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

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

AMHERST COLLEGE 




OM-3 



310212 3111 4602 1 

MlUKAMl AINU SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGBATOEY LABOR 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOE AND PUBLIC WELFARE 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

PESTICIDES AND THE FARMWORKER 

SEPTEMBER 30, 1969 



PART 6-C 



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




MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER 
POWERLESSNESS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 
ON 

PESTICIDES AND THE FARMWORKER 

SEPTEMBER 30, 1969 



PART 6-C 



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




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
36-613 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 E. HUGHES, Iowa 

ROBEET O. Harris, Staff Director 

John S. Forsythe, Oeneral Counsel 

Roy H. Millenson, Minority Staff Director 

Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel 



Subcommittee on Migbatoby Labok 

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 

BoEEN Chertkov, Counsel 

A. Sidney Johnson, Professional Staff Memier 

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: The Migrant Subculture July 28, 1969 

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

Part 3-B : Efforts 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 6-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 



(m) 



CONTENTS 



CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 
Tuesday, September 30, 1969 

Porter, Paul, Ph. D., assistant director, Shell Development Research Co., ?»£« 

Modesto, Calif 3687 

Lemmon, Allen B., assistant director, California Department of Agri- 
culture, Sacramento, Calif 3712 

Bianco, Anthony A., Jr., president, Bianco Fruit Corp., Fresno, Calif 3746 

Giumarra, John G., Jr., general counsel, Giumarra Vineyards Corp., 

Edison, Calif 3760 

STATEMENTS 

Bianco, Anthony A., Jr., president. Bianco Fruit Corporation, Fresno, 

Calif 3746 

Prepared statement 3753 

Giumarra, John G., Jr., general counsel, Giumarra Vineyards Corp., 

Edison, Calif .... 3760 

Prepared statement 3776 

Lemmon, Allen B., assistant director, California Department of Agricul- 
ture, Sacramento, Calif 3712 

Prepared statement 3743 

Mizrahi, Lee, M.D., Woodville, Calif., prepared statement 3803 

Morley, Seldon, agricultural commissioner, County of Kern, Calif., pre- 
pared statement 3745 

Porter, Paul, Ph. D., assistant director. Shell Development Research Co., 

Modesto, Calif 3687 

Prepared statement .. 3693 

Tunney, Hon. John V., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement 3792 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 
Affidavit: 

Bozick, Michael, vice president of Richard Bagdasarian, Inc., and 

Mr. Grape Vineyards, Inc., September 23, 1969 3786 

Schulte, Eleanor M., State of California, county of Kern, September 

23, 1969--. 3783 

Articles, publications, etc.: 

"Aldrin Residue on Table Grapes," excerpts by Senator Murphy in 

the Congressional Record, August 12, 1969 3710 

"Behavioral and Electrophysiological Effects of Dieldrin in Sheep," 
by G. A. VanGelder, D.V.M., Toxicology Section, Veterinary 
Diagnostic Laboratory, Psychology Department, Iowa State 
University, Ames, Iowa 3822 

"Bioassay of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals for Tumorigenicity in 
Mice: A preliminary Note," excerpt from The Journal of the Na- 
tional Cancer Institute, June 1969 3875 

"Biological Effects of Pesticides in Mammalian Systems," Summary of 
Conference on, by Michael B. Shimkin, Health Sciences Center, 
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa., May 2-5, 1967, New York 
City, June 23, 1969 3860 

"Chemical Overkill Reduces Yields— Gets Blame As Hazard To 

Health," by Ron Taylor, from the Fresno Bee, December 29, 1969.. 3810 

"Chemicals Upsetting Nature's Balance? Authorities Differ," by Ron 

Taylor, from the Fresno Bee, January 1, 1970 3816 

(V) 



VI 

Articles, publications, etc. — Continued 

"Grape Growers Refute Charges of Cesar Chavez on Pesticides," Page 
press release, September 29, 1969 3706 

"Grape-Doctoring Charge Is Disclaimed by Murphy," by Michael 

Green, from the Fresno Bee, October 1, 1969 3799 

"Identification of the Aldrin Artifact," J. R. Pearson, F. D. Aldrich, 
and A. W. Stone, from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 
volume 15, No. 5, pages 938-939 3697 

"Identification of Unknown Compound," from Hornkohl Labora- 
tories, Inc., Bakersfield, Calif., September 2, 1969 3787 

"Man and DDT-Compounds," by Goran Lofroth, Stockholm, 

Sweden 3881 

"Memorandum on Pesticides," published by Environmental Clearing- 
house, Inc., July 1969 3888 

"Murphy Retracts Accusations Against Union on Pesticides," bv 

Thomas J. Foley, from the Los Angeles Times, October 1, 1969__1 3800 

News release from the Office of Senator George Murphy, of California. 3709 

"Occupational Disease in California Attributed to Pesticides and 
Other Agricultural Chemicals," from Bureau of Occupational 
Health, Department of Public Health, State of California 3912 

"Pest and Disease Control Program for Grapes," California Agricul- 
tural Experimental Extension Service, Division of Agricultural 
Science, University of California 3719 

"Pesticide Concentrations in the Liver, Brain and Adipose Tissue of 
Terminal Hospital Patients," by J. L. Radomski, W. D. Deich- 
mann, and E. E. Clizer, with the assistance of A. Rey, Department 
of Pharmacology, The Research and Teaching Center of Toxicology/ 
Department of Pathology, University of Miami, School of Medicine, 
Coral Gables, Fla 3865 

"Pesticide Pollution," from Consumer Union Reports, July 1969 3904 

"Poisoning Threatens Hundreds: Field Hands Most Vulnerable," by 

Ron Taylor, from the Fresno Bee, December 31, 1969 3814 

"Remedial Steps Confirm Farm Chemical Hazard," by Ron Taylor, 

from the Fresno Bee, January 2, 1970 3818 

"Scientist Sees Interest Conflict In Salesman Acting As Consultant," 

by Ron Taylor, from the Fresno Bee, December 30, 1969 3812 

"Senator Murphy Retracts Pesticide Charges," from The Bakerfield 

Californian, September 30, 1969 3798 

"Some Health-Related Needs in Pesticide Investigations," by S. W. 
Simmons, Ph. D., Pesticides Program, Food and Drug Administra- 
tion, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, 
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Atlanta, Ga., 
from Industrial Medicine, volume 38, No. 3, March 1969 3885 

"State Probers Find No Evidence of UFWOC Arson," by Ron Fresno, 

from the Fresno Bee, September 23, 1969 3796 

"What You Should Know About Pesticide Poisons on Grapes," from 

Peggy McGivern, boycott representative, UFWOC-Delano 3789 

Communications to: 

Brooks, Mrs. Wendy, Salud Clinic, Woodville, Calif., from Donald C. 
Mengle, Research Specialist II, Community Studies on Pesticides, 
Health and Welfare Agencv, Department of Public Health, State 
of California, Berkeley, Calif., August 22, 1969 3803 

Chamberlain, Dr. Lowell, Health Officer, Tulare County Health De- 
partment, Visalia, Calif., from Lee Mizrahi, M.D., Salud- Woodville, 
Woodville, Calif., September 24, 1969, with enclosure 3801 

Mondale, Hon. Walter F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota, 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Washington, D.C., 
from Jerome Cohen, General Counsel, United Farm Workers, 
Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, Delano, Calif., October 21, 
1969 3794 

Murphy, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, 
from Robert M. Howie, Agricultural Commissioner, Riverdale, 

Calif., September 23, 1969 3745 

Selected briefs 3826 

The Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., Irene Lopez, Elvira Garduno, 
Kathy Radke, Marilyn Vittor, Leigh Roycroft, and Juan Zamora, 
Petitioners, v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary, Health, Education, and 
Welfare — Brief for Petitioners 3925 



MIGRANT AND SEASONAL 
FARMWORKER POWERLESSNESS 

(Pesticides and the Farmworker) 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1969 

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

Washington^ D.G. 

The subcommittee met at 9:45 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), Cranston, Murphy, and 
Schweiker. 

Committee staff members present: Eobert O. Harris, staff di- 
rector; and Boren Chertkov, counsel to the subcommittee. 

Senator Mondale. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Our first witness this morning is Dr. Paul Porter, assistant di- 
rector, Shell Development Research Co., from Modesto, Calif. 

Dr. Porter, will you please come to the witness table? 

STATEMENT OF PAUL PORTER, PH. D., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 
SHELL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CO., MODESTO, CALIP. 

Senator Mondale. Do you have a prepared statement, Dr. Porter? 

Mr. Porter. Yes, I have. I would like to read it, if I may. 

Senator Mondale. You may proceed. 

Mr. Porter. My name is Paul Edward Porter and I reside at 506 
Bowen Avenue, Modesto, Calif. 

I received a Ph. D. in physical chemistry from Iowa State Uni- 
versity in 1951. 

I am an associate member of the International Union of Pure and 
Applied Chemistry on Terminal Residues. This commission was 
formed by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry 
at the request of the food and agricultural organization and the 
World Health Organization of the United Nations to give them 
advice on the nature of the terminal residues, metabolic products, 
and breakdown products of pesticide compounds used in agriculture. 

My function on the committee is to follow new developments 
on the "cyclodiene" insecticides of which aldrin is an example. 
Each year I prepare a summary of recent information on terminal 
residues of the cyclodiene insecticides. I am presently assistant 

(3687) 



3688 

to the director, physical sciences, at Shell Development Co., Bio- 
logical Sciences Research Center in Modesto and have been em- 
ployed by Shell Development Co. since graduation. 

For the past 15 years I have been concerned with residue analysis 
and metabolism studies on pesticide compounds. During the period 
from 1955 to 1968, I was manager of our physical and analytical 
chemistry laboratories. I participated in the development of analyti- 
cal methods for determination of aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and 
other compounds; and I supervised their use in obtaining residue 
data for registration. The Woodstock laboratories of Shell in 
England originated the application of the electron capture detector 
to pesticide residue analysis, and my laboratories utilized this 
technique before commercial equipment was available. From the 
beginning we have kept up with progress in the residue analysis 
field and have had experience with every type of analysis now in 
general use. 

Aldrin is a chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide in which the 
active ingredient is l,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-l,4,4a,6,8,8a,-hexahydro-l, 
4-endo-exo-5,8-dimethanonaphthalene. It is a light tan solid insoluble 
in water but readily soluble in most common organic solvents. 

It is moderately volatile : about 30 times as volatile as its epoxide 
dieldrin and about 150 times as volatile as DDT. Owing to this 
volatility its persistence on foliage is short, typically 1.5 to 2 days 
for disappearance of half the residue. Aldrin is therefore prin- 
cipally used as a soil insecticide or as a seed dressing and I know 
of no instance where it has been used on grapes within the last 
3 years. 

Senator Mondale. You say that you know of no instance where 
aldrin is used on grapes. Yet, Senator Murphy introduced some 
materials in the Congressional Record on August 12, 1969, that have 
been introduced for the record hearing. On page S. 9868 you will find 
the study by the B. C. Laboraitory, apparently a laboratory endorsed 
by growers and Senator Murphy, which says, among other things, that 
there was found on Bianco grapes 0.008 of aldrin. How did that get 
there? 

Mr. Porter. Whose laboratory was that? 

Senator Mondale. B. C. Laboratory. 

Mr. Porter. Well, later in my presentation I am going to develop 
the reasons why these analyses are very uncertain, particularly if 
they are only gas chromatographic analyses and unsupported by 
other work. Now, I have no way of knowing whether this 

Senator Mondale. You have no knowledge of that particular 
survey ? 

Mr. Porter. No, but I can say that at this level of residue you 
have a particularly difficult time in identifying what the compound 
is we are looking at. 

If these analyses were on grapes within the last 3 years, I would 
say that it is probably a signal from the gas-liquid chromatography 
which was unsupported. 

Senator Mondale. This is the past year. One of the arguments 
is that no aldrin is being used there. What I cannot understand. 



3689 

if it is not being used, is how do these tests continue to show its 
existence? Are there other possible explanations? 

Mr. Porter. Later in this presentation, I am going to try to say 
why it is that these things do appear to have aldrin content, but 
the signal from the method does not necessarily identify aldrin being 
present. It is very difficult to say positively that aldrin is there and 
particularly when you get below 0.01 parts per million it takes a 
great deal of effort and work to establish what the nature is. If 
I could go into that, I think I can explain. 

When applied to the foliage of plants, aldrin is rapidly oxidized 
to its epoxide dieldrin. This reaction has been found to take place 
on glass plates in sunlight, and it also can take place as a result 
of metabolic processes in the plant as recently demonstrated by 
Oloffs and Lichtenstein (Journal of Agriculture Food Chem. 17,-143- 
147 (1969)). Owing to this rapid conversion, I cannot remember 
any case of an aldrin residue which did not also show some dieldrin, 
even when samples were taken immediately after spraying. Typical 
examples are the following: — These were just some that I pulled 
out of our files. To show a typical result for aldrin on tea at 4 
ounces per acre immediately after spraying, zero days after 
spraying the aldrin gives 6.5 parts per million, the dieldrin 1.2 
parts per million. 

At 7 days aldrin 0.7, dieldrin, 2.6. 

This is a particular dissipation. Aldrin disappears very rapidly 
from the foliage, the dieldrin tends to increase. 

At 8 ounces per acre, 8 eight ounces of aldrin we close at 0.2 
parts per million and dieldrin 1.9 parts per million. And the aldrin 
on grass is a very similar situation with definite amounts of dieldrin 
present along with the aldrin. 

Another good example is provided by the work of Harrison et al. 
Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, Volume 18, pages 10 
to 15, 1967. 

We have carried out field trials designed to show whether resi- 
dues occur at application rates double those recommended for use 
against grasshoppers. Determinations were made on samples taken 
1 day after spraying in order to determine maximum residues. 

At a quarter of a pound per acre there was less than one-tenth 
part per million on grapes at 1 day, at a half pound per acre 
applied less than a tenth of a part per million at 1 day. 

Based upon these considerations, I believe that application rates 
of at least 10 to 15 pounds of aldrin per acre would be needed 
to produce residues of 18 parts per million on grape berries im- 
mediately after spraying. This would be a ridiculous rate of ap- 
plication and is extremely unlikely to be used in any known ap- 
plication of aldrin. 

