. Evidence of such occurrences is, however, largely circumstantial 
in nature and direct evidence usually consists only of post-spillage 
observation of stains on packages, unusual odors and causative relationships 
between particular agents and the subsequent injuries. Persistence of 
contamination leads to a great many problems in tracing the source and 
cause of poisonings. Some pesticides have the characteristic of persistence in 
almost any environment; therefore, many months and miles may separate 
cause and effect in a poisoning case. In circumstances where cause and effect 
are only remotely connected, tracing and isolation as well as treatment of 
victims are often matters of conjecture. An investigator is faced with loosely 
connecting effects from an unknown cause.'"^ From this, it is not difficult to 
assume that there may have been many instances of widely scattered 
poisonings about which no causal linkage can be determined. 

If contamination in goods were more easily detectable and consumers on a 
world-wide basis were more aware of everyday hygienic safeguards, perhaps 
this concern would be alleviated. Universal problems, such as disregard or 
simple non-recognition of poisoned food and clothing, and ignorance of the 
dangers involved in the use and handling of pesticides will continue to be 
matters of grave importance. 

The legal difficulties resulting from in transit contamination are obvious 
from a study of specific examples. 

A. Examples oj In Transit Contamination 
Typically, cases of pesticide poisoning by way of contamination strike 

105. For an account of investigatory procedures, see F. Tanner & L. Tanner, Food- 
Borne Infections and Intoxications 15-23 (1953); Tanner, Procedure for the 
Investigation of Food- Borne Disease Outbreaks (1966). 



3662 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 379 

quickly and without warning. Suddenly hospitals and clinics are beseiged by 
a steady stream of people suffering from any one or all of the pesticide 
poisoning symptoms: nausea, headache, weakness, dizziness and collapse 
with convulsions, loss of consciousness, coma, areflexia and flaccid 
paralysis. In most cases, a common source of symptoms is identified; usually 
food, and most often bread made with contaminated flour, turns out to be the 
agent for the poisoning. One toxicologist has stated that although in most 
instances contamination has involved food, "the chemical deposits had little 
or nothing to do with residues in the usual sense."'"- So far as is known, no 
cases of illness of even a minor degree have resulted from eating food treated 
with pesticides according to label directions which correspond to accepted 
tolerances. 

One group of recent poisonings was surrounded by a mixture of irony and 
coincidence. On June 3-5 and again on July 2-4, 1967, the City of Ad 
Dawhah (Doha), the capital of the oil-rich Sheikdom of Qatar, situated on 
a point of land off of the Saudi Arabian peninsula, was the scene of two 
separate pesticide epidemics. A total of twenty-four deaths and an estimated 
seven hundred illnesses occurred as a result of contamination of flour by the 
pesticide endrin. Bread of differing types was traced to a number of bakeries, 
which in turn traced their stock of tlour to a ship of German registry, in New 
Orleans on March 18, 1967, the vessel had loaded ten thousand gallons of 
endrin bound for Khorramshahr, Iran, in Houston, on the 24th of March, 
the boat was loaded with three thousand bags of Hour from a New York 
company bound for Doha. The endrin was stored on deck above the flour. 
After some Mediterranean stops and the voyage through the Suez Canal, the 
endrin was unloaded at Khorramshahr on May 14. There it was noticed that 
two pails were completely empty and that seventeen were leaking. Port 
authorities and those on board the ship made note of this, but apparently no 
further check was made for contamination of other cargo, hinally, the flour 
was unloaded at Doha on the 22nd of May. 

in twelve days, the flour as bread was disseminated throughout Doha and 
into the homes of the victims. At first, when officials saw clear indications of 
massive illness, the local water supply was suspected: however, the common 
agent, bread, was soon discovered. In the midst of the investigation and quite 
suddenly, second and third mass poisonings took place in Doha two months 
later on July 2-4. After a full investigation in which deadly amounts of 
endrin were discovered in grain warehouses, the pieces began to fall in place. 
Sometime and somehow the matter is still one of conjecture the same 

106. Hayes, Epidemiology oj Pesticides. Proc. of rue Short Coursi on thi 
Occupational Health Aspects of Pesticides 109, 1 12 (E. Link & R. Whitakereds. 1964). 



3663 



380 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • HMORV LAW SCHOOL 

flour as was evenlually implicated in the June incidents was placed below the 
endrin and was contaminated with the pesticide while the bags were being 
loaded at Houston, during the voyage or while the pails were unloaded at 
Khorramshahr. The problem of circumstantial versus direct evidence is 
paramount in this instance. There is no direct evidence that any public 
health or other governmental official was contacted about or had know- 
ledge of the spillage. 

The fourth major occurrence in this chain of events is one which is 
remarkably similar and ironic in its agent. On July 14 and 15, 1967, in the 
town of Hofhuf (Al HufuO, Hastern Province, Saudi Arabia, not far from 
Doha, another epidemic of equal proportions took place. The same 
pesticide, endrin, was found responsible for contamination of flour which 
was eaten as bread. Over Ave hundred illnesses were reported, but only two 
deaths resulted. A detailed investigation took place again, the suspected 
bakeries were found and unused bags of contaminated flour were confiscated 
and held for testing. Ironically, the flour was again identified as that 
manufactured by the same New York company; however, this shipment was 
carried on a Greek ship. This vessel had loaded 2,560 bags of flour on April 
26th in New Orleans and stored them in the lower number \"\vq hold. 
Proceeding with the voyage. 123 tons of endrin in drums were loaded in New 
York and by May 10, the vessel was at sea again. As in the first incident, the 
endrin was placed on deck directly above the flour. On May 29, six tons of 
endrin were unloaded at Aqaba, Jordan. There was no note made of any 
spillage or leaking at that point. At Khorramshahr on the 23rd of June, 1 17 
tons, the balance of the endrin, was unloaded. Unlike the case of the German 
vessel, there is no record nor any reason to suspect discovery of leakage or 
spillage of endrin at that particular point in the trip. Contamination must 
have taken place, however, sometime between May 10 and June 23; only at 
these times were both commodities together. On June 29 on arrival at Ad 
Dammam, Saudi Arabia, the main port for Hotliuf, there were noted a 
number of malodorous and stained flour sacks throughout the 2,650 being 
unloaded. There is no report of any further action taken after this discovery. 
Perhaps none was merited since initially the odor and stains were attributed 
to water splash and decomposition. The captain of the Greek ship did report, 
however, that they had experienced ''heavy seas" during the voyage. A 
marine protest in the nature of an action for damages due to oil and water 
was filed at that point. The failure to note or claim damages for any pesticide 
damage is unexplained. 

From Dammam the flour was presumably hauled overland some eighty 
miles to Hofhuf. There, fifteen days later, the third set of mass poisonings 
took place. In Hotliuf, quicker medical attention probably saved the lives of 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 20 



3664 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 38 1 

many. As in the Doha incidents, the legal cause cannot be determined except 
circumstantially. However, it must be noted again that the endrin was stored 
above the flour, thus bringing in gravity, stormy seas, possible rough 
handling, poor packing and sealing as feasible causative factors.'"^ 

The Middle- Eastern incidents point up the need for consideration of more 
stringent controls over the in-transit status of pesticides in the United States 
and the reporting of contamination detection. Such action has begun on the 
federal level and can be based in the future on local and state as well as 
international levels. However, these controls cannot be established solely on a 
unilateral basis; there must be a strong, enforceable and compatible 
multilateral approach to this problem. The need for multilateral support is 
evidenced by the documented case histories of pesticide epidemics caused by 
contamination in transit which have been scattered in many parts of the 
world. 

