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

See other formats

(OH-3>

AMHERST COLLEGE

3102

, ,,,, ^ EASONAL FARMWORKER

2 3111 4603 0

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)

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 _ 0 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 0 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

_ 0 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 - - ^-^^ 0 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.: 0 -

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 _. 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 0

167-721C Mecca do do. . - 0.02 0

167-7220 Thermal do do Trace 0

167-7230 Indio do do do 0

167-7240 Coachella do do do 0

167-7250 do do do do 0

167-7260 Thermal do 0.06 do 0

167-7270 do do Trace do 0.2

167-7280 do do do do 0

167-7290 Coachella do do do 0

167-7300 do do 0.06 0.01 0

167-7310 Thermal Black Beauty 0.03 0.03 0

167-7320 Mecca Cardinal 0.02 0.02 0

167-7330 do Thompson 0.02 0.01 0

167-7340 Thermal do Trace Trace 0

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.)

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.

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.

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 0 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.

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.

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

118*061C
8-4-69

Gluaarra Vlneyarda Corp.
Bakerafleld, Cal.

118-062C
8-4-69

ParaoMunt Cltrua Aaan.
San Fernando, Cal,

118-063C
8-4-69

El Rancho Fanaa
Arvlo, Cal.

0.24

118-064C
8-4-69

paraaount Cltrua Assn.
San Fernando, Cal,

118-06SC
8-4-69

Paramount Cltrua Aaan.
San Fernando, Cal.

118-066C
8-4-69

Gluaarra Vlnayarda Corp.
Bakeraflcld. Cal.

0.26

118-50 IC
8-4-69

Logrecco Broa.
Arvln, Cal.

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

118-504C
8-4-69

El Kancho Fanaa
AraAn, Cal.

0.39

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 Sar-.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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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:

Pesticide 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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Research 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

(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

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.)

Leafy Vegetables

(Mg.)
%

VI.

Legume Vegetables

(Mg.)

VII.

Root Vegetables

(Mg.)

nil.

Garden Fruits

(Mg.)
%

IX.

Fruits

(Mg.)

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

0.011
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

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

,-1

l-H

I )

►-I

T".

C/1

I i

•y.

^ 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-

■rt

(1)

■H

•H

(fl

tfl

■U

•H

t/1

Cfl

•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

4-1 CX

)-< 1

l-l

a w u

)-i

T3 <T

pL-

0) 33

.-1 •

■H

<_)

PC oa

<_)

< r^J

Sti

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

- Beans

Table

- Eggs

Table

- Nuts (except peanuts)

Table

- Processed Foods

Table

- 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

3563

1
o

(1)

rr-,

■H

1-1

•r)

•H

(1)

-u

■->

^ 4-1 O. -M

y] CO

OJ 01

-H

BO s:

>-i

c o

ra ffl

H O O

o o

m ^ lT) o <t <3-

•JC -K -K -K

(11

-r)

•H

-1

■H

!.■>

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

3564

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

,_!

• u

O 0)

(11

:^ cu

uj:(anc:)j::cc

HWL.0 C (UXIrj-a CLX
^ Q Q -f-l 'H f— ( -r* <- /ii o
O Q H J Q <

3565

•o

CT^

(/)

•^

l-l

■H

Cll

•H

C
O

tt!

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.

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 -

(11

~ to

CO nj

c a

V ■-I

o o

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 -<

•o

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
0 Q H ,J O <

36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 14

3568

OHHHH HHH

«t

>•

cr\

•-'

«-i

•H

•Ji

"->

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

(11

t/j

r-*

,-4

Ci^

ffl

j-i

,— 1

4-t

►4

to to
a.x>

CM vD vO r^

U .-1 i-H

g rn

a. •-*

OHHHHHE-if-'HO ■

iniAiAinirinf^tvjcMfN

t«

(I)

•o

(11

•rH

•r^

■r-l

<-•

lyi

1-4

0) -H •!-< O

-nj C C <U

VI (U

(1) .-1

y 0

• M

t^ H

0 tu

X Oli

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>

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

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

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

•H

( ';

(/)

11)

1-1

-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)