Going over to the subject of analysis of crop samples for pesti- 
cide residues, tremendous progress has been made in recent years 
in analytical instrumentation and techniques; however, there is 
still a lot of room for improvement. In particular, it is still ex- 
tremely difficult and expensive to ascertain whether or not the 
apparent pesticide content of a sample resulting from applica- 



3690 

tion of an analytical method is truly the pesticide or some other 
chemical which responds similarly to the technique used for analysis. 
There is some confusion on this point because equipment and 
methods are available which can almost unequivocally establish the 
presence of a given pesticide in the part per million range; how- 
ever, the equipment is expensive — in the range of $30 to $40,000 per 
unit, and it is slow to use. Accordingly, it is used only on a few 
critical samples. The equipment I refer to is the mass spectograph 
preferably directly coupled to a gas-chromatographic column. 

Reasonable certainty in identification can sometimes be achieved 
by appropriate combinations of techniques such as chemical trans- 
formations together with several chromatographic methods. Again 
this multiplies costs and requires highly skilled analysts. Routine 
laboratories cannot afford this type of checking except upon an 
extra-cost basis on special samples. 

The presently preferred methods for pesticide residue analysis 
are gas-liquid, thin layer, paper, and liquid-liquid chromatography ; 
classical colorimetric methods; and electrometric methods. Each of 
these was originally developed for analysis of ordinary chemical 
and petroleum products. They are still used for this purpose, and 
each of the methods yields responses to a wide assortment of com- 
pounds with sensitivities depending upon the type of detector or 
sensing device used. The secret of success in applying these methods 
to trace analysis lies in finding sensing methods which are very 
selective, having far higher sensitivity to the compound of interest 
than to other assorted compounds which fall in the same chromato- 
graphic range. 

Remarkable success has been achieved in finding such selective 
detectors in all the general areas mentioned above; however, there 
are limits to the selectivity and in each case many compounds will 
appear identical insofar as a given method is concerned. Those com- 
pounds which cannot be told apart by a method are usually called 
interfering compounds or artifacts of the method. Due regard must 
be paid to all of these possibilities in assigning a method response to 
a given compound. 

The most common method of analysis applied to the chlorinated 
insecticides is gas-liquid chromatography. In this technique the 
various chemicals in a sample solution are separated by passing them 
in a stream of gas over a column of suitable liquid supported on a 
solid carrier, and are usually detected as a series of peaks on a 
recorder chart representing the output responses of the detector. 

These peaks have a characteristic bell-shaped form; the time or 
distance to the maximum value from the time of injection is usually 
called the retention time, and each compound on a given column 
should produce a peak having a very definite value of this retention 
time. The width of the peak is a very important characteristic 
and it is determined by many factors associated with the efficiency 
of the column being used. In general, longer columns and slower 
flow rates yield more favorable ratios of peak widths to retention 
times and should be used whenever possible since the greater effi- 
ciency provides more freedom from interferences. 



3691 

On the other hand, highly efficient columns require a great deal 
of analysis time, and sensitivity is lower than for the shorter less 
efficient columns. As a result, most laboratories compromise, and use 
the shortest column that they feel will provide an adequate result. 
This leads to difficulty in dehnite assignment of peaks and increases 
chances of interference. 

Of the detectors available for gas-liquid chromatography, the most 
popular for chlorinated insecticides is the electron-capture detector. 
It responds strongly to any compound which readily absorbs an 
electron to form a negative ion. Chlorine containing compounds 
generally give a powerful response while most other chemicals com- 
monly encountered in crop extracts do not. It is thus somewhat 
selective, but it still responds to a wide range of chemicals, and it 
is rare that one finds a crop extract that does not have a number of 
peaks in the electron-capture chromatogram at the levels of sensi- 
tivity which are employed in pesticide residue analysis. Thus, when 
a peak is absent at the characteristic point for a given pesticide, 
there is certainly none of that compound in the extract. On the other 
hand, if a peak is present at exactly that point, the pesticide may be 
present, but the signal may be due to an interference. 

The analyst as a practical matter often relies in such a case upon 
the relative probability that the particular chemical would or would 
not be in his sample to make a decision as to its identity. If, for 
example, aldrin had just been sprayed, it would be reasonable to 
assign the signal to aldrin. Even if such knowledge is available, 
however, this does not prove the identity of the material producing 
the response. 

If this probability is not known, confirmatory tests are definitely 
necessary. That is, the analyst must apply additional different tech- 
niques which are thought to differentiate most of the interferences of 
the first method. If these additional tests agree with the first, both 
qualitatively and quantitatively, it greatly increases confidence in 
the assignment of identity. 

Many laboratories choose thin-layer chromatography as a second 
technique. This is usually a good choice if the proper system is 
used, but it is not absolutely conclusive. Compounds which interfere 
in one type of chromatography often interfere in other types owing 
to a general similarity in physical properties. Introduction of a 
selective chemical reaction at this stage is advisable. In the case of 
chlorinated compounds reaction with silver nitrate provides a degree 
of specificity, but does not guard against sulphur containing com- 
pounds which also react with silver ion. An example of chemical 
treatment which is particularly effective in the identification of 
aldrin, is its oxidation to dieldrin as suggested by Noren (Analyst 
93, 94r-41 (1968)). Quoting the summary of Noren's article: 

"The determination of aldrin in certain samples of vegetables by gas 
chromatography has proved to be diflacult as peaks from impurities interfere. 
To eliminate this disadvantage, a method was developed in which aldrin 
was converted to dieldrin and the amount of dieldrin determined by gas 
chromatography. 



3692 

Referring specifically to aldrin in electron capture gas-liquid 
chromatography, interferences such as indicated above are rather 
common, even when the extracts are given a preliminary separation 
by column-absorption chromatography. If no such preliminary treat- 
ment is applied it is rare that usual aldrin residues can be success- 
fully determined. Plasticizer components from plastic bags or other 
containers appear to be aldrin in some cases. 

The wrappers for samples must be carefully selected — in our 
laboratory we make interference tests on bag materials before using 
them. Reagents sometimes contain interferences, or as they are often 
called "artifacts" of the method. An aldrin "artifact" which is so 
notorious in gas-liquid chromatography that it is often called 
"the aldrin artifact" was identified by Pearson et al (Journal of 
Agriculture Food Chem. 15 938-9 (1967)) as elemental sulphur. 
And I have that attached as Exhibit A. 

Sulphur behaves as aldrin on columns of DC-200 silicone oil 
which is widely used as a gas-liquid chromatographic liquid. When 
retention times are short, sulphur coincides with aldrin also on 
mixed DC-200-OF-1 columns whicli are also commonly used. On 
thin-layer chromatography sulphur is developed in a number of 
solvent systems very close to aldrin and can be mistaken for it when 
the usual phenoxy-ethanon-silver nitrate developing reagent is used. 

With regard to the high levels of aldrin which have been reported 
on grape samples which are at issue before this committee, while 
it is possible the grapes could have been "spiked" with aldrin, it is 
my feeling that sulphur interferences is a most logical answer. Sul- 
phur is used in large amounts on grapes for mildew and mite control, 
and thus could be present to an extent sufficient to account for the 
readings observed. On the other hand, as discussed previously, there 
is no reason to expect any aldrin on grapes from California. 

Another material which can be mistaken for aldrin in gas chroma- 
tography is Kelthane. This compound breaks down in the gas chro- 
matography to bis p-chlorophenyl ketone which emerges coincident 
with aldrin on nonpolar columns and very close to aldrin on polar 
columiis. The difference between them can be easily distinguished 
by thin-layer chromatography on alumina with n-heptane develop- 
ment. 

In my opinion, the methods used by the Food and Drug Adminis- 
tration for determination of aldrin and other chlorinated insecticides 
are highly reliable. Our own methods are essentially the same. I feel 
a olean-up technique, such as the Mills procedure described in the 
FDA nianual should always be used to exclude the bulk of the plant 
extractives. 

Gas-liquid chromatography with electron capture detection is satis- 
factory as the primarv method of analysis with a column of equal 
parts of DC-200 and QF-1 fluids. The column should be long enough 
to provide a peak for each compound with base width no greater 
than one-tenth the retention time. Confirmation by thin-layer chro- 
matography as described in the FDA manual is reliable but is by no 
means positive proof that a GLC peak and a TLC spot correspond 
only to one pesticide. If the identification is critical, other tests 
must be used such as the following: 



369a 

1. Gas chromatography with alternate more specific detectors, 
microcoulometric cells specific for chlorine or sulphur flame-photo- 
metric detectors sensitive to phosphorous or sulphur, plasma dis- 
charge cells producing characteristic emissions for a number of ele- 
ments, mass-spectometric with a high degree of specificity. 

2. This layer chromatography with elemental analysis or coloro- 
metric analysis of spots. 

3. Chemical treatments of the residue extracts to alter the com- 
pound of interest or to destroy it leaving the interfering background. 
The reverse may be possible, "destroying the materials producing the 
interference under conditions which would not destroy the pesticide. 

That concludes my statement. 

(The prepared statement, with accompanying exhibit, of Mr. 
Porter follows:) 

Peepaked Statement of Db. Paul E. Portee, Associate Membek of the Inter- 
national Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry on Terminal Residues, 
Modesto, Calif. 

My name is Paul Edward Porter and I reside at 506 Bowen Avenue, 
Modesto, California. 

I received a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Iowa State University in 
1951. 

I am an associate member of the International Union of Pure and Applied 
Chemistry on Terminal Residues. This commission was formed by the Inter- 
national Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry Commission at the request 
of the Food and Agriculture organization and the World Health Organization 
of the United Nations to give them advice on the nature of the terminal 
residues, metabolic products and breakdown products of pesticide compounds 
used in agriculture. My function on the committee is to follow new de- 
velopments on the "cyclodiene" insecticides of which aldrin is an example. 
Each year I prepare a summary of recent information on terminal residues 
of the cyclodiene insecticides. I am presently assistant to the director, 
physical sciences, at Shell Development Company, Biological Sciences Research 
Center in Modesto and have been employed by Shell Development Company 
since graduation. 

For the past 15 years I have been concerned with residue analysis and 
metabolism studies on pesticide compounds. During the period from 1955 
to 1968, I was manager of our physical and analytical chemistry labora- 
tories. I particiuated in the development of analytical methods for determina- 
tion of aldrin, dieldrin, endrin and other compounds ; and I supervised their 
use in obtaining residue data for registration. The Woodstock laboratories 
of Shell in England originated the application of the electron capture detector 
to pesticide residue analysis, and my laboratories utilized this technique 
before commercial equipment was available. From the beginning we have kept 
up with progress in the residue analysis field and have had experience with 
every type of analysis now in general use. 

Aldrin is a chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide in which the active ingredi- 
ent is l,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-l,4,4a,6,8,8a-hexahydro-l,4-endo-exo-5,8-dimethano- 
naphthalene. It is a light tan solid insoluble in water but readily soluble in 
most common organic solvents. 

It is moderately volatile: about 30 times as volatile as its epoxide dieldrin 
and about 150 times as volatile as DDT. Owning to this volatility its per- 
sistence on foliage is short, typically 1.5 to 2 days for disappearance of half 
the residue. Aldrin is therefore used as a soil insecticide or as a seed dressing 
and about 150 times as volatile as DDT. Owing to this volatility its per- 
last three years. 

When applied to foliage aldrin is rapidly oxidized to its epoxide dieldrin. This 
reaction has been found to take place on glass plates in sunlight, and it also 
can take place as a result of metabolic processes in the plant as recently 
demonstrated by Oloffs and Lichtenstein (J.Agr.Food Chem. 11, 143-147 
(1969)). Owing to this rapid conversion, I cannot remember any case of 



3694 

an aldrin residue which did not also show some dieldrin, even when samples 
were taken immediately after spraying. Typical examples are the following: 



WK 43/63 Aldrin on tea: 
4oz./acre 

8oz./acre 

Bio 56/30 Aldrin on grass: 
2oz./acre 

4oz./acre 





Residue, 


p.p.m. 








spraying 


Aldrin 


Dieldrin 





6.5 


1.2 


7 


0.7 


2.6 





24 


3.7 


7 


0.2 


1.9 





1.3 


0.20 


7 


0.3 


0.44 





1.8 


0.4 


7 


0.6 


0.5 



Another good example is provided by the work of Harrison et al 
J.ScLFd.Agric. 18 10-15 (1967). 

We have carried out field trials designed to show whether residues occur 
at application rates double those recommended for use against grasshoppers. 
Determinations were made on samples taken one day after spraying in order 
to determine maximum residues. 
Bio 55/82 Aldrin on grapes : 

0.25 Ib./acre, less than 0.1 ppm at 1 day. 
0.5 Ib./acre, less than 0.1 ppm at 1 day. 

Based upon these considerations, I believe that application rates of at least 
10 to 15 lbs. of aldrin per acre would be needed to producde residues of 
18 ppm on grape berries immediately after spraying. This would be a 
ridiculous rate of application and is extremely unlikely to be used in any 
known application of aldrin. 

Going over to the subject of analysis of crop samples for pesticide residues, 
tremendous progress has been made in recent years in analytical instrumenta- 
tion and techniques; however, there is still a lot of room for improvement. 
In particular, it is still extremely diflScult and expensive to ascertain whether 
or not the apparent pesticide content of a sample resulting from application 
of an analytical method is truly the pesticide or some other chemical which 
responds similarly to the technique used for analysis. 

There is some confusion on this point because equipment and methods are 
available which can almost unequivocally establish the presence of a given 
pesticide in the part per million range ; however, the equipment is expensive — 
in the range of $30 to $40,000 per unit, and it is slow to use. Accordingly, 
it is used only on a few critical samples. The equipment I refer to is the 
mass spectrograph preferably directly coupled to a gas-chroma tographic column. 

Reasonable certainty in identification can sometimes be achieved by ap- 
propriate combinations of techniques such as chemical transformations 
together with several chromatographic methods. Again this multiplies costs 
and requires highly skilled analysts. Routine laboratories cannot afford this 
type of checking except uxx>n an extra-cost basis on special samples. 