Possibly the most famous and most disastrous pesticide epidemic occurred 
in Kerala, India, between April 13 and May 31, 1958. There were in this 
incident more than 380 cases of parathion (or ''FolidoT') poisoning with 102 
deaths."" Contamination of food resulted from the leakage of twelve gallons 
of parathion over large consignments of food and cattle feed while in transit 
on the vessel .S.^". Jai Hind, it is interesting to note that "although the 
[containers] . . . were labelled 'Poison' in bold types in red ink, in the 
shipping documents they had been declared 'harmless chemical.' "'"'' One 
possible reason that so many people died is that quick medical attention was 
not available to all the victims, in addition, local health authorities were not 
alerted initially, even though insurance agents did investigate and make 
assessments on the losses."" it was not until much of the Hour had been 
delivered, baked and eaten with disastrous results that authorities were able 
to trace the causative agent and isolate it completely. 

Here, the need for ample rules and regulations concerning prompt 
reporting (with appropriate penalties for failure to report) is well illustrated. 



107. Sec Weeks, Endrin hvod Poisoning, 37 Bull. World HhALTH Org. 499 (1967). 
Even though storing near food is discouraged, it is remarkable to note that not only does the 
very detailed merchant guide of the British Board of Trade omit endrin, but also it suggests 
that pesticides in general be stored on or under deck. Contra. 46 C.l-.R. § i46.25-.450)(3) 
(1968). The government of Qatar in 1968 enacted a new set of regulations. Now. all foodstuffs 
must be fully labeled with pertinent information concerning the country of origin, address of 
exporter, type of commodity, weight, etc., as well as the warning words. "STOW AWAY 
FROM CHHMICALS." 

108. Karunakaran, Ihc Kcnda hood Poisoning. 31 J. Indiw MA. 204 (1958). 

109. /J. at 204. 

110. Id. 



3665 



382 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

In most instances, the shipper will report damage to his insurance company. 
A regulation requiring shippers to report incidents of this sort is one method 
by which enforcement and surveillance could be maintained over such events. 
Also, rules requiring insurance companies to report claims may be another 
separate and additional means by which these events can come to the 
attention of authorities. In addition, proper and adequate labeling, a concern 
of the United States Department of Agriculture in interstate or foreign 
commerce, must be effectively enforced. 

On February 16-18, 1961, a mass poisoning with violent symptoms took 
place among crew members of a Liberian ship at the Polish port of Gdansk. 
Twelve cases of acute dieldrin poisoning were reported, none of which were 
fatal.'" While this occurrence does not follow the classic epidemiological 
patterns, in that the sailors' food stores were poisoned by their own 
negligence, it does illustrate the distinct probability that spillage and 
contamination were caused by the action of the sea. The recommendations of 
one study are interesting if not somewhat extreme: 

[D]ue to numerous reports on cases of poisoning of man and ani- 
mals, a tendency is now being exhibited towards limiting the use of 
insecticides of great invasiveness and toxicity, as for instance 
Dieldrin. Therefore such preparations, particularly in form of 
liquids and aerosol should be withdrawn from free sale. They can 
be applied in cases of real necessity and by qualified personnel 
keeping strictly to security regulations."^ 

While somewhat impractical in their legal viewpoint, these suggestions do 
illustrate the need for additional controls over pesticide use and storage, 
especially in a mobile environment which lacks stability. 

In Fresno, California, in the fall of 1961, six children fell victims to one of 
the most bizarre pesticide contamination poisonings on record. Several 
physicians completed a detailed case history of two young boys out of this 
group who suffered phosdrin poisoning by wearing unwashed contaminated 
blue jeans. "^ The jeans had been purchased at a salvage sale and had been 
involved in a truck spillage incident approximately eight months earlier. 
Meanwhile, the clothing had been stored in an air-conditioned warehouse. 

111. Przyborowski, Rychard & Tyrakowski, Mass Poisoning on a Ship Caused by the 
Insecticide Dieldrin, 13 Bull. Inst. Marine Med. Gdansk. 185, 186 (1962). See Waterman 
Steamship Corp. v. Snow, 222 K. Supp. 892 (D. Ore. 1963), affdsub nom. General Ace. Kire & 
Life Assur. Corp. v. Snow, 33 1 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1964) (ship's hold sprayed with insecticide). 

1 12. Przyborowski, supra note 1 1 1, at 188. 

113. Warren, Conrad, Bocian & Hayes, Clothing-Borne Epidemic, 184 JAMA. 266 
(1963). 



3666 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 383 

This case demonstrates the persistence of pesticides. Again, there was ample 
information to raise suspicion about the unsafe quality of the clothing; 
official insurance claims were filed for spilled phosdrin, and stained jeans. 
However, there is no record of any authority being notified of the accident. 
Definite rules, first to outlaw storage of pesticides near articles for human 
and animal consumption or human direct exposure and second to require 
prompt reporting of even minor spillages, overflows and leaks, are needed on 
both the local, national and international level. 

Another epidemic has been reported involving persistence of the insecticide 
endrin."^ In the rural district of Pontardawe, Wales, on May 2, 1956, forty- 
nine people came to local physicians' offices and hospitals with sudden onsets 
of pesticide poisoning, it was quickly ascertained that bread rolls were the 
common agent of contamination and the ultimate source was a shipment of 
one hundred sacks of fiour, at least two of which had been heavily saturated 
with endrin. Over three gallons of endrin had been spilled in a rail delivery 
wagon later used for transport of the fiour. The leakage occurred more than 
two months before the contamination took place. The fiour was placed on the 
vehicle fioor and there large quantities of the pesticide were absorbed by the 
bags. This case amply re-illustrates the remarkable persistence of certain 
compounds and the need for close inspection of carriers which transport 
articles for human use and consumption. 

An important parathion epidemic in Malaysia occurred on September 6 
and 7, 1959.'" This incident involved thirty-eight poisonings, including 
thirty-five children and three adults. A total of nine deaths resulted, all 
children, in this instance, the usual occurrence took place, "the younger the 
child the more susceptible he was to toxic effects."'" The agent for the 
poisoning was barley which was believed contaminated by spillage of 
parathion while both were in transit to Singapore on a cargo boat. Although 
these findings were not conclusive, no contamination was found to have 
taken place either at the loading or unloading points. However, one fact is 
certain: contamination was confined to the loose barley shipment of two 
hundred bags. One bag out of this lot, in fact, was deemed the ultimate 
causative agent for seven of the nine deaths.'" The situation could have 
been much worse; quick action minimized the tragedy. 



114. Davies & Lewis, Outbreak of Food- Poisoning from Bread Made of Chemically 
Contaminated Hour. 2 Brit. Med. J. 393 (1956). 