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 £

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

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

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

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

7.1

0.006

1.4

DDE

2.7

6.1

0.002

3.5

0.001

Dieldrin

8.0

0.002

17.3

0.013

1.4

4.3

Lindane

2.2

2.0

4.9

0.001

Toxaphene

8.0

0.004

4.1

0.024

4.3

Endrin

9.8

0.008

6.1

0.013

0.7

BHC

2.9

11.2

0.004

0.7

Chlordane

0.9

0.7

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

3577

TABLE 17

Average Level and Incidence of Specific
Pesticide Residues in Cottonseed Products
Fiscal Years 1964-1965-1966

Seed

Crude 0:

Meal (Cake)

Refined

Oil

No. Samples
% w/Residues

23
78.

226
53.5

186
39.

41.

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

1.6

2.4

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.

36
52.8

62
35.

5
60

No significant changes in specific chemicals
and levels from those tabulated above.

T = less than 0.001 ppm

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

7, w/Residues

75.

61.3

33.3

Percent

Average

Percent

Average

Percent

Average

Percent

Averagi

Samples

ppm

Samples

ppm

Samples

ppm

Sampl

ppm

DDT

13.5

0.025

66.7

0.466

45.2

0.140

0.060

IDE

1.7

41.7

0.128

22.6

0.026

0.007

DDE

9.6

0.001

58.3

0.090

38.7

0.025

0.032

Dieldrin

8.5

0.008

22.2

0.017

22.6

0.006

0.007

Lindane

2.8

0.002

5.6

0.001

3.2

Toxaphene

1.7

0.006

2.8

0.008

Endrin

1.1

2.8

0.008

BHC

3. A

0.007

8.3

0.002

12.9

0.006

0.002

Fiscal Year

1967

No. Samples

7. w/Residues

58.

75,

100

No significant changes in specific chemicals
and levels from those tabulated above.

T ■» less than 0.001 ppm

3579

TABLE 19

Average Level and Incidence of Specific
Pesticide Residues in Corn Products

Percent of Samples

Grain

Crude

Refined Oil

No. Samples

819

% w/Residues

13.

25.

25.0

Percent

Average

Percent

Average

Percent Average

Sampl

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

11.1

0.016

Dieldrin

4.4

0.001

11.1

0.013

Lindane

2.6

Toxaphene

Endrin

0.1

Chlordane

3.7

0.080

Fiscal Year 1967

No. Samples

213

% w/Residues

45.

No significant changes in specific chemicals
and levels from those tabulated above.

T " less than 0.001 ppm

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

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

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

4.3

Die]

Idrin

4.3

T = less than 0.001 ppm

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.

3583

I S5

ma>o-4ooc^OfnoooN

og u 4J «
^ 9 » -^

C ■-< ^ O

c vi c u

QaH.-]Q<Xea

•g ^

a 4J

V 41

36-513 O - 70 - pt. 6B - 15

3584

o o o o o

>Oin<Mpn>oc<iO>c<-i

• 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^ ^

3585

i-l

i-H

•H

)-l

I-l

•o

</}

)-i

(1-

>-■

v£)

■H

r-i

i-i

,--^

•H

■M

•r-l

PL^

'->

■-)

14-1

l*J

•H

U-4

^.^

■H

•H

■a

c/1

•r-(

•H

-a

U-(

U-t

i-H

■H

•H

■u

■-I

i-H

l-i

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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.)

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 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

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

Disinfectants

Fungicides

Herbicides

Animal insecticides

Miscellaneous insecticides

Animal biology

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.

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

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.

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.

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

f samples in

shippe

;rs

violation

per shipper

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

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

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:

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

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

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.

3618

Conclusion

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.

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.

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.

3621

From

Through

Unpublished

Month

Year

Month

Year

iudgments

Prior to

January

1965

January

1965

June

1965

July

1965

December

1965

January

1966

June

1966

July

1966

December

1966

January

1967

June

1967

July

1967

December

1967

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

36-513 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,

3633

JOURNAL

PUBLIC LAW

THE LAW OF PESTICIDES: PRESENT AND FUTURE

By
Douglass F. Rohrman

Reprinted from

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW

Volume U, Number 2

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)

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

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

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

See other formats