The presently preferred methods for pesticide residue analysis are gas-liquid, 
thin layer, paper, and liquid-liquid chromatography ; classical colorimetric 
methods ; and electrometric methods. Each of these was originally developed 
for analysis of ordinary chemical and petroleum products. They are still used 
for this purpose, and each of the methods yields responses to a wide 
assortment of compounds with sensitivities depending upon the type of 
detector or sensing device used. The secret of success in applying these 
methods to trace analysis lies in finding sensing methods which are very 
selective, having far higher sensitivity to the compound of interest than 
to other assorted compounds which fall in the same chromatographic range. 
Remarkable success has been achieved in finding such selective detectors in 
all the general areas mentioned above ; however, there are limits to the 
selectivity and in each case many compounds will appear identical insofar as a 
given method is, concerned^. Those compounds which cannot be told apart by 
a method are usually callelijint'erfering-.compounds or artifacts of the method. 
Due regard must be paid to all "of these possibilities in assigning a method 
respo'nse to a given compounds. 



3695 

The most common method of analysis applied to the chlorinated insecticides 
is gas-liquid chromatography. In this technique the various chemicals in a 
sample solution are separated by passing them in a stream of gas over a 
colimin of suitable liquid supported on a solid carrier, and are usually 
detected as a series of peaks on a recorder chart representing the output 
responses of the detector. These peaks have a characteristic bell-shaped form ; 
the time or distance to the maximum value from the time of injection is 
usually called the retention time, and each compound on a given column should 
produce a peak having a very definite value of this retention time. The width 
of the peak is a very important characteristic and it is determined by many 
factors associated with the efficiency of the column being used. In general, 
longer columns and slower flow rates yield more favorable ratios of peak 
widths to retention times and should be used whenever possible since 
the greater efficiency provides more freedom from interferences. On the 
other hand, highly efficient- columns require a great deal of analysis time, and 
sensitivity is lower than for the shorter less efficient columns. As a result, 
most laboratories compromise, and use the shortest column that they feel will 
provide an adequate result. This leads to difficulty in definite assignment of 
peaks and increases chances of interference. 

Of the detectors available for gas-liquid chromatography, the most popular 
for chlorinated insecticides is the electron-capture detector. It responds 
strongly to any compound which readily absorbs an electron to form a nega- 
tive ion. Chlorine containing compounds generally give a powerful response 
while most other chemicals commonly encountered in crop extracts do not. 
It is thus somewhat selective, but it still responds to a wide range of chemi- 
cals, and it is rare that one finds a crop extract that does not have a number 
of peaks in the electron-capture chromatogram at the levels of sensitivity which 
are employed in pesticide residue analysis. Thus, when a peak is absent at 
the characteristic point for a given pesticide, there is certainly none of 
that compound in the extract. On the other hand if a peak is present at 
exactly that point, the pesticide may be present, but the signal may be due 
to an interference. 

The analyst as a practical matter often relies in such a case upon the 
relative probability that the particular chemical would or would not be 
in his sample to make a decision as to its identity. If, for example, aldrin 
had just been sprayed, it would be reasonable to assign the signal to aldrin. 
Even if such knowledge is available, however, this does not prove the identity 
of the material producing the response. 

If this probability is not known, confirmatory tests are definitely necessary. 
That is, the analyst must apply additional different techniques which are 
thought to differentiate most of the interferences of the first method. If 
these additional tests agree with the first, both qualitatively and quantitatively, 
it greatly increases confidence in the assignment of identity. 

Many laboratories choose thin-layer chromatography as a second technique. 
This is usually a good choice if the proper system is used, but it is not abso- 
lutely conclusive. Compounds which interfere in one type of chromatography 
often interfere in other types owing to a general similarly in phyiscal. 
properties. Introduction of a selective chemical reaction at this stage is 
advisable. In the case of chlorinated compounds reaction with silver nitrate 
provides a degree of specificity, but does not guard against sulphur containing 
compounds which also react with silver ion. An example of chemical treat- 
ment which is particularly effective in the identification of aldrin, is its 
oxidation to dieldrin as suggested by Noren (Analyst 93, 39-41 (1968)). 
Quoting the summary of Noren's article: "The determination of aldrin in 
certain samples of vegetable by gas chromatography has proved to be diffi- 
cult as peaks from impurities interfere. To eliminate this disadvantage, a 
method was developed in which aldrin was converted to dieldrin and the 
amount of dieldrin determined by gas chromatography. 

Referring specifically to aldrin in electron capture gas-liquid chromatog- 
raphy, interferences such as indicated above are rather common, even when 
the extracts are given a preliminary separation by column-adsorption chroma- 
tography. If no such preliminary treatment is annlied it is rare that usual 
aldrin residues can be successfully determined. Plastieizer components from 
plastic bags or other containers appear to be aldrin in some cases. The wrap- 
pers for samples must be carefully selected — in our laboratory we make inter- 
ference tests on bag materials before using them. Reagents sometimes con- 



3696 

tain interferences, or as they are often called "artifacts" of the method. An 
aldrin "artifact" which is so notorious in gas-liquid chromatography that it 
is often called "the aldrin artifact" was identified by Pearson et al (J. Agr. 
Food Chem. 15 938-9 (1967)) as elemental sulphur. (Exhibit A) Sulphur 
behaves as aldrin on columns of DC-200 silicone oil which is widely used 
as a gas-liquid chromatographic liquid. When retention times are short, sulphur 
coincides with aldrin also on mixed DC-200-QF-1 columns which are also com- 
monly used. On thin layer chromatography sulphur is developed in a number 
of solvent systems very close to aldrin and can be mistaken for it when 
the usual phenoxy-ethanol-silver nitrate developing reagent is used. 

With regard to the high levels of aldrin which have been reported on grape 
samples which are at issue before this committee, while it is possible the 
grapes could have been "spiked" with aldrin, it is my feeling that sulphur 
interferences is a most logical answer. Sulphur is used in large amounts on 
grapes for mildew and mite control, and thus could be present to an extent 
sufficient to account for the readings observed. On the other hand, as dis- 
cussed previously, there is no reason to expect any aldrin on grapes from 
California. 

Another material which can be mistaken for aldren in gas chromatography 
is Kelthane. This compound breaks down in the gas chromatograph to 
bis p-chlorophenyl ketone which emerges coincident with aldrin on non-polar 
columns and very close to aldrin on polar columns. The difference between 
them can be easily distinguished by thin-layer chromatography on alumina 
with n-heptane development. 

In my opinion the methods used by the Food and Drug Administration for 
determination of aldrin and other chlorinated insecticides are highly reliable. 
Our own methods are essentially the same. I feel a clean-up technique, such 
as the Mills procedure described in the FDA manual should always be used 
to exclude the bulk of the plant extractives. Gas-liquid chromatography with 
electron capture detection is satisfactory as the primary method of analysis 
with a column of equal parts of DC-200 and QF-1 fluids. The column should 
be long enough to provide a peak for each compound with base width no 
greater than 1/10 the retention time. Confirmation by thin-layer chromatog- 
raphy as described in the FDA manual is reliable but is by no means positive 
proof that a GLC peak and a TLC spot correspond only to a pesticide. 
If the identification is critical, other tests must be used such as the following : 

1. Gas chromatography with alternate more specific detectors microcoulo- 
metric cells specific for chlorine or sulphur flame-photometric detectors sensi- 
tive to phosphorous or sulphur, plasma discharge cells producing characteristic 
emissions for a number of elements, mass-spectometric with a high degree of 
specificity. 

2. Thin, layer chromatography with elemental analysis or colorometric 
analysis of spots. 

3. Chemical treatments of the residue extracts to alter the compound of 
interest or to destroy it leaving the interfering background. The reverse may 
be possible, destroying the materials producing the interference under condi- 
tions which would not destroy the pesticide. 



3697 



[From: JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD CHEMISTRY, Vol. 15, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1967: pp. 938-939] 

Identification of the Aldrin Artifact 

J. R. Pearson, F. D. Aldrich, and A. W. Stone 



h'lccuoii-i.;ipiuie gas chromatography is not specific 
for orgaiuKhloiinc pesticides. A material which 
beha\cs like aldrin when chromatographed on a 
DC-200 column or QF-l-DC-200 mixed column 
has been found in reagents and soil samples and 



identified by x-ray emission spectroscopy as elemen- 
tal sulfur. Suggestions for its removal from rea- 
gents and the handling of samples containing it are 
included. 



One of the most popular detectors for gas-liquid 
chromatography (GLC) of pesticides is the elec- 
tron-capture (EC) detector, because it is very sensi- 
tive and relatively specific. Since this detector is not 
entirely specific for pesticides, many laboratories employ a 
second method, such as microcoulometry, to assist in 
identification of the pesticides. A silver cell is used for 
chlorine-containing pesticides and a platinum cell for 
those containing sulfur. 

Because of the sensitivity of the electron-capture de- 
tector, reagents used in the preparation of the sample must 
be free from materials which give interfering peaks on 
GLC-EC. Lee el at. (1966) have reported an artifact in 
reagents which behaves as BHC or aldrin during GLC- 
EC and idcniified it as di-n-butyl phthalate. Sans (1967) 
also reported spurious responses in reagents. We have 
found a material in anhydrous sodium sulfate, Florisil, 
and hexane which behaved similar to aldrin on GLC- 
EC. The quantity of this material varied among lots of 
the same reagent and, in contrast to the findings of Lee 
el al. (1966), simple distillation did not remove the artifact. 
However, refluxing over bright metallic sodium yielded 
hexane that was more suitable for GLC-EC than the highly 
purified product obtained commercially. This inter- 
fering material was also present on cleaned glassware, 
regardless of the detergent used for cleaning. 

During routine determinations of chlorinated hydro- 
carbon pesticides in soils, a sample was encountered which 
contained enormous quantities of material which behaved 
in the same manner as the aldrin-like material found in our 
reagents. A sufficient quantity was obtained by crystal- 
lization. Its identification is the subject of this paper. 

EXPERIMENTAL 

All gas-liquid chromatography was carried out on Micro- 
Tck gas chromatograph, Model MT-220. Coulometry 
was done with a Dohrmann microcoulometer Model 
C-200. The chromatograph columns were 6-foot X 
'A-inch O.D. glass U-tubes filled with equal parts of 13% 
QF-1 on Gas Chrom Q and 8% DC-200 on Gas Chrom 
Q or with 10% DC-200 on Anakrom ABS. The column 
oven was operated at 190° C. and the EC detector at 
200° C. The nitrogen carrier gas flow was 150 cc. per 
minute. Under these conditions, aldrin eluted in 3.0 
and 2.7 minutes, respectively. These columns were used 



Community Pesticide Study, Colorado State Department 
of Public Health, P.O. Box 579, Greeley, Colo. 80631. 



because they represent two types of columns currently in 
use in the pesticide residue field. 

Ten grams of soil was placed in a washed extraction 
thimble and extracted under reflux with acetone-hexane 
(1:1) for 4 hours. The extract was concentrated under 
vacuum and transferred to a column made of 3i) grams of 
aluminum oxide (Merck) previously deactivated with 10% 
water. One hundred milliliters of hexane served for elu- 
tion. The eluate was concentrated under vacuum and 
transferred to a Florisil (Floridin Co.) column. Four 
hundred miUiliters of 15% ethyl ether (containing 2% 
ethanol)-85% hexane was used for elution. The eluate 
was concentrated under vacuum for GLC-EC analysis. 
These two column fractionation steps are required to clean 
the soil extracts sufficiently for analysis. It appears that 
impurities not removed by one column are removed by the 
other. 



When the Florisil eluate was concentrated, crystals 
formed in the flask. They were filtered off and recrystal- 
lized from hexane. Formation of crystals from a Florisil 
eluate is highly unusual. 

A sample of these crystals was dissolved in hexane and 
subjected to gas-liquid chromatography, using the elec- 
tron-capture detector and both the chlo^fie and sulfur 
titration cells on the microcoulometpf.' On GLC-EC, . 
the material gave three peaks withjetention times relative 
to aldrin similar to those obta.ined for pure sulfur (Figure 
1). The solution was diluted so that a measurement could 
be made on the largest peak. No response was obtained on 
tfie microcoulometer chlorine titration cell. Responses ob- 
tained on the sulfur titration cell are very close to those ob- 
tained for pure sulfur (Figure 1). Retention times given 
for the sulfur titration cell are relative to sulfenone. 

A sample of the recrystallized material melted at 114- 
16° C. on a Kofier micro-melting point hot stage. The 
melting point for pure sulfur varies from 106° to 1 19° C. 
(Heinrich et al., 1961), depending on the crystalline form 
and the speed of heating. Another sample of the crystals 
was subjected to x-ray emission spectroscop> . The ob- 
served angle of the reflected x-rays (29) was 144.6°. The 
wavelength of this reflected beam was calculated as 5.372 
A. from Bragg's formula. The wavelength for the Ka 
transition for sulfur is 5.373 A. (Powers, 1957). 

DISCUSSION 

The identity of the material having an aldrin-like re- 
sponse on GLC-EC has been established as elemental 



36-513 O - 70 - Pt. 6C - 2 



3698 



10L : i«*-*kr 



SCit. EXTRACT 



SU'.^ STANOVP^ 




0.23 0*9 -CC 

betenhom time relative 

TO ALDnJM 

Figure 1. Behavior of sulfur on GLC 

Chromatograms on the left were obtained when the respective 
materials «ere injected on the 13% QF-1-8% DC-200 column 
and the column effluent monitored with an electron-capture de- 
tector. Other chromatograms resulted from injection of the 
samples on the 10% DC-200 column and monitoring the column 
effiuent wiih the microcoulometer sulfur titration cell. Aldrin 
would ha\'e a retention time relative to sulfenone of 0.80 on the 
latter column if the chlorine cell had been used 



sulfur. The s[>ecificatians for free sulfur in some of the 
reagents currently used is not in disagreetnent with this 
finding. Three forms of sulfur may be present to give the 
three peaks on GLC-EC. The peak occurring near 
aldrin is the largest and that near BHC is the smallest. 
The two smaller peaks usually are not seen because of 
dilution of the sample before ir\jectton. • 



Sulfur is widely used as a fungicide and thus it is not 
surprising to find large quantities in some soil siimplcs 
from agricullural areas. However, if it is present, neither 
aldrin nor BHC can be determined accurately by GLC- 
EC unless some additional procedure is carried out, such 
as that suggested by Sans (IS>67). Indication that such an 
additional procedure is required would be a positive re- 
sponse at the retention time for BHC or aldrin with the 
microcoulometer chlorine titration cell. 