115. Kanagaratnam, Boon & Hoy, Parathion Poisoning From Contaminated Barley, 1 
Lancet 538 (1960). 

116. W. at 541. 

117. W. at 542. 



3667 



384 JOLRNAI OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

The immediate control measure of wide publicity to prevent the 
public from taking barley in any form effectively prevented further 
cases. This gave the health authorities time to carry out field 
investigations and seal off stocks of contaminated barley. The 
chemical findings were invaluable in establishing the causal agent. 
Qualitative and quantitative analyses suggest that the barley had 
been accidentally contaminated by spilling or other local contact. 
Rapid transmission of information to the Federation of Malaya 
prevented the occurrence of cases there, though bags of 
contaminated barley were found.'" 

Coordination and cooperation of officials, hospitals, field workers and 
chemists were the deciding factors averting a larger scale tragedy in this 
instance. 

One of the more interesting cases of poisoning epidemics occurred in 
Vancouver, British Columbia, in March of 1964. Canadian physicians 
studied in detail the case histories of two young boys poisoned by 
contaminated Hannelette bed sheets."" The contamination took place on 
board a ship which carried paralhion and bales of sheeting in the same hold. 
The investigators concluded that the contamination occurred somewhere in 
transit. The insecticide had been discharged at a California port before 
reaching Vancouver. Marine insurance claims were filed and 594 sheets were 
reported stained or completely contaminated. The insurance officials had the 
bale rappings tested by a commercial laboratory, "which reported the 
presence of a heavy oily substance containing nitrogen but did not identify 
the poison.'"'-" It is noteworthy that there is no evidence that any report was 
made to public health or law enforcement agencies by the shipper, warehouse 
inspectors, insurance adjusters or the testing laboratory. Perhaps the 
laboratory analysis was not conclusive enough to generate suspicion. 
Eventually, therefore, the contaminated sheets were sold to a salvage dealer 
who both resold them and used them for his own family. One of the boys who 
suffered was admitted to the hospital, improved enough to be sent home and 
then, having slept again on the same sheets, relapsed with identical 
symptoms. Once the causative agent was discovered and isolated, he was 
soon cured. Initial diagnoses were general; although anti-cholinesterase 
poisoning was suspected, no evidence supported this conclusion until the 
causative agents were discovered. 



118. Id. 

119. Anderson, Paralhion Poisoning hront Flannelette Sheets. 92 Canad. Med. 
Ass'n J. 809(1965). 

120. /a'. at8U. 



3668 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 385 

The following three points seem worthy of comment: 
(1) The value of close contact between the health officer and the 
practising physician is underlined. (2) The value of a public health 
network covering municipality, metropolitan area, province, 
nation and other involved nations is apparent. (3) The need for 
national and international regulations covering the manufacture, 
transport and handling of these deadly substances is paramount. 
[emphasis added].'-' 

Another study'- concerned endrin poisoning of three Egyptians in July of 
1966. Again, flour made into bread was the causative agent. Contamination, 
although there is some conjecture on this point, was due to spillage in transit 
of the insecticide on flour bags. Quick medical diagnosis and treatment led to 
recovery of the victims and isolation of the agent. This case is another which 
follows the classic lines and yet again reinforces the need for more strict 
control of interstate and foreign shipping of dangerous substances.'-^ 

B. Federal Laws Concerning the Transportation of Pesticides 

The Interstate Commerce Commission historically has controlled the 
transportation of all dangerous articles, whether they are explosive, 
poisonous or radioactive. With the creation of the Department of 
Transportation, regulation of these materials in transit fell to that new 
agency and its Hazardous Materials Regulations Boards. '-■" 

The basic regulations over the shipment of pesticides are enforced by way 
of criminal fines and imprisonment for lack of or improper information as to 
the "true character" of the "dangerous article(s)'' shipped in interstate or 
foreign commerce.'-- The statute makes unlawful "any false or deceptive 
marking, description, invoice, shipping order or declaration'' pertaining to 



121. W.at812. 

122. Coble, Hildrebrandt, Davis, Raasch & Curley, Acute Hndrin Poisoning. 202 
J.A.M.A. 489 (1967). 

123. V. Tanner & L. Tannhr. FooD-BoRNt iNrtcriONs and Intoxications (1953) 
cites numerous chemically caused food poisonings. Most of these either do not involve transpor- 
tation of food and pesticides together or nothing is known as to the cause of contamination. 

124. .S£v49C.F.R. § 170(1968); 32 Fed. Reg. 16437 (1967). 

125. 18 U.S.C. § 833 (1964); 49 C.F.R. § 171.2 (1968). Further regulations found in 49 
C.F.R. § 171 (l968)arepromulgated underthc authority of 18 U.S.C. § 834 (1964). For an ex- 
cellent discussion of the possible strict civil liability of the shipper or carrier of dangerous 
goods, see Markus. Transporiaiion u/Dangerous C oniniodilies. Pkrsonai Injury Annual 
(1964). 



3669 



386 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

the character of a "dangerous article."'-*' All packages containing 
"dangerous articles" shipped in interstate or foreign commerce must be 
plainly marked on the outside of the container.'-' "Dangerous articles" are 
included in a commodity list, all of which are subject to further regulation.'-* 
Each article is classified,'-" listed for packing specifications,"" listed for 
exemptions,'^' further enumerated for labeling required"- and delineated as to 
the allowable maximum quantity other than some specific poisons in one 
outside container shipped by rail express.'" Any article not described under 
the commodity list "must be prepared and offered for shipment in 
compliance with the regulations for the group within which it is properly 
classified. "'^^ Therefore, while many of the common pesticides are listed 
under the schedule of dangerous articles, some of those not specifically 
treated are brought under control by the broad definition of "class A" or 
"extremely dangerous poisons": "poisonous gases or liquids of such nature 
that a very small amount of the gas, or vapor of the liquid, mixed with air is 
dangerous to life."'^' These class A poisons are controlled by strict packing 
regulations. They may not be offered for transportation by rail express."'' 
Nor may class A poisons be loaded into or transported in any cargo tank.'" 
It is not permissible to transport a class A poison if there are any 
interconnecting means between the containers."* Proper precautionary 
closing and cushioning is required as well as precise cylinder design if such 
packing is used.'^'^ Those class A poisons not specifically described have 
general packing regulations while those described on the commodity list have 
more specific and precise methods governing them.'""- 

Less dangerous poisons, class B, are those "known to be so toxic to man 
as to afford a hazard to health during transportation, or which, in the ab- 



126. I8U.S.C.§ 833(1964);49C.K.R.§ 171.2(1968). 

127. I8U.S.C.§ 833 (1964); 49C.K.R.§ 171.2(1968). 

128. 49C.F.R.§ 172.5(1968). 

129. 5<'£'49C.F.R, § 172.4 (1968) tor classifications and 49 C.F.R. § 173.325 (1968) for 
classes of poisonous articles. 

130. 5fe'49C.F.R. §§ 1 73. 326-. 96 (1968) (poisonous compounds packing specifications). 