A practical solution to the problem of impure reagents 
in our laboratory has been to purchase commercial "85 % 
purity" hexane in large quantities and distill it over bright 
metallic sodium. (Note. Sodium is very reactive and 
due caution must be exercised in its use with a flammable 
solvent such as hexane.) Preshipment samples of Florisil 
and anhydrous sodium sulfate are obtained and analyzed 
before purchase is made. All glassware is rinsed thor- 
oughly 'with redistilled hexane before use. Soil samples 
which appear to contain aldrin are subjected to critical 
microcoulometric analysis and if aldrin still is suspected, 
further steps are taken to verify its presence. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

We thank W. D. Guenzi, U.S. Department of Agricul- 
ture, Fort Collins, Colo., for permission to publish his 
soil extraction method. We are indebted to W. A. Nixon 
and B. J. Wiginton, Marathon Oil Co., Denver Research 
Center, for the x-ray spectroscopy and interpretation. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Heinrich, B. J., Grimes, M. D., Puckett, J. E., "Sulfur" in 

"Treatise on Analytical Chemistry," I. M. Kolthoff, P. J. 

Elving, E. B. Sandell, Ed., Part II, Vol. 7, p. 27, Interscience, 

New York, 1961. 
Lee, D. F., Britton, J., Jeffcoat, B., Mitchell, R. F., Naiurt 

211, 521 (1966). 
Powers, M. C, "X-ray Fluorescent Spectrometer Conversion 

Tables for Topaz, Lithium Fluoride, Sodium Chloride, 

EDDT, and ADP Crystals," Phillips Electronics, Inc., Mt. 

Vernon, N.Y., 1957. 
Sans, W. W., J . AoR. Food Chem. 15, 1 92 ( 1 967). 

Receiced for reciew March 23, 1967. Accepted May 29. 1967. 
Research supported by ihe Pesticides Program, National Com- 
municable Disease Center, Bureau of Disease Prensitiion and 
Encironmental Control, Public Health Sercice, U.S. Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare, Atlanta, Ga., 30333, under 
Contract No. PH 86-65-62. Names of commercial manufac- 
turers and trade names are provided for identification oidy. 
Their mention does not constitute endorsement by the Public 
Health Service or by the U.S. Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare. 



3699 

Senator Mondale. Dr. Porter, you are an employee of the Shell 
Development Co., are you not? 

Mr. Porter. Yes. 

Senator :Mondale. And that company produces and sells aldrm? 

Mr. Porter. Yes, that is right. 

Senator J^Iondale. Does the Shell Development Co. have any ac- 
tivities or spend any funds in an effort to protect farmworkers' 
health and safety in the use of aldrin? 

Mr. Porter. In the past, they have conducted experiments in con- 
junction with Government people. 

Senator Mondale. Are there any efforts underway now by your 
corporation ? 

Mr. Porter. None that I am aware of, no. 

Senator Mondale. I assume if workers are exposed to aldrin in 
sufficient quantities, it could be dangerous? 

Mr. Porter. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. What sort of things could happen to an em- 
ployee who is exposed to excessive quantities of aldrin ? 

Mr. Porter. I am afraid that is out of my field, I am not a toxicol- 
ogist. 

Senator Mondale. Do they have anybody on the Shell Co. staff 
that deals with the problem of health risks to employees? 

Mr. Porter. Yes, definitely. We have toxicologists at Woodstock 
Laboratories in England that have done a great deal of work with 
aldrin and dieldrin doing studies on chronic and acute, measurements 
of metabolic fate. There is a great deal of information available on 
the toxicology of aldrin and dieldrin. 

Senator Mondale. Does the Shell Co. have any of those efforts 
underway in the United States? 

Mr. Porter. At the present time? 

Senator Mondale. Yes. 
. Mr. Porter. Yes; and I am really not familiar enough with that 
area to be able to tell you where it is. 

Senator Mondale. You testified that to be really sure about the 
existence and the amount of aldrin one needs an expensive piece of 
equipment called a mass spectrograph, is that correct? 

Mr. Porter. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. Does the FDA use a mass spectrograph in 
identification of pesticide residues? 

Mr. Porter. Yes; they do. 

Senator Mondale. Did they do so on these tests? 

Mr. Porter. I would not be able to say, I am not familiar. 

Senator Mondale. In the materials presented by Senator Murphy, 
it said they use the gas chromatograph. 

.. Senator Murphy. Would the Chairman yield for a moment? These 
were materials that were presented to me, these are not my materials. 
I want the record to show these are a series of reports sent in by 
laboratories which I put into the record, these are not my materials. 
I would like the record to be clear on that. I am not a chemist. 

Senator Mondale. I am glad the Senator clarified that. Wliat I 
meant to say was that these materials which you. Senator Murphy, 
presented in the record. 



3700 

Senator Murphy. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. This is a memorandum from Dr. C. C. Johnson, 
administrative director of CEPHAS in HEW, in which he makes 
certain conclusions about the existence or nonexistence of aldrin, and 
the test he refers to in these documents, gas-liquid chromatography. 
Now, would it be your testimony that if HEW does not use this 
$40,000 piece of equipment to which you have referred, that tiiese 
tests by the FDA would not be reliable? 

Mr. Porter. Well, this mass spectograph is perhaps the ultimate in 
being able to say that you have a compound present. The other tech- 
niques that I mentioned, chemical reactions, the thin-layer chroma- 
tography, the microcoulometric detectors and so forth, could also 
be used. 

Senator Mondale. They used a gas-liquid chromatography method. 
Would you find that adequate if the FDA dealt properly with the 
tests ? 

Mr. Porter. If they said that there was no aldrin present, I would 
say that it is adequate. As I said in the text, the absence of a peak 
is a good indication that nothing was there. 

If a peak is present, you can't be sure that it is aldrin. 

Senator Mondale. As I understand it, the FDA, England labora- 
tories, Eastawai laboratories, Strasburg and Seigel laboratories, none 
of them use this expensive piece of equipment that you are talking 
about. Would you say that most laboratories do not use the test that 
you are referring to in your testimony? 

Mr. Porter. I think it is right that most laboratories do not use 
that piece of equipment. 

Senator Mondale. Now, the California Department of Agriculture 
reconunended paper chromatography — you are a chemist, aren't 
you, George? 

Senator Murphy. I got the lowest mark ever given in chemistry 
in the Yale Sheffield Scientific School without being kicked out. 

Senator Mondale. And microcoulometric gas chromatographv. 

Mr. Porter. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. So that it would be fair to say that the kind of 
equipment that you say is necessary to assure that there are no doubts, 
is equipment that is rarely used. 

Mr. Porter. That is true and quite often you will find that pesti- 
cides are reported on the strength of gas-liquid chromatographic 
evidence alone or supported by paper chromatography and these are 
doubtful if the history of the sample is not known. If you have 
good reason to believe that the compound is there, most people 
are willing to believe it at that, but if you have no reason to believe 
that the compound should be present, vou should view with great 
suspicion anything that was determined "by just these methods. 

Senator Mondale. Did I understand vou' to say that it is impos- 
sible to find aldrin without also finding" dieldrin ?" 

Mr. Porter. I didn't say it was impossible. I said that because the 
aldrm converts so rapidly I don't remember of a case where we 
have found aldrin in a sample that we didn't also find dieldrin. 

Senator Murphy. Would the Chairman yield for a question ? 

Senator Mondale. I would be glad to. 



3701 

Senator Murpht. If aldrin was applied in California and these 
grapes were purchased in a market in Washington, what sort of 
transformation would have taken place during the normal period 
of time the grapes have to be transported from California to Wash- 
ington and placed on the market here? Would that have made a 
definitive difference in the condition? 

Mr. Porter. I don't think so. We have made studies of the storage 
stability of the residues on samples because, of course, we have to 
bring in samples from great distances sometimes from our field 
test and we always freeze them at the field, take them to our labora- 
tories in the frozen condition and maintain them hard frozen until 
we actually analyze them, but against the chance that the samples 
thaw, we run stalDility tests to find out how the residues change just 
standing on the shelf. When they are out of the sunshine, the aldrin 
residues are stable and don't change appreciably over quite long 
periods of time. 

Senator Mondale. The reason I asked the aldrin-dieldrin question 
is that in the materials submitted in the Congressional Record by 
Senator Murphy, that were submitted to him by the Department of 
HEW, on page S. 9866, FDA reports show they foimd aldrin, but 
no dieldrin on 61 samples of grapes in fiscal year 1968. In other 
words, FDA has found aldrin without finding dieldrin. 
Would that indicate that these studies might be inadequate? 
Mr. Porter. At what level of concentration? 
Senator Moxdale. Traces— 0.01 to 0.03. 

Mr. Porter. In the case where traces are listed, it is my under- 
standing that it is simply a gas chromatographic tracing and the 
full identification procedure has not been used but you would have 
to go to the FDA, I think, for confirmation. 

Senator Mondale. Are you personally familiar with any of the 
specific tests, that have been earlier referred to, undertaken by 
England laboratories or the Eastawai laboratories at the request of 
Safeway, or the farmworkers? Are you familiar with what was 
liandled there, the nature of the sample, or what steps were taken? 
Mr. Porter. I am not familiar with any of the details of the 
analysis. I saw the report forms. 

Senator Mondale. Now in the light of that, can you state on the 
basis of your professional background, that there 'could not have 
been aldrin on those grapes? 

Mr. Porter. No. I would not be able to state that. 
Senator Mondale. No further questions. 
Senator Murphy? 

Senator Murphy. I have only one question. 

If aldrin was in fact present on those grapes that were sent to 
the England Laboratories, what would be your explanation of the 
presence of the aldrin and the amount that they found? Have you 
any explanation in view of the fact that you have testified that a 
particular vmeyard that was supposed to produce these grapes has 
not used aldrin? How would it get there? 

Mr. Porter. If it hypothetically were present on the grapes, I 
would say that it would have to have gotten on them in the course 
of transit from the field. 



3702 

Senator Murphy. Now in your testimony you mentioned some- 
thing that happens with plastic bags. If those grapes had been placed 
in a plastic bag, under certain light conditions, could that have 
produced the amount of aldrin that was found on the grapes by 
the England laboratory ? i .• • 

Mr. Porter. It could have contaminated them with the plasticizer 
which could be mistaken for aldrin. 

Senator Murphy. Is that plasticizer dangerous? 

Mr. Porter. Well, one that I am familiar with that is an inter- 
ference is di-normal-butyl phthalate. That to my knowledge is not 
dangerous. There are the polychloro-biphenyls, chlorinated biphenyl 
compounds which are used as plasticizers and some of which could 
be mistaken for aldrin, that are toxic and comparable to DDT. 

Senator Murphy. Would that have produced aldrin in the amount 
that was supposedly found by the England laboratories? 

Mr. Porter. Pardon me? 

Senator Murphy. Would this exposure be able to produce aldrin 
in the amount that was found by the England laboratory— 18 parts 
per million? 

Mr. Porter. Could the plastic bags have contaminated to that ex- 
tent? 

Senator Murppiy. Yes. 

Mr. Porter. I would consider that unlikely. 

Senator Murphy. Thank you. 

No further questions. 

Senator Mondale. If I might just ask one question to clarify 
this. 

Is it your testimony that the only way that aldrin could have 
gotten in these grapes is through confusion with plasticizing, or do 
you have another possibility? 

Mr. Porter. No. The plasticizer, what I was saying was that 
the analysis report could have been erroneous and the person doing 
the test may have actually gotten a signal from the plasticizer from 
the bag. 

Senator Mondale. In the England case prepared for Safeway, as 
I recall Dr. Windlan's testimony, these samples were taken out of 
the plastic bag, and out of the warehouse, and out of the freight 
cars. 

What about the possibility of drift? Now I think it is significant 
to point out that although it is your testimony that there is no aldrin 
on these grapes, many tests of these grapes including England labs, 
Eastawai labs and Bianco's own lab reports, and those of FDA over 
the years, showed these grapes to have aldrin. How did it get there ? 
Could it possibly be drift, or other possibilities? 

Mr. Porter. First of all, the aldrin was reported in all these 
cases. My personal opinion is that it was not aldrin because it is so 
improbable that aldrin would be there. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, you are saying even FDA, in 
finding traces of aldrin in the past, in your opinion identified some- 
thing other than aldrin? 

Mr. Porter. That is correct, because in this case, vou see, at such 
low levels that they didn't do the confirmatory test. 



8703 

Senator Mondale. This is an exceedingly esoteric field. 

Mr. Porter. But don't let me say what the FDA did, because I 
don't know. 

Senator Mondale. I want you to expound on my question about 
drift. In other words, suppose the 

Senator Murphy. Would the gentleman explain drift? 

Senator Mondale. That is what we are doing in the Senate all the 
time. [Laughter.] 

As I understand it, some pesticides are sprayed, by airplanes, some 
are sprayed by tractor booms, but the booms have to be fairly high 
in order to clear the grape vines or other plants. It is not unusual 
for these pesticide residues to get picked up in the wind and drift 
from the fields to elsewhere. 

Mr. Chavez has reported that on occasion, when sprayers come 
to the end of a field, they will even spray a community because the 
airplane is not that accurate. Is that a possibility, do you think? 

Mr. Porter. I am certain that it is not a possibility to the extent 
of 18 parts per million on grapes, because applying aldrin directly 
to grapes at levels that it was at least two times to four times higher 
than recommended levels, you don't get more than a tenth or two- 
tenths of a part per million. This is because the grape berries are 
partly hidden by the foliage, the inner berries are protected from 
the spray by the outer berries and the weight of berry per unit of 
berry surface is very high. So in the direct spraying immediately 
after you have sprayed you go in and harvest the grapes and you 
will find only tenths of a part per million on the grapes them- 
selves. 

Drift, I don't think, would account for residues of that magnitude, 
or even significant magnitude in the grapes. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Cranston. 

Senator Cranston. Is dieldrin used on the grapes? 

Mr. Porter. It is my understanding that it is used for climbing 
cut worm early in the season before the berries have begun to 
develop. 

Senator Cranston. Are other chlorinated hydrocarbons used on 
the California grapes? 

Mr. Porter. I am really not up on that. 

Senator Cranston. In terms of its ability to poison the human 
system, what is the difference between aldrin and dieldrin? 

Mr. Porter. Well, by oral ingestion very little, because aldrin is 
converted in the animal to dieldrin and the metabolic products and 
other features are very similar. But as I said, I am not a toxicologist 
and there may be fine details that I am not aware of. 

Senator Cranston. You testified that aldrin changes into dieldrin. 
Does tliis mean there is usually some aldrin residue in dieldrin ? 

Mr. Porter. Pardon me? 

Senator Cranston. You testified that aldrin changes or transforms 
into dieldrin. 

Mr. Porter. Yes. 

Senator Cranston. Does that mean that there will be some aldrin 
residue in dieldrin? 

Mr. Porter. No, the reverse transformation is not known to 



3704 

take place in any situation exposed to the atmsophere and sunshine 
and on leaves. In some situations, in cultures of microorganisms, 
dieldrin has been seen to be reduced to aldrin, but this has only been 
reported in two occasions. It is very unlikely. 

Senator Cranston. You mentioned aldrin's use as a soil insecticide. 
Would you describe how and when it is used as a soil insecticide? 

Mr. Porter. It is not to my knowledge used on grapes, but it 
is used in quite large quantities on corn and it is distributed as gran- 
ules on the ground and incorporated into the soil in various ways. 
Sometimes it is applied as a broadcast treatment to fields on 
all varieties of crops. I am not sure what crops are labeled for aldrin 
use. 

Senator Cranston. I assume that aldrin in the soil, changes. 
Is that a correct assumption? 
Mr. Porter. In the soil, changes? 
Senator Cranston. Yes. 
Mr. Porter. Yes, it will. 

Senator Cranston. How long does the dieldrin remain in the soil ? 
Mr. Porter. Well, it varies a great deal depending on the tempera- 
ture, the amount of water, the amount of microorganism activity and 
so forth. About half of whatever is there will disappear between 
6 months and a year's time and this is pretty consistent. It is 
generally proportional to the amount that is present so that a given 
fraction of it will disappear in a given time regardless of the 
amount that is actually present. 

Senator Cranston. Half disappears in 6 months. What about the 
other half? 

Mr. Porter. It continues to decline and the actual amount in the 
soil will depend on how often you have applied it and what time 
has elapsed since it was applied, and the various things of this sort. 
It would eventually disappear completely if it were not treated. 
Senator Cranston. Thank you very much. 
Senator Mondale. Senator Schweiker. 
Senator Schweiker. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. 
In your testimony. Doctor, you said on page 7, "On thin-layer 
chromatography sulphur is developed in a number of solvent systems 
very close to aldrin and can be mistaken for it." 

Was this the type of system that the labs used to detect it ? I am 
not clear on who used what system. 

Mr. Porter. The Food and Drug Administration generally uses 
thin-layer chromatography as a confirmatory^ test, according to 
their manual. The England Laboratory that reported yesterday 
used paper chromatography. I think paper chromatography is in- 
terior to thin-layer chromatography. 

Senator Schweiker. You sav it is inferior? 

Mr. Porter. Yes, particularly for aldrin, because on the paper 
chromatographic system aldrin is hardly moved and it is not a 
very selective t«st for aldrin. 

Senator Schweiker. You also mention that the best types of 
equipment are in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. Would that be available 
to FDA, or at NIH for example? 
Mr. Porter. Yes. 



3705 

Senator Schweiker. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to suggest 
that to solve the mystery, we might consider redirecting tests based 
on using this sophisticated equipment that seems to be a lot less 
debatable than the other equipment we have. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Schweiker, I am glad you brought this 
up. Let me say what I thought this hearing was about. Basically, 
we are trying to determine the nature of the risk, and what can 
be done t<) prevent the risks to the health of the farmworkers m 
the field, from a worker health and safety perspective, as opposed 
to the esoteric problems of identification of pesticides. The reason 
we are kicking this dead horse around, whether there was, or was 
not, some aldrin on grapes, is that the charge was made that the 
Union came in here with false information. I think it is abundantly 
clear that they took an honest sample to an honest laboratory, and 
came over to our hearing with an honest report finding aldrin. 

Now the reports could be wrong. That is a scientific field. I don't 
think we have been sent to the U.S. Senate to become chemists and 
rule upon such erudite subjects. Bi^t I do think we have a duty to 
find out whether we have been used to sponsor false testimony, and 
that is all I think we should be involved with. At least that is my 
judgment. 

Senator Murphy. Would the Chairman yield? 

Senator Mondale. Gladly. 

Senator Murphy. Since I was the one that asked for the reopening 
of these hearings, I disagree we are kicking a dead horse. I think 
it is expressly important because the claim of danger to workers 
in California grapes has done a great deal of harm to the industry, 
to the workers in industry, to the growers in the industry, and I 
thought it was very important that we find out, if in truth, dangerous 
pesticides were being used in this proportion and, if so, then this 
committee should act immediately to see that these are not used. 

Now if the testimony shows that this particular pesticide has 
not been used, and I think the testimony was that it has not been 
used in 3 years, and it suddenly appears on grapes in Washington, 
I am extremely interested to know how it got there and whether it 
was a misreading of the chemical analysis, or how the pesticide got 
there and for what purpose. I think it is very important because 
I think this is the basis of this particular phase of the hearing, to 
find out whether we are getting the facts or not. 

Senator Mondale. Well, of course, two parties brought grapes 
to the laboratories: One, the farmworkers; and the second was 
Safeway Stores. Both parties found aldrin on the grapes. Now I 
don't know whether there was aldrin or not, and I don't propose 
to become a chemist and find out, but the thing that caused me to 
want this hearing on this particular issue was the Congressional 
Record statement by Senator Murphy 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. 

Now that error has to be cleared. 

Senator Murphy. I think so, and that is why we are having this 
hearing. I have not heard anybody yet testify as to how 18 parts per 



3706, 

million, whicli would be very dangerous, got on those grapes. I have 
heard that people say they have not used this particular pesticide 
and what we are trying to find out here, as I understand it, is 
whether there was a misreading of the chemical analysis, which 

Certainly the exhibits that were available to me, and I put them all 
in, showed a great variance, and I don't see why, in such an exact 
science, there should be such a great variance if this was properly 
approached. I am just curious to know, this is not a question of 
accusation. 

Senator ]Moxdale. I think some might take it as such. When yon 
say that "this tactic on the part of the United Farm "Workers is a 
vicious type of deceit," they might take that personally. 

Senator Murphy. Where do you see that? 

Senator Mondale. Here, from your remarks in the Congressional 
Record, which I introduced into this hearing record yesterday. 

Senator Murphy. I may have to apologize. I didn't intend it in 
that manner, and I think the Chairman knows this. But I did intend 
that we find out exactly whether or not these are the facts, or not 
the facts. So far as I have listened to the testimony, one laboratory 
says that they found aldrin to a degree that was dangerous, the FDA 
says that they found no aldrin or only traces, and the testimony this 
morning says aldrin was not used. 

Now, I don't say it was there or was not there. I am interested 
if it was not used, and not been used, how did it get on those grapes. 
This is my whole point. 

Senator Mondale. Well, I am glad to see that the nature of this 
hearing has now changed, and that it was not intended to imply 
deceit or dishonesty on someone's part. If someone is deceitful, one 
wonders whether that charge rests against the farmworkers or 
Safeway. They both took samples to the laboratories, and the lab- 
oratories found aldrin. Now if somebody is deceitful, presumably 
it is both the supermarket and the farmworkers, and if the charge 
of deceit is going to be dropped 

Senator Murphy. That is your presumption and not mine. Mr. 
Chairman. 

Senator Mondale. Fine. Mr. Giumarra, who is going to testify, 
said this is a false pesticide scare, and a 

Senator Murphy. I didn't hear his testimony. 

Senator Mondale (continuing) . Traveling sideshow, the charges are 
false, great threat to the American consumer, and so on. 

Senator Murphy. May I ask what the Chairman is reading from? 
I have not got that. 

Senator Mondale. This is a handout of the press release by Mr. 
Giumarra. I shall order it printed at this point in the record. 

(The material referred to follows:) 

Grape Growers Refute Charges of Oesar Chavez on Pesticides 

Washington, D.C, Sept. 29— Two major California table grape growers 
today charged Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Organizing Com- 
mittee with mounting a false pesticide scare to cover UFWOC's failure to 
organize the nation's farm workers and to sustain a sagging grape boycott 
effort. ,- 



3707 

Speaking for their industry, John G. Gimnarra, Jr., and Anthony A. Bianco, 
Jr., said Chevez' pesticide campaign and his charge that California growers 
are poisoning the American people would be totally repudiated in testimony 
today and tomorrow before the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. 
The growers, as well as officials of the State of California and technical 
experts on agricultural i>esticides, are in Washington to appear before the 
Subcommittee. 

Giumarra, general counsel for Giimiarra Vineyards Corporation of Edison, 
and Bianco, president of Bianco Fruit Corporation of Fresno, issued this 
statement at a news conference at the National Press Club : 

"It is somewhat unusual in advance of a legislative hearing to com- 
ment on testimony the committee will hear. But we of the table grape industry 
have had to listen for too long while Cesar Chavez has misled the American 
people and the Congress. 

"Mr. Chavez has come to Washington to testify before the highest legislative 
body in the land in an effort to use this revered place as the staging ground 
for a traveling sideshow which he had hoped would wliip the farmers and 
stores of the nation to their knees. 

"Mr. Chavez and his representatives have appeared before Congress and 
in the marketi>laces of the country to charge that California table grapes are 
contaminated by pesticides. The hearings today and tomorrow will prove 
that those charges are false, and that they have been deliberately raised 
as a tactical weapon in a losing battle. 

"They will prove that Mr. Chavez is the greatest threat to the American 
consumer in the history of agriculture and his pious trumi^eting of the pesticide 
charge will be shown for what it is — a bogeyman campaign to keep his 
failing 'La Causa' alive. 

"On August 1, the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor heard Jerome Cohen, 
UFWOC general counsel, charge that Mr. Bianco's grapes contained 18 
parts per million of the pesticide aldrin, a level far in excess of permitted 
tolerances. His charge was based on a laboratory analysis purporting to 
be of Mr. Bianco's grapes purchased in a Washington store. Then, with a 
broad brush but no specifics, he painted a black picture of growers poisoning 
farm workers and the American consumer. 

"Senator George Murphy of California then questioned Mr. Cohen's charges, 
pointing out that government and private investigations of graoes and their 
purity failed to substantiate Mr. Cohen's claims. Senator Murphy called Mr. 
Cohen's testimony 'possible duplicity' and asked that the hearings be recon- 
vened to get at the facts. 

"The hearings today and tomorrow will clearly establish those facts. Spokes- 
men for the table grape industry, chemical manufacturers and federal and 
state agencies will appear before the committee. Their testimony will pin the 
'big lie' label on the UFWOC pesticide campaign. 

"Evidence will show that Mr. Cohen's charge is false because aldrin is not 
even used on grapes in California. 

"Evidence will show that UFWOC launched the pesticide scare only to 
shore up its sagging boycott and that its stated concern for the farm worker 
and consumer is no more than another cynical weapon in its arsenal of trickery 
and deceit. 

"Evidence will be presented that Mr. Chavez himself opposed launching the 
poison scare until all else failed, and that UFWOC was willing to use the 
pesticide charge as a throw-away issue at the bargaining table. 

"The Subcommittee will also hear of harassment and terror on the farms, 
of flrebombings and arson, and of the mysterious spraying of a tear gas 
type chemical in an effort to force workers from the field. 

"And when the evidence is in, we think the script of Mr. Chavez' travelling 
sideshow which will roam the East and Midwest over the next few weeks 
will have to be rewritten. 

It will have to be rewritten because Mr. Chavez has failed in his last desperate 
attempt to grab control of the nation's food production. California table 
grapes are being harvested, shipped and marketed and the American public 
is buying them. UFWOC has failed to stop the consumer from exercising his 
freedom of choice in the market place just as it has failed to stop the farm 
worker from going into the vineyards. 

"It is about time that if Mr. Chavez and UFWOC really wanted to help 
the farm worker that they join with responsible agriculture, with members of 



3708 

Congress and with concerned consumers in seeking federal legislation to pro- 
vide orderly procedures for union organizing and collective bargaining on the 
farm. If he believed in consumers' rights he would call off his boycott and 
respect their right to decide for themselves what they wish to buy or 
not to buy. 

"Agriculture across the country is supporting fair and responsible legisla- 
tion while Mr. Chavez has only said 'no' to every proposal. Instead of using 
the Congress for a sideshow, it it time for Mr. Chavez and UFWOC to 
partake in the democratic process and work with all concerned to achieve 
a real solution to the farm labor controversy." 

Senator Mondale. I would like to see this be a rational hearing 
on the exposure of farm workers to pesticide poisoning. That is how 
it all began, but since two things were said, one that the farm 
workers were sponsoring deceitful information, and secondly, that 
by implication that this committee was sponsoring the same sort of 
material, I thought it was important to clear the air. 

I would say up to this point we have not heard one hint that the 
farm workers or Safeway did anything but the honest thing. They 
took grapes to the laboratory for testing and found aldrin. 

Senator Murphy. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday there 
was a suggestion that there might have been a misreading by the 
laboratory report by the England laboratories, and now we have 
heard an expert say that if you do it in a certain fashion you could 
very easily be misleading and come to erroneous conclusions, that 
unless you do a complete testing with certain instruments which 
probably were not available or may not have been available in 
England but were available to the Food and Drug, we have a 
different scientific opinion here. 

Senator Mondale. That is right, but 

Senator Murphy. Let me finish. 

Now there is a difference of opinion between the England Labora- 
tory and the Food and Drug Administration. I merely want to find 
out if there was aldrin to this degree. That is my only question. 