131. Id. 

132. 49C.K.R.§ 172.5(1968). 

133. Id. 

134. 49C.h.R. § 172.2(1968). 

135. 49C.K.R. § 173.326(1968). 

136. Id. 

137. 49C.L.R.ij 173.327(c) (1968). 

138. 49C.I-.R.i} 173.327(d) (1968). 

139. 49C.K.R.§(j 173.327(a), (b),. 34, .301(g) (1968). 

140. .SV('49C.K.R. § 173.328 (1968) lor general specifications. 



3670 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 387 

sence of adequate data on human toxicity, are presumed to be toxic to man" 
because of supporting data on oral toxicity, toxicity by inhalation or toxicity 
by skin absorption to laboratory animals.'^' All class B poisons, which 
contain most of the pesticides except those in class A, namely parathion, 
TEPP and other organo-phosphates with compressed air, are subject to 
certain packing regulations. '■"- Containers for class B poisons must be pro- 
perly sealed and cushioned;'^' containers should not be entirely filled to pre- 
vent leakage due to expansion of the contents;'^^ liquid poison must not be 
loaded into domes of tank cars;'^' and no cargo tank shall be completely 
filled with containers.'^*' Some class B poisons need no special marking for 
outside containers and they are specified on the commodity list as 
"exempt."'^' These same exempt poisons may be shipped in glass or earth- 
ernware containers of a specified size when properly protected from outside 
damage. '""■ The poisons not specified on the commodity list are subject to 
specific packing regulations.'"'* 

Labeling of dangerous article containers is required by the rules with 
standard coloring and lettering clearly specified.'"" Labels for such goods as 
pesticides are diamond shaped with red lettering on a white background and 
include such phrases as: "KEEP AWAY FROM FEED OR FOOD 
PRODUCTS," "KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD PRODUCTS," "IF 
LEAKING DON'T BREATHE FUMES, TOUCH CONTENTS, 
SWALLOW,'' and "IF LEAKINGFUMES MAY BE 
DANGEROUS."''' The shipper must describe the dangerous articles being 
shipped.'" He must certify that these articles are properly described, marked 
and packed in accordance with the regulations.'" The new amendments 
prohibit transportation of pesticides in the same car with food or feed'^"* 
which is not enclosed in hermetically sealed containers, make mandatory 

141. 49C.h.R. § 173.343 (1968) (toxicity tests and standards tor laboratory animals). 

142. See 49 C.F.R. § 173.334 (1968) for parathion and TEPP as well as compressed 
organophosphate packing rules. Class B poisonous liquid rules are found in 49 C.K.R. 
§ 173. 344 (1968); the regulations for solids are in 49 C.K.R. § 173.363 (1968). 

143. 49C.F.R.§§ 173.344, .363(1968). 

144. 49C.h.R.§ 173.344(b)(1) (1968). 

145. /a'. at§ 173.344(b)(3). 

146. /^. at§ 173.344(b). 

147. 49C.K.R.§§ 173.345, .364(1968). 

148. 49C.K.R.§ 173.345(1), (2) (1968). 

149. 49C.K.R. (j 173.346(1968). 

150. 49C.K.R.iji} I73.402-.404. .409(1968). 

151. 49C.h.R.§§ 173.409(a)(2), (b)(1) (1968). 

152. 49 C.F.R. § 173.427(1968). 

153. 49 C.F.R. § 173.430(1968). 

154. 49C.F.R.§§ I74.532(m), 175.655(k)(l968). 



3671 



388 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

inspection and cleaning of cars used to transport class B poisons,"' and 
require airtight nonpermeable containers for food packaging."" All this is 
designed to supplement package and label warnings with practical rules. 

Rail freight is governed explicitly as to loading, unloading, packing and 
handling of dangerous articles."^ Violations of major proportions, accidents 
and leaking or broken containers are to be reported by the rail carrier to the 
Office of Hazardous Materials of the Department of Transportation and to 
the Bureau of Explosives.'-'* Any violations are punished by fines not over 
$1,000 and/ar imprisonment for one year.'-" An extensive chart explains 
what dangerous articles can and cannot be loaded, transported or stored 
together."'" Poisonous gases or liquids, in cylinders, projectiles or bombs, for 
instance, cannot be loaded, transported or stored on rail carriers with any 
explosives, ammunition, detonators, fireworks or propellants.'" Rail cars 
must be placarded with specific signs which warn of their contents. '"- 
Placards must state that leaking liquid contents, fumes or vapors should be 
avoided.'"- Hmpty but dangerous tank cars or other vehicles must be posted 
with appropriate warnings.'"^ Tank cars which have contained: 

arsenic, arsenate of lead, sodium arsenate, calcium arsenate. Paris 
green, calcium cyanide, potassium cyanide, sodium cyanide, or 
other poisonous articles, which show any evidence of leakage from 
packages, must be thoroughly cleaned after unloading before cars 
are again placed in service. '"- 

A similar rule is applied to loose powders or other dangerous articles.'"" 



155. 49C.r-.R.J;5^ 174. 566(a)(l )( 1968). 

156. 49C.I-.R.J; 174.655{k) ( 1968). 

157. .S"(r49C.L.R. ^^ I74.5UU-.6U2 (196S). 

158. 49 C.h.R. § 174.508 (1968). Damaged but not leaking goods are forwarded to their 
destination. Leaking packages which are discovered cannot be forwarded until repaired or 
reconditioned and must be safely stored until proper authorities can arrive to investigate. 49 
C.i-.R. ;; 174.588(c) (1968). Leaking tank cars are covered in 49 C.f.R. i} 174.594(1968). 

159. 18 U S.C. ^ 834(0(1964). 

160. 49 C.I .R. i^ 174.538(1968). 

161. Id It IS well to note that in Great Britain, dangerous articles such as pesticides have no 
intermingling restrictions with other dangerous articles. Board of 1 rade. C arriage of Danger- 
ous Goods in Ships (1966). 

162. 49C.I.R.iji^ 174. 540-. 557 (1968). 

163. 49C.h.R.i^§ 174.55 1-.553,. 555-. 557 (1968). 

164. 49C.I-.R. i^ 174.563 (1968). 

165. 49C.l.R.;j 174.566(a) (1968). 

166. 49 C.I R. i; 174.566(c) (1968). Steel rail hoppers which contained poisons of either 
class n-iust be washed out thoroughly after unloading. 49 C .1 .R. i:; 174.566(b) (1968). 



3672 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 389 

More onerous state and local restrictions on acceptance, transportation or 
delivery of dangerous articles preempt any federal sanctions and may be 
imposed upon the carrier.'*'^ Any rail cars fumigated or treated with any 
dangerous liquid or gas must also be appropriately placarded.'"" Handling of 
dangerous articles when unloaded is also covered fully.'"'' 