Senator Mondale. Would you not say that that question is an 
entirely different one than the question of probing the deceit of the 
farm workers? In the last statement, you said the laboratories might 
not know what they are doing. 

Senator Murphy. That is not true. I have not charged anybody 
with deceit. If I have, if that is the meaning that the Chairman has 
read in — and I didn't understand that my statement was on trial 
here in this form and I resent the implication — then if that is the 
case I make no charge against anyone. I am here to find out whether 
or not testimony was given to th'is committee in an effort to deceive 
the committee, whether it be by England or by Mr. Porter or by 
the United Farm Workers, or whoever. This is my whole purpose, 
and I think that is fairly clear. 

Senator Mondale. I received a letter from you on August 19, 1969, 
requesting these hearings, and in the letter you refer to the FDA and 
other maitenals that appear to attempt to mislead the subcommittee 
by presentation of false evidence. 

Now I find that a very serious charge. I don't like to be misled 
and I am sorry you resent it, but it is your language. 



3709 

Senator Murphy. May I say this: This is a personal letter from 
me to the chairman of the committee. Is that right? Is that what it 
is? 

Senator Mondale. And it was released to the press, which makes 
it somewhat public. 

(The news release referred to follows:) 

News Release from the Office of Senator George Murphy, California 

Sacramento, Calif., August 20— Sen. George Murphy, R.-Calif., citing Food 
and Drug Administration reports refuting Senate testimony that California 
table grapes contain harmful levels of the pesticide aldrin, called today for 
a farm union official to repeat his charges under oath. 

Murphy has stated that 60 tests of table grapes across the country by the 
FDA showed no trace of aldrin. He termed the August 1 testimony of Jerome 
Cohen, general counsel of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, 
before the Sub-Committee on Migratory Labor "possible duplicity." 

The senator said he wrote Sen. Walter F. Mondale, D.-Minn. the Sub- 
committee chairman yesterday, requesting hearings be reconvened and Cohen 
and others be questioned under oath. 

"The conclusion is clear," Murphy said. "The grapes presented (by UFWOC) 
. . . 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. 

"If this be the case — the tactic on the part of the United Farm Workers 
Organizing 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. 

"If duplicity be the case," he said, "it seems to me these people should be 
cited for contempt of congre^." 

In his letter to Mondale, Murphy said Cohen, Manuel Vasquez. UFWOC 
representative in Washington ; and FDA representatives and other scientists 
should be required to give sworn testimony about aldrin content in grapes. 

The senator said statements from the agricultural commissioner of Kern 
County and the operator of the Kern vineyards where the grapes cited by 
Cohen were produced proved there had been no aldrin application. He said 
the vineyard operator, Anthony J. Bianco, had not used aldrin in any form on 
his properties in six years. 

Murphy added : "Obviously, the union has raised the pesticide issue in an 
effort to further harass the grape industry 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 it really is." 

Murphy said the pesticide issue pointed uip in "clear and concise evidence" 
the need for federal legislation to resolve farm labor problems. 

He said a law growing out of his Senate-introduced Consumers' Agricultural 
Food Protection Act would "offer the protections for proper organization and 
collective bargaining, while safeguarding the farmer against loss of his 
crop and possibly his farm and guaranteeing the flow of food from farm to 
market. 

"This pesticide specter raised by UFWOC is just another argument in 
favor of such legislation," he said. 

The UFWOC pesticide charge was leveled in Cohen's unsworn testimony 
and claimed table grapes purchased at Washington supermarkets contained 
180 times the human tolerance level of aldrin, a chlorinated hydrocarbon 
used against grasshoppers. Cohen presented a report from the C. W. England 
Laboratory of Washington, D.C., noting 18 parts per million of aldrin in the 
grapes tested. Legal limit is .10 parts per million. 

The England Laboratory, Murphy told the Senate last week, said the grapes 
tested were provided by Vasquez, and were not purchased by the laboratory. 

FDA's 60 tests, showing no trace of aldrin on any sample, included grapes 
from markets in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington-Baltimore 
and storage lots from San Francisco. 



3710 

(The allegations referred to also appeared in the Congressional 
Record of August 12, 1969, which follow:) 

[Excerpts from the Congressional Record, Aug. 12, 1969] 
Aldbin Residxje on Table Grapes 

Mr. Murphy. Mr. President, I think it is important that 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 
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. 

On August 1, 1969, Jerry Cohen, general counsel for the United Farm 
Workers Organizing Committee — UFWOC — appeared before that subcommittee 
and testified that two bunches of Thompson seedless grapes contained quan- 
tities of the chemical Aldrin which were 180 times the established tolerance 
level for human beings. Mr. Cohen submitted a laboratory report from C. W. 
England Laboratory, of Washington, D.C., showing an aldrin content of 18 
parts per million compared with the legal tolerance level of .01 part 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 directly or obtained from any market directly 
by the laboratory. 

After this testimony the Food and Drug Administration, at the request of 
subcommittee Chairman Mondale, has conducted tests of table grapes in mar- 
kets across the country. It obtained 60 samples, 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 grai)es. It also shows there was no chemical residue of any nature 
on any grape sample that approached the human tolerance level. I ask unani- 
mous consent that the report of the Food and Drug Administration be printed 
in the Record. 

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

(Material inserted in the Record by Senator Murphy appears in full detail 
earlier in this hearing record.) 
********** 

Mr. MtTRPHY. Mr. President, the graipes 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 
Anthony A. Bianco, Jr., and Bianco Fruit Corfp. 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. Samp- 
son, his pest control applicator, be printed in the Record, together with a report 
of tests conducted on grapes from the Bianco Ranch by the BC Laboratories 
of Bakersfield, Calif. 

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

♦ ***♦**♦** 

Mr. Murphy. Mr. President, Seldon Morley, the Agricultural Commissioner 
of Kern County, Calif., in which Mr. Bianco does the bulk of his grape pro- 
duction has submitted a statement that there has been no commercial appli- 
cation of Aldrin 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 
Record, as follows : 

♦♦**♦****♦ 
Mr. Murphy. 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 



3711 

have retained 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 
the Shell Development Co., biological research center in Modesto, Calif. — a di- 
vision of the only firm manufacturing aldrin — reports it would take an ap- 
plication 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. 
Morley specifies — and normal application of the pesticide in California is con- 
fined 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 aldrin. 

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 difficult to explain. 
And it seems possible that a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate has been the 
victim of duplicity. 

If this be the case — this tactic on the part of the United Farm Workers 
Organizing 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 negotiations 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 Workers Organizing Commit- 
tee 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, oflice manager for the South Central Farmers Committee ill 
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 objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed 
in the Record as follows : 

********** 
Mr. Murphy. Mr. President, obviously the union has raised the pesticide 
issue in an effort to further harass the grape industry 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 it 
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. 

Senator Mondale. In any event, that is one of the reasons we 
held these hearings, in order to probe whether 

Senator Murphy. In any event, let's say I was mistaken and I 
would like to get on with the hearing, if I may. I say for the record 



3712 

I make no accusations, I am not in the habit of accusing without 
enough information and knowledge. I have been around some time 
now, and the reason I asked for this hearing was to make certam 
that this committee was getting the facts of the matter. 

Now that is cleared up, I would hope that we could get on with 
the hearing and if the chairman has any complaints against any 
procedure or my habits or what I have done in the past, I think 
maybe we ought to take it up at a different time. 

Senator Mondale. I am very fond of Senator Murphy and I have 
no complaints. 

Senator Murphy. Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. Any other questions? 

Our next witness is Mr. Allen B. Lemmon of the California De- 
partment of Agriculture. 

Mr. Lemmon, if you will come to the witness chair. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN B. LEMMON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CALI- 
FORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. Lemmon. My name is Allen B. Lemmon, and I am assistant 
director of the California Department of Agriculture. Mr. Jerry 
Fielder, the director of agriculture, asked me to express his apprecia- 
tion to the chairman for the invitation to appear on August 1 and 
again at this time, and his regret that he was not able to appear, 
because of other commitments, in the short time involved. So he asked 
that I be here at this time to try to present information. 

May I explain my background? I am a graduate of Stanford 
University with an A.B. in engineering in 1930, and degree of engi- 
neer in 1932. 

I have been employed continuously by the California Department 
of Agriculture since 1933. My first asignment was the inspection of 
fruits and vegetables for spray residues, and I have been interested in 
the protection of the public through enforcement of California pesti- 
cide laws ever since that time. During the period 1946 to 1956 I 
served as chief of the bureau of chemistry of the California Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. In 1956 I became chief of the division of 
plant industry and have continued in this capacity. In 1968 I was 
designated assistant director of agriculture covering plant industry 
and other work as assigned by the director. 

On August 1, 1969, our director of agriculture, Mr. Jerry W. 
Fielder, sent you a description of our California pesticide 
regulatory program. With this was included an article authored 
by me and published in "Residue Reviews" (vol. 6, 1964) that fully 
describes the details of our complex, comprehensive pesticide regula- 
tor program. 

On September 17, 1969, in response to a request from the chair- 
man of this committee. Director Fielder sent you a letter responding 
to three questions that were asked. If there is any further response 
that I can provide you. Director Fielder has instructed me to do so. 

I request your consent to make these three documents a part of 
the hearing record. 



3713 

Senator Mondale. Without objection, so included. 

(The documents referred to all appear in the record o± the August i, 
1969, subcommittee hearing.) 

Mr Lemmon. I would like to point out that our comprehensive 
pesticide regulatory program in California covers not only the 
licensing of the pesticides themselves but the licensing of the pest 
control operators with special examination for those serving as 
pilots to apply pesticides from aircraft. We have also classihed 
35 materials as injurious materials that require a permit before 
an individual may use the materials. These include materials 
such as parathion and DDT. 

The i^eason that we are able to enforce this type ot program is 
that in each county in California there is a county agricultural 
commisssioner who has an extensive staff of county employees that 
are in the field at all times and know what goes on m the various 
agricultural production areas. These men are trained inspectors 
and are distinct from the Agricultural Extension Service. The agri- 
cultural commissioners, deputies, and inspectors are law enforcement 
officers enforcing the laws set forth in the agricultural code and 
the rules and regulations adopted by the director of agriculture 
under the authority of this code. 

A close, cooperative working relationship exists between the 
California Department of Agriculture and the California Depart- 
ment of Public Health. The public health department's Bureau of 
Occupational Health and Epidemiology, under the direction of 
Dr. Thomas Milby, is conducting a study of the effect of pesticides 
on farmworkers. " Dr. Milby told me last Friday that he had 
no results to report as the study was in the process of interviewing 
2,000 persons. From the testimony that Mr. Chavez gave yesterday, 
it is apparent the United Fami Workers Organizing Committee 
has talked with one of the many persons conducting interviews for 
Dr. Milby. I am sure this is why Mr. Chavez was unable to 
obtain any authoritative information. 

Senator Mondale. Would you yield there. 

As I remember Mr. Chavez' testimony yesterday, he had about 
four pages of specific examples. Do you intend to deny the 
authoritative nature of those examples? 

Mr. Lemmon. No. I am pointing out that in the study the 
public health department is making they are interviewing people 
to gather information with regard to what tests they should make in 
diagnosis of farrm workers rather than to have the farmworkers 
diagnose themselves. 

Senator Mondale. You have seen or heard Mr. ChaA^ez' statement. 
Do you know of any facts in there that you disagree with, or have 
information that would justify you in dismissing it as inaccurate? 

Mr. Lemmon. I don't have the statement in mind. As I went 
through and listened to him there were one or two items that I 
recall that I had a question about, particularly with regard to 
this problem of getting information from the regulatory agencies 
pertaining to use of pesticides. 

As I further point out in my statement it is the policy of the 

36-513 O — 70— pt. 6C 3 



3714 

department of agriculture to provide a worker or his physician or 
his attorney any information, if there is a problem of illness 
involved, that he possibly has in order to aid diagnosis and 
treatment. 

Senator Mondale. I think Mr. Chavez was referring to hndmg 
information about when, and in what way, and with what 
kinds of chemicals, the field is sprayed so that the workers could 
protect themselves. Do you provide that kind of information 
freely to the farmworkers? 

Mr. Lemmon. In our office we do not have that information. 

Senator Mondale. Is it freely available to them ? 

Mr. Lemmon. No, it is not freely available because the information 
that is available is summaries prepared by county agricultural 
commissioners in some counties at the end of the year showing 
what was used. 

Senator Mondale. So if the farmers wanted to protect themselves 
in field A and would like to know what kinds of chemicals were 
were sprayed, and at what times, and so on, the farmer won't tell 
them. To your knowledge there is no source to which they can 
go in a legal way to obtain that information? 

Mr. Lemmon. If there is an injurious material used on a farm, 
the regulations require the farmer to tell the worker, if he asks, 
what was used. 

Senator Murphy. Will the Chairman yield for a question? 

Senator Mondale. Yes. 

Senator Murphy. Do I understand you to say that only if the 
worker asks; in other words, if there has been an injurious material 
sprayed, is there no notice, is there no public display of any 
danger signal as to the length of ;time the pesticide is used, so 
that the worker may have a chance of ascertaining the conditions 
existing in that field? 

Mr. Lemmon. If parathion, EPN, and one or two other materials 
of that type, are used at the rate of over 1 pound 1 acre, then the 
law requires that they post the property with a sign indicating 
the date of ^treatment and what it was treated with, and how 
long the worker should stay out of the property, or how long 
people should stay out. So it is where high level treatments 
are applied that there is a requirement that property be posted. 

Senator Murphy. In your experience, would you say that the 
farmers generally pay attention to this, or are they neglectful and 
do they sometimes forget to post the property as the law requires? 

Mr. Lemmon. I think the farmers have attempted to comply with 
the law. In general, applications are less on most crops than 1 pound 
per acre, therefore posting is not required. In those cases where 
greater amounts are required for control of a particular pest on 
a particular crop, the properties are posted. 

Senator Murphy. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mondale. Well, if it is working so satisfactorily why 
did Dr. Irma West in an article appearing in Archives of Environ- 
mental Health in July 1964 state that : 



3715 

In California the agriculture industry experiences the highest occupational 
disease rate, over 50 percent higher than the industry in second place, and 
almost three times as high the average rate of all industries. 