Cars in a freight train with placards reading " 'POISON GAS,' 
'FLAMMABLE POISON GAS,' or containing poison liquids, class A such 
as the pesticides parathion (compressed gas) and TEPP""" may not be 
transported in a passenger train'^' or in cars adjacent to passenger-occupied 
cabooses or cars."- Class B poisons in like situations require appropriate 
placarding and no occupants.'" Placarded loaded tank cars containing 
dangerous articles may not be handled next to occupied passenger cars, 
certain flatcars, cars placarded "EXPLOSIVES," occupied engines or 
cabooses or cars "loaded with live animals or fowl, occupied by an 
attendant."""* 

Detailed inspection and examinations after accidents occur are 
mandatory."' Leakage discovered in cars containing dangerous articles also 
makes mandatory immediate detailed inspection, identification, cleaning and 
other safety measures."" In case of a wreck, examination, removal and 
isolation of contaminated or dangerous packages or entire cars is ordered.'" 
In case of an accident involving a pesticide, there are new procedures outlined 
for full compliance.'" 

No dangerous articles, namely poisons in class A or B, may be transported 
as rail baggage."" Violation of this rule, rail baggage fires and accidents arc 
to be reported to the Bureau of Explosives immediately."*" 

Dangerous articles may be shipped also by common, contract or private 



167. 49C.K.R.§ 174.575(1968). 

168. 49C.K.R.§ 174.579(b) (1968). 

169. 5rt'49C.K.R.§ 174.586(1968). 

170. 49C.K.R.§ 174. 589(k) (1968). 

171. 49C.K.R.§ 174.589(m)(1968). 

172. 49C.K.R.§ 174.589(m)(l)(1968). 

173. 49C.F.R.§ 174.589(m)(2)(1968). 

174. 49 C.F.R. § 174.589(j) (1968). It is presumed that the same animal cars, if not 
occupied by an attendant, could be placed next to any tank car carrying dangerous articles. 

175. 49C.K.R.§ 174.600(1968). 

176. 49C.F.R.J} 174.597(1968). 

177. 49C.1-.R. § 174.600(1968). 

178. £.g.,49C.K.R. § 177.860(a)(1) (1968). 

179. 49C.K.R.§ 176.702(1968). 

180. 49C.F.R. § 176.707(1968). 



3673 



390 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

motor carriers on the public highway if no violation of the rules occurs."" 
Accidents must be duly reported,"- proper labels must be affixed (for 
instance, blue letters on a white background for class A and B poisons) to 
containers and truckloads,'^' and only dangerous articles on the commodity 
list not forbidden for motor carriers may be transported.'" Care in loading 
arsenicals is stressed"- and no class A poisons may be carried in any cargo 
tank or when their containers are interconnected in any way."**" Poisons of 
any class may not be loaded with explosives of any type, detonators, 
ammunition, fireworks or flammable liquids.'"^ in accidents concerning 
motor carriers and poisons which are "flammable, noxious, or toxic, every 
available means shall be employed in the protection of persons or property or 
in the removal of hazards or wreckage, from congregating in the vicinity."'** 
in motor carriers and cargo tanks "care shall also be taken to prevent any 
poison . . . from contaminating streams or flowing or being spilled into 
sewers, and poison in powdered form from being scattered by wind."'"'^ The 
new regulations outline briefly procedures for notification of pesticide 
spillage or leakage. These rules include investigation, notice, removal of 
goods and decontamination.''"' The regulations end with greatly detailed 
shipping container specifications'" and tank car standards."- it must be un- 
derstood that violations of any of the rules under 49 C.F.R. § 171 are pun- 
ishable by criminal fines and/or imprisonment.'*^' Further similar regulation 
of transportation is accomplished by way of aircraft rules concerning the 
transport of pesticides and food or feed.'''' 

In addition to land and air carriers, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Acf*^ 
has some relevance to the transport of dangerous articles in vessels. Any 
goods of a dangerous character which have been shipped at sea without due 
notice to and consent of the carrier, master or agent of the carrier "may at 



181. 49 C.F.R. § 177.800(1968). 

182. 49 C.F.R. § 177.814(1968). 

183. 49 C.F.R. §§ 177.815, .816, .823(1968). 

184. 49C.F.R.§§ 177.821(c), 172.5(1968). 

185. 49C.F.R.§ 177.841(a) (1968). 

186. 49 C.F.R. § 177.841(b), (c)( 1968). 

187. 49 C.F.R. § 177.848(1968). 

188. 49 C.F.R. § 177.860(1968). 

189. Id. 

190. 49 C.F.R. § 177.860(a)(1) (1968). 

191. 49C.F.R. §§ 178.1 to 178.343-7 (1968). 

192. 49C.F.R. §§ 179.1 to 179.500-18(1968). 

193. 18U.S.C. § 834(0(1964). 

194. 14 C.F.R. § 103.35 (1968); 49 U.S.C.§ 1472(h) (1964). 

195. 46U.S.C.§ 1300(1964). 



3674 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 391 

any time before discharge be landed at any place or destroyed or rendered 
innocuous by the carrier without compensation . . . .'"''"' The shipper is 
liable for damages and expenses arising or resulting from such shipment 
when due notice or consent were not given or secured.'"' If, however, such 
dangerous goods are shipped with notice or consent, such destruction or 
rendering innocuous without liability is permissible when the articles 
"become a danger to the ship or cargo . . . ."''" It is well to note that neither 
the carrier, nor the master is responsible for any loss or damage arising or 
resulting from "wastage in bulk or weight or any other loss or damage 
arising from inherent defect, quality, or vice of the goods . . . .""" Also, the 
carrier may agree with the shipper as to any terms concerning particular 
goods and the carrier's responsibilities and obligations toward them.-"" 

To supplement these laws, the United States Coast Guard has enforcement 
powers concerning any maritime or other statute of the United States.-"' The 
authority of the Coast Guard extends to the high seas and waters over which 
the United States has jurisdiction.-"- The Coast Guard has been given new 
power in connection with pesticide contamination by way of amendments to 
its dangerous cargo regulations.-"' New regulations have clarified the rule 
that dangerous cargo must be stored "away from'' foodstuffs.-""* 

There are other federal and state laws which are designed to alert the user 
as to the proper storage of pesticides. The Interpretations of the Regulations 
for the bnforcement of the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodenticide 
Act state that: 

When an economic poison [pesticide] is intended for use on or 
around feed or food products and contamination with harmful 
residues may occur, the label should bear specific statements 
adequate to avoid danger of contaminating such feed or 
foodstuffs.-"- 

Appropriate labels are also required in food handling establishments.-"' Most 
pesticides are required by the Regulations to have food or feed-oriented 

196. 46U.S.C.§ 1304(a)(b)(1964). 

197. Id. 

198. Id. 

199. 46U.S.C.§ 1304(a)(2)(m)(1964). 

200. 46U.S.C. § 1306(1964). 

201. 33U.S.C. §§ 2.05 to 5.0 (1964). 

202. Id. 

203. 46C,K.R.§§ 146. 25-.45(i), .50(a). 200 (1968). 

204. 46C.K.R.§ 146. 25-.45(j) (1968). 

205. 7C.K.R.§ 362.1 16(c)(2) (1968). 

206. Id. 



3675 



392 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

labeling which includes warnings not to store near or contaminate those 
products.-"' However, such economic poisons as chloropicrin, coaltar 
creosote, the cyanides, dalapon, 2,4-D, ferban, thiodan, maneb, mercury, 
methyl bromide, TEPP, warfarin and zineb, as well as others, require no 
specific acceptable labeling concerning the storage near or contamination of 
food or feed.-'" Even though several of these are highly toxic compounds and 
have, under the interpretations, certain detailed precautionary statements 
suggested for use on their labels, there are no suggestions as to food or feed 
contamination or proximity warnings. While manufacturers are obligated 
"to use any added warning, caution or antidote statements which any special 
characteristics or uses of his formulation indicate to be necessary,"-"'' there is 
no assurance that the possibility of spillage of leakage on feed or food will be 
covered by such additional warnings. 

Other regulations concerning pesticides and food are those in the Federal 
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) which set tolerances for pesticide 
chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities.-'" Also, the regulation of 
food additives has some importance in this area.-" The tolerance concepts in 
the pesticide residue regulations are important ones to consider when there 
may be legal implications in a contamination poisoning. While the spirit of 
the tolerance system is meant to dictate and limit the commodity residues 
which occur by way of natural agricultural pest control activities, those 
food or feed products which are contaminated in transit may also violate 
tolerance requirements and subject shipments to seizure and condemnation 
proceedings as well as other penalties for adulteration.-'- Also, the FDCA 
may come into effect if food is adulterated by spillage of pesticides while in a 
warehouse. If the food remains in an unopened package, it may still be in the 
stream of interstate commerce and thus subject to the adulteration and 
seizure sections of the Act. 

C. State Laws Concerning the Transportation oj Pesticides 

State action generally has not been taken to meet the potential hazards of 
pesticide contamination of other commodities in transit, regardless of the 
more numerous means by which safe shipment could be enforced on the state 
level. Rules concerning commerce are the most ideal avenue for enforcement. 



207. 7C.F.R.§ 362.1 16(d) (1968). 

208. Id. 

209. Id. 

210. 21U.S.C. § 346a (1964); 21 C.K.R.§ 120.1(1968). 

211. See2\ U.S.C. § 348(1964). 

212. 21 U.S.C. § 334(1964). 



3676 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 393 

Seventeen states have adopted rules and regulations designed after or 
corresponding to the federal regulations governing dangerous materials. 
These rules could be amended easily to correspond further with the interstate 
safeguards enacted early in 1968.'" State rules and regulations dealing with 
food adulteration and tolerances may be another means by which safe 
carriage of pesticides might be accomplished. Finally, pesticide use and 
application laws, peculiar generally to the states, are other fertile areas for 
legislation designed to encourage the proper shipment of dangerous 
materials. 

Some of the state laws in the last category already have emphasized the 
safe storage of insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides and especially herbicides. 
Several states have rules regarding the storage of herbicides away from seeds, 
fertilizer and vegetation. Other states are more explicit as to the potential 
dangers to human and animal well-being by improper storage. Although 
these laws have great merit, they do not consider pesticide contamination in 
intrastate commerce. Some aerial applicator laws encourage safe transport 
of pesticides with the view of safety in relation to the applicator himself. 
However, these regulations do not consider the problem of safe in-transit 
handling of dangerous articles with respect to their contaminative effect. 

It would appear, therefore, that the most logical means of control on both 
a pragmatic and a jurisdictional plane is to amend intrastate commerce 
rules already in effect. Where there are no dangerous material sections in 
a state's transportation legislation, support of effective rules through exist- 
ing pesticide control laws may be more desirable than legislating anew in 
the transportation area. 

D. The Need for International Control 

As a general rule, fatalities are not common if treatment is begun as 
quickly as practicable. Most fatalities have occurred in patients who were 
very young or very old and feeble. Other fatalities have been due to a number 
of factors beyond the obvious explanation of massive doses, such as, 
complete lack of or inadequate medical attention, incorrect or incomplete 
diagnosis, late recognition of symptoms and severe complications or unusual 
circumstances with particular patients. 



213. The following states have regulations similar to those in 49 C.F.R., but none have, as 
of yet, adopted the new regulations: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida. Idaho, Missouri, Nevada, 
North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, Wyoming, Rhode Island, California, 
Nebraska, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. The regulations, for the most part, are much less 
stringent than the federal counterparts. 



3677 



394 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW • EMORY LAW SCHOOL 

More detailed and extensive state rules and regulations may also be 
needed, however, to prevent injury and loss of life. Regulations on an 
intrastate basis revising storage and stowage plans and locations in vessels, 
rail cars and motor carriers may be desirable. Packing and securing methods 
and techniques should be designed to lessen the possibility of spillage when 
rough and unsteady in-transit conditions are reasonably expected to be 
encountered. New rules concerning safe loading and unloading of dangerous 
substances may also become a practical necessity. Regulations requiring 
immediate examination of surrounding commodities once leakages or 
spillages are discovered can minimize the development of tragedies. 
Insurance inspectors, warehousemen and those responsible for the goods in 
transit must be required to report such occurrences to health officials 
immediately. Inspections before shipment of food and feed stuffs and after 
shipment of pesticides may serve to avert undiscovered hazards. More up to 
date and detailed information concerning pesticides and their contaminative 
effects must be made available for official listing, marking and creating of 
packing specifications, it is also evident that these safeguards must be 
instituted not only on the state level in the United States, but also, by way of 
treaty or agreement, on the international level and within the boundaries of 
other countries themselves. 

Federal reaction to inadequate legislation has been swift in the face of the 
recent rash of pesticide spillages. Greater awareness of the hazards has thus 
led to the new safety amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations of 
the Department of Transportation. The new restrictions deal with class B 
insecticides and their proximity to food and feed. Also, "because of the 
multiple uses of transportation equipment, it [was] considered necessary to 
place a restriction on the reuse of 'such' equipment which has been 
contaminated by the leakage of poisonous liquids or solids . . . until the 
contamination has been removed . . . ."-'"* 

As the popularity and use of pesticides grow in underdeveloped countries, 
the possibilities of incidents of pesticide contamination on board ocean- 
going vessels or carriers within those nations and subsequent poisoning be- 
come more likely. So far, incidents of this sort have been worse in under- 
developed countries, but they have also happened in the more highly de- 
veloped areas. The most efficient methods of developing laws to handle this 
situation may be devised first by improving state and local regulations in the 
United States after the federal example and then developing international 
accord on safety rules among those countries with active merchant fleets 



214. 32 Ked. Reg. 20982(1967). 



3678 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 395 

and trading activities.-'- Such legislation could also present an excellent 
guide for future foreign control of carriers within their own boundaries. 

V. Conclusion 

Existing pesticide laws and common law principles applicable to the use of 
pesticides do a reasonable job of protecting persons and property from 
injury. However, we should not be satisfied with the laws as they stand. 
Improvement is necessary in the administration of present controls. The 
development of some further regulation by way of statutes and rules may be 
necessary in some instances before adequate, useful and practical means are 
made available, thus minimizing pesticide accidents. Statutory control 
should not only regulate, restrict and make unlawful certain acts and 
procedures but also should serve as educational tools to enlighten users, 
sellers, applicators and shippers. Statutes which merely prohibit do serve a 
useful purpose. The reasons for limits on individual activitiy are not always 
obvious to the affected or regulated parties. Statutory language, while not 
necessarily explanatory, should be detailed enough to point out the proper 
means of compliance. Above all, legislative control must be reasonable, 
workable and enforceable. 