If it is working so well, why does Dr. West find such widespread 
examples of occupational diseases arising from occupational pesti- 
cides ? 

(The articles referred to appear elsewhere in this hearing record.) 

Mr. Lemmon. Dr. West was able to have statistics from first 
doctor reports in California and they have been tabulated 
annually up through 1967, showing injuries to workers and others 
involved in agriculture where chemicals may be involved. 

I do not know of other places in the United States where such 
information is available. In California this complete information 
was set forth and allows us to follow up and try to make corrections 
where we find that there are problems involved, and this is the 
purpose of the injurious materials law that was passed in 1949 
and has been amended from time to time since it was first enacted. 

Senator Mondale. Proceed. 

Mr. Lemmon. Another example of Public Health's interest in co- 
operation is the information the Department has distributed to 
physicians in California on pesticides particularly organic phosphate 
diagnosis and treatment. Public Health also has provided such 
material to any physician requesting it. 

In addition to regulation of the sale and use of pesticides, the 
Department maintains laboratories where samples of fruits, vege- 
tables, hay, meat, milk, and other raw agricultural commodities 
used for food purposes are analyzed. These samples are drawn 
from fields or lots in the course of being harvested or transported 
or in the wholesale markets or in retail outlets. This spray residue 
inspection program is statewide and is for the purpose of assuring 
that the produce offered for sale to the consumer complies with the 
spray residue requirements set forth in the Federal and State laws 
and regulations. Routine testing of produce enables us immediately 
to hold and require reconditioning of any produce that may be 
found with residue in excess of the permitted tolerance. 

The samples of grapes that have been drawn in the routine 
process of our work have not shown any grapes with spray residues 
in excess of the permitted tolerance. In no case have we found any 
aldrin on grapes. In response to a report on September 11, 1969, 
that signs were being displayed in front of a Purity Store in 
San Francisco alleging that the grapes for sale were poisoned, 
we drew four samples of the grapes on hand, analyzed them, and 
found that they did not carry any pesticide residue in excess of 
the tolerance. Only one sample carried any residue, and that was 
kelthane 0.6 parts per million, well within" the legal tolerance of 5 
ppm. 

In California each agricultural pest control operator is required 
to submit a monthly report to the county agricultural commissioner 
in each county in which he does work showing the work that was 
done in that county. The records that are submitted to the agri- 
cultural commissioner enable him to determine if there have been 
misapplications and take proper action against a pest control 



3716 

operator or other person who was involved. I have personally 
contacted several of the agricultural commissioners including^ the 
Commissioner of Riverside County and the Commissioner of Kern 
County, and have been informed that their records do not show 
the use of any aldrin on table grapes in their counties. In checking 
with other counties, I have been informed that they have no records 
of the use of aldin upon grapes. 

Senator Mondale. Would you yield there? 
Is that information public ? 

Mr. Lemmon. I am making my statement public now. 
Senator Mondale. Is the information about pesticides used by 
commercial applicators filed by the county agriculture commissioners 
available, for example, to the fann workers or this committee? 

Mr. Lemmon. The particular individual reports that are filed 
by the pest control operators are not public, because they would 
include information tJiat would permit a competitor to make a 
list of the customers of the operator. The information that is on 
the reports in Kern Coimty, for example, was summarized at 
the end of the year and provided those that were interested giving 
a total summary of each pesticide used in that county. 

Senator Mondale. Are you satisfied with that policy underlying 
the law? 

Mr. Lemmon. We have not been able ourselves to get a method 
of tabulating so we could distribute all of the information statewide. 
As I mention further on in my statement, the amendments to the 
law in 1969 and through the use of a computer, we believe we are 
going to be in a position to provide much better information than 
we have in the past. 

Senator Mondale. We are talking about this information which 
is apparently available only in a place where the farm workers 
can not go to find out what pesticides are being used, and by what 
commercial applicators in the field. 

You say that information is not public. If the farm workers want 
it they can not obtain it. Is that correct? 

Mr. Lemmon. No, they can go to the farmer and ask what was 
used. 

Senator Mondale. Can he get it from the county agricultural 
commissioner? That was my question. 

Mr. Lemmon. He can not see the reports with regard to the 
operators that are filed. He can ask on a particular farm it it 
was treated, and he will get a response. 

Senator Mondale. I asked if the county agricultural Commissioner 
can turn over the information at the request of the farmworkers. 

Mr. Lemmon. No, we are under court order from the court in 
Kern County. 

Senator Mondale. The answer is no, you can not. 

Mr. Lemmon. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. How then were you able to obtain this infor- 
mation off those records, and disclose it here today ? 

Mr. Lemmon. The individual reports are not those that are put 
out, but the mformation on them with regard to use is available. 



3717 

Senator Mondale. Do these county agriculture commissioner 
reports include information on the application of pesticides by 
noncommercial applicatioii? 

Mr. Lemmon. The pest control operatx)r reports only carry the 
information with regard to what is applied by them. 

Senator Mondale. So where a farmer puts on his own pesticides, 
that does not appear with the agriculture commission, is that correct? 

Mr. Lemmox. That is correct. 

Senator Mondale. What percentage of the pesticides applied 
would you say are self -applied? 

What percentage are applied by commercial applicators? 

Mr. Lemmon. Estimated on the overall statewide basis, all 
pesticides, 70 percent is put on by pest-control operators, roughly 
30 percent by individual farmers. It varies a little within the range 
of 70 percent to 80 percent, according to different crops. 

Senator Mondale. So that if the farmer does not cooperate with 
the farmworker in telling him about the pesticides, the farrnworkers 
could not obtain the information from the county agricultural 
commissioner because they won't give it to him, and even the 
30 percent of the information is not available, because it is not 
even required to be filed with the agriculture commission, would 
that be correct? 

Mr. Lemmon. That is partially correct. I point out if it is 
injurious material that the farmer is applying, for which he has 
to get a permit from the commissioner, the permits are public 
information. 

Senator Mondale. Does he have to get a permit for DDT? 

Mr. Lemmon. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. You may proceed. 

Senator Murphy. May I ask a question? 

Senator Mondale. Yes. 

Senator Murphy. I want to make one point that I am not 
clear on. In other words, if a farm worker called upon the farmer 
and asked for the information, or asked the commission, he can't 
get the information on what particular farm? 

Mr. Lemmon. You can get it on one particular farm with regard 
to DDT, for example, if you ask, because that is an injurious 
material and the farmer has to get a permit and the permits are 
public information. 

Senator Murphy. One other question: With regard to the 30 
percent of the farmers, I understood you to say 30 percent do their 
own spraying and their own application. Now with regard to the 
produce from those farms, they are subjected to the same tests and 
scrutiny as the other farms and the public marketplace by your 
commission, is that correct? 

Mr. Lemmon. That is correct. 

Senator Murphy. Thank you. 

In other words, my point was that the farmer who is the self- 
applicator, if he was negligent it is safe to assume that he would 
be able to find this out very quickly through a general test, is that 
a proper statement? 



3718 

Mr. Lemmon. Yes. 

Senator Murphy. Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. Have you completed your statement. 

Mr. Lemmon. No, I have some more. 

Senator Mondale. You may proceed. 

Mr. Lemmon. For the record, I would like to submit the state- 
ments of the Agricultural Commissioner of Riverside and Kern 
County attesting the fact that aldrin is not used on grapes. 

Senator Mondale. Without objection, so ordered. We will print 
your entire statement, together with the attachments, at the close of 
your remarks. 

Mr. Lemmon. California's pesticide laws and regulations have 
emphasized protection for persons, animals, and crops. The 1969 
legislature has given the Department of Agriculture the added 
responsibility of protecting the environment. The law has been 
amended to require registrants of the pesticides classified as injurious 
materials to render quarterly reports of sales to the director. It 
also requires each agricultural commissioner to report to the director 
the type and amount of injurious materials for which permits are 
issued and the crop and pest or pests on which the material is 
used. The contents of these reports are required to be summarized 
quarterly by the director as to the type of material and amounts 
and such summaries are to be made a public record. 

If there are any questions that I can answer, I will be pleased 
to have the opportunity to do so. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Cranston. 

Senator Cranston. Could you explain exactly what pesticides 
are used on California grapes. 

Mr. Lemmon. There is quite a long list of them that are used 
according to the season and the pest involved. 

Senator Cranston. Could you submit for the record. Doctor, what 
they are? 

Mr. Lemmon. I can give you a copy of the publication of 'the 
University of California with regard to their recommendations 
for pest control on grapes. 

Senator Cranston. If you will submit that for the record, it would 
be helpful. 

Mr. Lemmon. All right, sir. 

(The document referred to follows:) 



3719 





pest and disease control prooram for 



GRAPES 



CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL 
Experiment Station 
Extension Service 



3720 



Introduction 

The following pest control program is based 
upon research investigations carried out by 
University of California personnel in the Agri- 
cultural Experiment Station and Agricultural 
Extension Service, in cooperation with the State 
Departments of Agriculture and Public Health, 
Fish and Game, the U.S.D.A., and the agricul- 
tural and chemical industries. 

This program has been developed on a state- 
wide basis, but special problems of control in 
local situations have been noted and apply only 
to the area designated. Controls for the major 
problems are given, but these may not be pres- 
ent in every area. Use only that portion of the 
program that is applicable to your area. 

Warning on the Use of Chemicals 
and Suggestions for Proper Use 

Pesticides are poisonous and always should 
be used with caution. The following suggestions 
for the use and handling of pesticides will help 
minimize the likelihood of injury, from ex- 
posure to such chemicals, to man, animals and 
crops, other than the pest species to be de- 
stroyed. 

Always read all precautionary labeling direc- 
tions before using sprays or dusts and follow 
ihem exactly. Notice warnings and cautions 
before opening the container. Repeat the proc- 
ess every time, no matter how often you use a 
pesticide, or how familiar you think you are 
with the directions. Apply material only in 
amounts and at times specified. 

Personal safety — Avoid inhaling sprays or 
dusts. When directed on the label, wear pro- 
tective clothing and a proper mask. 

Never smoke, eat, or chew while spraying or 
dusting. 

Application — Do not use the mouth to siphon 
liquids from containers or to blow out clogged 
lines, nozzles, etc. 

Do not spray with leaking hoses or connec- 
tions. 

Do not work in the drift of a spray or dust. 
Confine chemicals to the property being 
treated and avoid drift by stopping treatment 
if the weather conditions are not favorable. 

Do not apply pesticides over fish ponds, 
canals, streams, or lakes, and do not apply 
tiiem to fields being irrigated if drain water 
runs off field. 

Cover food and water containers when treat- 
ing around livestock or pet areas. 

Observe label directions and follow recom- 
mendations in order to keep the residue on 
edible portions of plants within the limits per- 
mitted by law. 

Decontamination — Should pesticides be acci- 
dentally spilled on the skin or clothing remove 



contaminated clothing immediately and wash 
the contaminated skin thoroughly. 

Bathe and change to clean clothing after 
spraying or dusting. If it is not possible to 
bathe, wash hands and face thoroughly and 
change clothes. Also wash clothing each day 
before re-use. 

In case of illness — If symptoms of illness 
occur during or shortly after dusting or spray- 
ing, call a physician or get the patient to a 
hospital immediately. 

Disposal of empty containers — Always dis- 
pose of empty containers so that they pose no 
hazard to humans, animals, valuable plants or 
wildlife. 

Storage — Keep pesticides out of reach of chil- 
dren, pets, irresponsible persons, and livestock. 
They should be stored outside the house, away 
from food and feed, and under lock and key. 

Always store sprays and dusts in their orig- 
inal containers and keep them tightly closed. 
Never keep them in anything but the original 
container. 

Working in treated areas — If pickers or oth- 
ers are working in trees or crops with heavy 
foliage, such as peaches, olives, citrus, etc., or 
in grapes that have been treated with highly 
toxic compounds, be sure the recommended in- 
terval between the treatment and entrance into 
the treated area is observed. These workers 
should follow the same precautions as given for 
the applicators in regard to changing clothing, 
wearing protective clothing, eating or smoking, 
and bathing. If a worker becomes ill while 
working under these conditions, call a physi- 
cian immediately. 

Regulations on Injurious Materials 

Twenty-one pesticide chemicals are desig- 
nated as injurious materials and their use is 
subject to special restrictions under the regula- 
tions of the State Department of Agriculture. A 
permit from the County Agricultural Commis- 
sioner must first be obtained: 

• When calcium arsenate, standard lead arse- 
nate, or copper acetoarsenite (Paris green) 
are to be used in dust form in excess of fifty 
pounds in any 24hour period, 

• When sodium arsenite is to be used, except 
when sold as a diluted ready-to-use syrup or 
dry bait for control of insects, snails, slugs, or 
rodents, 

• When TEPP, parathion, methyl parathion, 
EPN, OMPA, Systox (demeton), Phosdrin 
(mevinphos), Thimet (phorate), Di-Syston, 
or Bidrin are used in any form or quantity, 

• When chloropicrin is used in Merced, Orange 
and Ventura counties for field fumigation of 
soil, except when used in a quantity of twelve 
pounds or less in any 24-hour period. 



3721 



• When DDT, DDD, dieldrin, endrin, hepta- 
chlor, or toxaphene are used for agricultural 
applications in more than 50 pounds of dust, 
granules, bait, one gallon of liquid, or four 
pounds of wettable powder, in any 24-hour 
period. 

It is unlawful fo sell or deliver an injurious maferiol 
to any person who is required to have a permit to use 
such material unless the person or his agent signs a 
statement that he has a valid permit to use the ma- 
terial. 