It will take years of hard work to obtain relatively uniform and 
comprehensive pesticide labeling, transportation, use and application 
legislation. However, liberal access to the courts and favorable decisions for 
plaintiffs indicate a fertile area of extension of present common law remedies, 
if legal action, or more important, the initial injuries to persons and 
property, can be avoided by increased statutory control, more support for 
this legislation must be generated. The pesticide legal problem must be 
confronted intelligently and vigorously. 

This is an age of rapid scientific advances. The speed of advancement 
necessitates the development of responsibility. The concern which exists in 
the prevention of poisoning depends to a large extent upon this sense of 
responsibility. Advances in the control of communicable disease afford an 
opportunity to attack other health problems, such as pesticide injuries and 
deaths, which for some years have received little attention. Fortunately, 
responsibility in the use of pesticides has paralleled to some extent their 
introduction into industry and agriculture. Otherwise the pesticide safety 
record would have deteriorated rapidly instead of improving slowly or 
remaining static. 



215. Great Britain has extensive rules concerning dangerous articles on vessels. See 
Board of Trade, Carriage of Dangerous Goods in Ships (1966). 



3679 



396 



JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW 



EMORY LAW SCHOOL 



The means for preventing injury by pesticides must be based on a 
knowledge of their physical, chemical and biological properties. Once 
complete research has been accomplished, appropriate safety measures may 
lead to the establishment of new legal standards or amendments to existing 
statutory controls. A proper attitude among society in general can be 
propogated by education and programs designed to communicate the results 
of research. 





Appendix A. State Pesticide 


Laws 


State 


Registration Laws 


Use and Application Laws 


Code OF Ala. (I960] 


1 § 2-337(3) (Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenti- 
cideAct, 1951) 




Alaska 


Ariz. Rev. St. Ann. 
(1956) 


§ 3-341 (Pesticide Act, 
1956) 


§ 3-371 (Pest Control 
Applicators Act, 1953) 



Ark. St. Ann. (1958) 



§ 77-201 (Economic 
Poisons Act, 1947) 



§§ 77-214 to 26 (Agricul- 
tural Application Service 
Licensing Law, 1961) 

§§ 77-1801 to 11 (Pest 
Control Law, 1965) 



Calif. (Deering, 1967) Cal. Agric. Code 

§§ 12811-26 

(Economic Poisons) 
Cal. Agric. Code 
§§ 14001-98 

(Injurious Materials) 



Cal. Agric. Code 

§§ 14031-35 (Injurious 
Herbicides 1964) 
Cal. Agric. Code 

§§ 11701-92 (Pest Con- 
trol Business 1961) 
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 
§ 8500 (Structural Pest 
Control Act, 1963) 



Colo. Rev. St. (1963) 



§§ 6-12-1 to 6-12-12 

(Insecticide and Roden- 
ticide Act, 1947) 



§§ 6-14-1 to 6-14-14 
(Custom AppUcators 
Law, 1961) 



Gen. St. Conn. (1958) 



§§ 19-300(a) to (V) 
(Pesticide Law, 1963) 



§ 23-61 (Tree Expert Law, 
1949) 
§§ 19-30O(k) to (V) 
(Custom Applicators 
Act, 1963) 



Delaware 



Fla. St. Ann. 1964) 



§§ 487.01-.12 (Pesticide 
Act, 1953, revised 
1966) 



§§ 482.01 1-.25 (Structural 
Pest Control Act, 1959) 
§ 482.051 (Regulations of 
Board of Health, 1965) 



36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 21 



3680 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 



397 



Appendix A. State Pesticide Laws — (Cont'd) 



State 



Registration Laws 



Use and Application Laws 



Ga. Code Ann. (1962) 



§ 5-1501 (Economic 
Poisons Act, 1962) 



§ 84-3401 (Structural Pest 
Control Act, 1962) 



Rev. Laws Haw. (1963) 



Tit. 3 §§ 25-1 to -9 

(Economic Poisons Act, 
1963) 



Tit. 3 §§ 27-1 to -13 

(Herbicide Sale and Use 
Act, 1963) 



Idaho Code (1968) 



Ch. 34 § 22-3401 
(Economic Poisons 
Act, 1968) 



Ch. 34 §§ 22-2207 to -2230 
(Commercial Sprayer's 
and/or Duster's Law, 
1968) 



III. Ann. St. (1962) 



Ch. 5 § 87(c)(1) 
(Economic Poisons 
Act, 1966) 



Ch. 5 § 87(a)(1) 

(Herbicide Law, 1966) 
Ch. 5 § 87(d)(1) (Custom 

Application of Pesticides, 

1966) 



Burns Ind. Admin. 
Rules & Regs. (1967) 



§ 14-109(2) (Regulations 
No. 2 Aeronautics 
Comm. of Ind., 1967) 



Iowa Code Ann. (1949) 



§ 206.1 (Pesticide Act, 
1949) 



§ 206.1 (Pesticide Act, 
1949) 



Kan. St. Ann. (1964) 



§§ 2-2201 to -2215 (Ag. 

Chemical Act, 1964) 
§§ 47-501 to -515 

(Livestock Remedy 

Law, 1964) 



§§ 2-2401 to -2412 (Pest 
Control Act, 1964) 
§ 3-901 (Ag. Spraying and 
Dusting Act, 1964) 



Ky. Rev. St. (1962) 



§§ 217.540-.640 

(Economic Poisons 

Law, 1962) 
§§ 217.005-.215 (Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic 

Law, 1962) 



§§ 249.250-.350 (Kentucky 
Structural Pest Control 
Act, 1962) 



La. Rev. St. (1951) 



§§ 3-1601 to -1608 

(Pesticide Act, 1951) 



§ 3-1622 (Custom Appli- 
cation of Pesticides, 
1964) 

§ 40-1261 (Structural 
Pest Control Law, 1965) 



Me. Rev. St. Ann. 
(1964) 



Tit. 7 § 581 et. seq. 
(Economic Poisons 
Law, 1964) 



Tit. 7 § 584 et. seq. 

(Regulation of Pesticides, 
1964) 



3681 



398 



JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW 



EMORY LAW SCHOOL 



Appendix A. State Pesticide Laws — (Cont'd) 



State 



Registration Laws 



Use and Application Laws 



Ann. Code of Md. 
(1965) 



Art. 48 § 129-39 (Pesti- 
cide Law, 1965) 



Ann. Laws Mass. 
(1967) 



Ch. 94B §§ 11-22 (Pesti- 
cide Law, 1967) 

Ch. 94B §§ 1-10 

(Hazardous Substance 
Labeling Law, 1967) 



Ch. 94B § 21C (Pesticide 
Board Rules and 
Regulations, 1967) 



Mich. St. Ann. (1967) 



12.352(1) et. seq. 
(Insecticide, Fungicide 
and Rodenticide Act, 
1967) 



12.353(1) et. seq. 
(Custom Applicator 
Law, 1967) 



Minn. St. Ann. (1963) 



§§ 24.069-.23 (Economic 

Poisons and Devices 

Law, 1963) 
§§ 18.03 1-.035 (Spraying 

and Dusting Machines, 

1963) 
§ 24.33 (Hazardous 

Substance Labeling Act, 

1963) 



18.032 (Custom 
Applicator Law, 1963) 



Miss. Code Ann. (1957) 



§§ 5000-01 to -14 

(Economic Poisons) 



§§ 



5000-21 to -33 (Crop 
Spraying by Aircraft, 
1957) 

5006 to 5011 (Profes- 
sional Services, 1957) 
Ag. Aviation Licensing Act 
(1967) 



§§ 



Ann. Mo. St. (1966) 



§ 336.090 (Economic 
Poisons Act, 1966) 



Rev. Code Mont. (1947) 



§§ 27-201 to -212 

(Economic Poisons Act, 
1958) 



Rev. St. Neb. (1962) 



§§ 2-2601 to -2611 

(Economic Poisons and 
Devices Act, 1962) 



Nev. Rev. St. (1967) 



Tit. 51 §§ 586.O10-.450 
(Economic Poison Law, 
1967) 



Tit. 51 §§ 555.260-.460 

(Custom Application of 
Economic Poisons, 
1967) 



3682 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 



399 



Appendix A. State Pesticide Laws — (Cont'd) 



State 



Registration Laws 



Use and Application Laws 



N.H. Rev. St. Ann. §§ 

(1955) 



438.1-.17 (Economic 
Poisons Law, 1955) 
339-A.2 (Hazardous 
Substances Labeling 
Act, 1955) 



§§ 149-D.l to-D.ll 

(Pesticide Control Law, 
1964) 



N.J. St.Ann. (1959) 



4:8A-1 et. seq. 
(Economic Poison 
Act, 1959) 



N.M.St. Ann. (1966) 



§ 45-9-1 to -9-12 
(Economic Poison 
Act, 1966) 



§§ 67-34-1 to -34-7 

(Pesticide Applicators 
Law, 1961) 



N.Y. (McKinney, 1954) 



§§ 148-51 (Pesticide Law, 
1954) 



§ 151H (Pesticides in 
Grape Vineyards Law, 
1954) 
Custom Applicators Act 
(1968) 



Gen. St. N.C. (1966) 



§§ 106-65.1 to -65.21 §§ 

(Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act, 
1966) §§ 



106-65.13 to -65.21 
(Aerial Crop Dusting 
Law, 1966) 
106-65.22 to -65.35 
(Structural Pest Control 
Act, 1966) 



N.D. Cent. Code Ann. 

(1960) 



§§ 19-18-01 to -18-11 
(Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act, 
1960) 

§§ 19-14-61 to -14-08 
(Livestock Medicine 
Law, 1943 ) 



§ 28-01-40 (Pesticides 
Damage Claim Act, 
1960) 

§ 2-05-18 (Aerial Spraying 
Licensing Act, 1959) 



Ohio Rev. Code (1954) 



§§ 921.06-.99 (Economic 
Poisons Act, 1954) 

§§ 923.21-.34 (Livestock 
Remedies Act, 1954) 



Control Measures for 
Herbicides (rev. 1967) 



3683 



400 



JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW 



EMORY LAW SCHOOL 



Appendix A. State Pesticide Laws — (Cont'd) 



State 



Ore. Rev. St. (1967) 



Penn. St.Ann. (1963) 



R.I. Code (1957) 



Code of Laws S.C. 
(1962) 



S.D. Code (1960) 



Tenn. Code Ann. 
(1964) 



Registration Laws Use and Application Laws 



Okl. St.Ann. (1964) 



Tit. 2 §§ 3-61 to -70 

(Pesticides Law, 1964) 



Tit. 2 §§ 3-81 to -88 
(Pesticides Applicator 
Law, 1964) 

Tit. 2 §§3-271 to -279 
(Ornamental Spraying 
or Pruning, 1964) 

Tit. 2 §§3-251 to -258 
(Phenoxy Herbicides, 
1964) 

2 §§3-161 to -190 
(Structural Pest and 
Termite Control Law, 
1964) 



Tit. 



§§ 453.010-.160 (Sale 
of Poisons and Other 
Dangerous Substances, 
1967) 

§§ 634.21 1-.990 (Standards 
and Labels for Agri- 
cultural Chemicals, 
1967) 



§§ 573.0O1-.585 (Control of 
Application of Agricul- 
tural Chemicals, 1967) 



Tit. 3 §§ 111.1-.12 

(Pesticide Act, 1963) 



§§ 2-8-1 to -8-28 
(Economic Poisons 
Law, 1957) 



§ 23-41-4 (Custom 

Applicators Act, 1957) 



§§ 3-101 to -185 

(Economic Poisons 
Law, 1962) 



§§ 22.12A-.12A11 

(Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act, 
1960) 
§ 22.12 (Poison Law, 
1960) 



§ 22.12B (Applications of 
Economic Poisons from 
Aircraft, 1960) 



§§ 43-701 to -713 

(Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act, 
1964) 



§§ 43-515 to -526 (Plant 
Pest Act, 1964) 

§§ 43-609 to -618 (Insect 
Pests, Rodents, and Plant 
Diseases — Control and 
Eradication, 1964) 



3684 



THE LAW OF PESTICIDES 



401 



Appendix 


A. State Pesticide Laws 


; (Cont'd) 


State 


Registration Laws 


Use and Application Laws 


Tex. Ov. St. (1958) 


§ 135B-5 (Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Roden- 
ticide Act, 1959) 


§ 135B-4 (Herbicide 
Law, 1959) 



Utah Code Ann. 
(1953) 



§§ 4-4-1 to -4-15 

(Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act, 
1953) 



§§ 4-4-16 to -4-28 
(Economic Poison 
Application Act, 1953) 



Ver. St. Ann. (1958) 



Tit. 6 §911 (Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Roden- 
ticide Act, 1958) 



Va. Code (1966) 



§§ 3-189 to -249 (Insecti- 
cide, and Rodenticide 
Act, 1966) 



Rev. Code Wash. Ann. 
(1962) 



§§ 15.57.010-.57.930 
(Agricultural Pesticide 
Act, 1962) 



§§ 15.57.010-.57.930 

(Agricultural Pesticide 

Act, 1962) 
§§ 17.21-.21.930 

(Pesticide Application 

Act. 1962) 



W. Va. Code (1966) 



§ 19-16A(1-13) 

(Pesticide Act, 1966) 



Wis. St. Ann. (1957) 



§§ 94.67-.71 

(Pesticide Law, 1957) 



Wyo. St. Ann. (1959) 



§§ 35-254 to -262 

(Economic Poison Law, 
1959) 



§ 10-4 (Aerial Spraying 
Registration Regulation, 
1959) 



3685 
Senator Mondale. We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning 
'\mereupon, at 12:40 P-^- the coxmnitteew^ recessed, to re- 
convene at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, September 30, 1969.) 



AMHERST COLLEGE LIBRARY 
DATE DUE