Pesticides Hazardous to Honey Bees 
and Other Beneficial Insects 

Many pesticides are highly toxic to honey 
bees and other beneficial insects. The farmer, 
the beekeeper, and the pest control industry 
should cooperate closely to keep losses of bene- 
ficial insects to a minimum. Certain pesticides 
are more toxic than others to these insects: 
therefore whenever possible use the material 
that is least toxic. When bees are present, the 
safest time and method of application of pesti- 
cides should be employed. Avoid drift of pesti- 
cides onto bee colonies or nearby crops and 
weeds in bloom. Do not contaminate bee drink- 
ing water. For further information and advice 
concerning the use of pesticides around honey 
bees, see University of California Agricultural 
Extension Service One-Sheet Answer No. 170 
Rev. entitled "Toxicity of Pesticides to Honey 

Phytotoxicity 

Certain chemicals may cause plant injury 
when used at the wrong stage of plant develop- 
ment or when temperatures are too high. Injury 
may also result when excessive dosage rates, 
wrong formulations, or incompatible pesticide 
combinations are applied. To avoid injury, fol- 
low recommendations precisely. 

Pesticide Residues 

New materials and formulations continually 
appear and these will be included in the recom- 
mendations only after they have been properly 
registered, proven effective and that the regis- 
tered use when applied under California condi- 
tions as directed will not result in a residue that 
exceeds the legal tolerance. 

These suggestions for pest control are based 
on the best information currently available for 
each pesticide listed. If followed carefully, they 
should result in satisfactory control and should 
not leave residues that will exceed the tolerance 
established for any particular chemical on this 
crop. To avoid excessive residues on the har- 
vested crop, follow directions explicitly with re- 
spect to dosage levels, number of applications, 
and minimum interval between application and 
harvest. 

THE GROWER IS RESPONSIBLE for resi- 
dues on his own crop as well as for problems 



caused by drift from his property to other prop- 
erties or crops. 

Drift of Pesticides 

Drift of pesticides is by far the most impor- 
tant cause of illegal residues on forage crops. 
No pesticide can be applied by either aerial or 
ground equipment without some drift occurring; 
however, less drift occurs from a ground appli- 
cation than from an aerial application, and 
dusts cause a greater drift problem than sprays. 

Drift can be kept to a minimum and the con- 
tamination to forage crops reduced if certain 
precautions are observed in the selection of the 
pesticide, method of application, type of formu- 
lation (dust, spray, or granular), timing of 
treatment, wind direction and velocity, and the 
distance between the point of application and 
the nearest forage crop downwind. 

It is the responsibility of the farmer and the 
applicator to consider the above points before 
applying a pesticide. For most pests, this pro- 
gram offers several alternatives for control. The 
pesticide which will best meet the requirements 
for a safe application in respect to surrounding 
crop, animal farming operations, beneficial in- 
sects and wildlife should be selected. 

University Policy for Making 
Pest Control Recommendations 

Pest control recommendations made by Uni- 
versity of California personnel are based upon 
those materials for which there are specific data 
regarding effectiveness under California condi- 
tions, residues that will remain on the crop at 
harvest, phytotoxicity, and wherever possible 
their effect upon beneficial predators, parasites, 
honey bees, fish and other wildlife. Recom- 
mended chemicals must also be registered and 
labeled for use both by the United States De- 
partment of Agriculture and the California 
State Department of Agriculture. 

Wildlife 

To protect fish and other wildlife, do not 
apply pesticides over canals or streams and do 
not allow drainage from treated fields to enter 
waterways immediately after application. Spe- 
cial precautions regarding protection of wild- 
life species will be given, when necessary, in 
the remarks column immediately following the 
recommendations. 

Special Problems of 
Processed Crops 

Some processors will not accept a crop treated 
with certain chemicals. If your crop is going to 
a processor, be sure to check with the company 
representative before making pesticide appli- 
cations. 



3722 



to 

O- 

< 

O 



'Z ' 

• E 
|5 



So 



<= ■? 9 o 



:i ~ I •£ 5 



,^ 


2 


3 


"Xl 


-D 


o 


a 


O 


■? 


c 




^ 


u> 


3 


2 


o 


0) 


IE 


^ 


Q. 




h^. 






i 


-a 




^ 


o> 


c 



E 
(1) 


a 

10 




'c 

D 
Q. 


> 






> 


0) 


c 


;o 


12 


-D 




_o 


3 

o 


D 
u 
u 
O 


c 

2 


'a 

0) 






D> 


Q. 


^ 


« 



•i^ is"'. 



a. ^ o o "o 



c o 



T= E 



^ E 



E -o 



o p w ,_ 



■>- en "> 



O S 
Z 15 



E 


o> 
o 


fl) 


E 


a> 


c 


0) 


3 


o 

Z 


3 


3 


O) 


3 


o 


V 




o 


w» 


3 


o 


.C 


> 
o 

u 


c 


"o 


^ 




o 


1 

-a 
<u 
c 

la 


i_ 


_o 


0) 





Q 


0) 


a 


3 




E 


E 


c 


^ 

V 


c 
IE 


<U 


0) 


fl) 
a 

D 


fl) 


E 
o 


_> 





o> 


.£ 


o> 


fl) 

o 


(U 
_Q 


c 
o 


o .5 




0) 


■a 

c 








o 


'c 


-C 


D 


o 


o 

c 


c 
D 




15 


J 


£ 


E 


Iq 


^ 




E 


(1) 


0) 


c 
o 


E 
o 


= 


1 


o 


o 


> 
fl) 


IE 


u 


I^ 


4) 


c 


o 

13 


fl) 


o 


IE 






.^ 




o 


o 

a. 


1— 


0) 


z 
o 




<u 


c 
o 


>^ 


"c 




1— 


'E 


IE 


■•^ 


o 
a 





TJ 

c 
□ 


3 

< 

u 


a> 
□ 


0) 





~ 0) 



E -a 



u 

ui __ 

O O! ■£ 

;E "> « o 
■23 5 



o > ^ 



■^ O ■< ° E 



~ S 2 ^ 

Q. Q. O fl> 

Q. « E -Q 

O 0) 



C VI- ■«: 



U fl) 



E E 



o ^ 



O § 



•- ^ '>' 

Q. 0) ~ — 

« c ._ ■£ 

3 3 O 0> 

° fl) o 

O -Q "-^ .£ 

■^ -,, O ^ 

c 15 .y H- 

11 3 -r . 



U o £ -5 o .E 



O 3 g 

a 2 a 



c 


_o 


D> 


<1) 


'c 


w 


l2 


fl) 


(U 


< 


12 


a 


E 

3 


o 


0) 


^ 


^ 


o 


o 


3 





V. E 



3723 



■? o $ E i 

o > > «) e 
o « ;= u J; 






S Q. 



>s o -o o 



c >^ c ^ 

> a -^ 4) 

> D 4) "O 

o o I 



j: .= -JS (u 

•^ .£ I- 

o " o a) 

c « a ■ - 

a I S5 s 



C .- Q. CQ 

o -c a — 

« o ~ 

5 i S o 

O n O ■- 

O ° ^ (J 

_>. O 4) 

2 2 a, ^ 
« c-Q-o 

■£ -D o -t 

^ ^ 2 a 

§.£ s- S 



o c 

(U o 

<J c 



-§:> 2 r 



E :: r (u 
c o «) r ^ 



-Q == 2 

_>. -a -o 

o « o 

4) 4) "^ 

^1 §• 

4) ^ V 

Q. >. a> 
2 2 
o) 9- 



>.o 



•llfi 



Eg S 

a CN »*- 

1. o 

4) o 
O 4) 



C3> -^ 

o 0) 



C "O 'o 4) E 3 

p. S "> o o ^ 



Z 4) 



"o g a 



c " 

D u 

^ o 

T3 ^ 

Si o) 

-5 o 






< 0) 



I- -Q 
§5 



E . 

O j2 



o-S 
> o 

c 
o — 

« 4) 

J "a 

4) Q. 



— -O _4) 

E § I 

o S '^ 

* — -ii 

3 OJ .1= 

U CO U 
< 



^ V i2 2 



&I 



a D 



c 00 .2? 

?s!> E 

-S tc "s 

a ^ 0) 4> 

^ "- o ,, j: "D 

— O (J ^ <_ ^ 

>. a 4) *- J. ~ 

O D -C c O <«■ 

-C ^ > O JZ 

£ E ]S ^ w 



4> 4) 



? O D. P 



= - -D 

M J *" 

■5 "i 5 



9- a 



o -a o 



_^ I 0, u 

a E o T 
a o JD ~ 
< -D o E 



3724 



Ji 







E 


u 


at 




CI 




k 













k 


a 


« 


•^ 


a 


» 













E 




^ 













c 




3 


^ 







E 

< 




n 

o 




o 




f— 




k 









a 


"S c 


E 


o« 




■o» 


" 2 


« E 


l^° 


« 


n «l 


n 


CI o 


« a 


IZ ^ 


•»3 


«:»■ 




CI a 


& 





>- ^ 



O u 0) 



u 


^ 


.^ 


o 


a 

D 


_c 


^ 


(J 


c 

0) 




E 


(U 




o 


^ 



2 



>0 0) S 

•2 § Si 

> tt) 

j2 _a) ^ 

o ^ o 

o ^ c 



«> D -C — 



S ^ -S i s 



j; E 



E ^ 



■^ ^ 



a) a 



a >^ a >-. 



m >s 



o i 



U CN t 






^ o 



>- S? 



r- 2^ 



^ a u 



o £ 



J3 ^ « 

2 ^ "5 



(1) >^ 

Q i5 



.E u 
o 6 



:^ii 6< 



3725 



o 5 



J-j Si 

0, o^ 



o o 



T= 4) 



0) lU 



o> 



o ^ 



5 -D OJ S! 

o c » o 

a) ^ jc 

S oj s 



< .^ E 3 < 



-D .S -° 

c > -c 

=> .. J^ 

2 a3 ~ 

a T ■£ 

D «. O 

2 o it! 

O) -o o 

o ° '^ 

i: <u o 

£ «> .? 



o ^ 



~o -^ ^ (a 



<D i: 


(U 


Q. 


•- SJ 


^ 


E 


T= o 


-a 

c 


o 
U 



E * •:; 

i ■: I 

S: -5 .5i. 

>..£ S 



< 'O 



E '" 



9 o 

o — 



o -a ' 

III 

o 2> o 



V 


o 


i 


T3 


c 


0) 


O 





o 


2 


<U 
4) 


o 


-C 


^ 


a 


(U 


>» 


-C 


E 


c 








'> 


o 








73 


>~ 


b 


u 


» 


a 


4) 


O 


O 


a 


> 


<i> 


a 


D 


0) 


t; 


M- 




D 


3 




"5 


>n 


a 


X' 





.£ < ^ o 






3726 



-2- » 



<• 




_>. 


k 




j: 




E 




O) 

3 


« 




o 


at 




o 

V 

'> 

Jl 
u 
o 
« 

3 








Q 




o 










O 






D 


z 




"jo 


« 


o 


in 


k 


B. 


—1 


^ 


CI 




trt 


o 


D 




UJ 




E 




I 








u 









z 












e 








3 


«i 


CN 













E 


D 






< 


0) 


to 






o 


1— 






e 


O 






k 


o 






u 


I 






a 


> 




u 












e" 






•E3 






1 






S* 




3 
-D 

3 


s« 

<" 




(U 
-D 


« 






w a 




^ 






0) 


« e 




-D 


ei * 




c2 








<■ 



? E 



P-2 



o o 



^ >i: c p 



4) ^ 



2 CN 



< > 



c ^ 



■=^ -S 



a <i> E 



a Q- • 



III 



E > 



■£ b 






a c it 



o 2 

it- 3 



0) o •- >. 

5-^ 



= a 



a> >. 0) o 



•£ °- 



^ J2 

o o 



e ^ D ? .E 

■•- o o o -'^ 



>- 0) 

c J: 



E « 





3 


> 

a: 


tn 


2f- 


< 


3 


j: 


I 


E 


D) 




3 


o 


0) 


o 


1— 



U 


o 


UJ 



a 3 

3 <_- 

3 0) lO 

« o> o^ 

jD D> =° 

O C c 



t ■£ 



0) 



_ o 



J 


>- 

o 


4) 




2 


a 




</) 


is 


c 


0) 


o 


-a 


^ 


^ 


O 



0) c « 

E j5 JQ 

> 3 t; 

5 «« .2. 

*■ «■ T3 

« 15 a 

<= E o 

— 4) C 

>. O j: 

-S E ^ 

m O *- 



< o S 



3727 



2 "? ^, = ^ 

f £ 2 i S 

LI ^ Iti ♦r . 



a> 


u 


0) 


« 


o 








.c 


c 






a> 


Q. 




o 
u 


> 




3 





^ 


< 




O 


». 


i 


d 






V 

a 

E 


3 

-0 


_£ 


o 
u 


E 
o 






^ 


■ j 


u. 




0) 




o 


o 








3 


> 












4> 

3 


□ 






3 


E 


'E 




c 


V. 




TJ 





c 


0) 


o 




c 
o 


"a 
u 


_0 

a 
-a 


>^ 


a> 


.c 


v 


•+- 


c 





c 




'c 





a> 


-Q 




E 







E 


C 


«> 


o 


> 


>. 


E 





t— 








o 






o 


_y 




u 


o 


ul 


^ 




(U 

> 


£ 



o ^ 



1. 9> 



O 9- 



2 » 



:S I 



0) o 

I i.8 

u > < 



1 '^ 



z ^ 
o S 



> o 

UJ 

—I UJ 

z 

z^ 

p o 
< "- 



o 7i 





(1) 


0) 


^ 








c 




(U 


V 


o 




M 


M 






^ 


ja 


T^ 


c 


'U) 


'B> 


E 




0> 


E 


(I) 


"oj 


c 


_2 


a 


V 


TJ 


</» 




^ 


_2 


o 


t 


^ 


u 


rt 


o 



O :^ Q.3- 



0) 



0) «■> X! 

u, (B 0) 

O ^ ■•= 

O <-> _« 

o 2 o 

I- ^ > 



-g ■= '^ 

«l "^ 0) 
c « > 

o — o 
_a o 

= '-^ S 

2 = -= 
a a -^ 

•- 2 = 

4) Q. o 

z 55 S is"2 



Q--5 
o E 

0) "D 



_ C D 

-' o « E 



^ o _ 






3728 






o -r: 



a) -2; O 



(U c ^ ii •£ 



Z ^ 

O ^ SJ 

< *- 0) 

U C J3 

O § o 

O -c -n 



c O 

(U a. 

E . 

o 15 

(1) 



o E 



1^ 






a) 3 r _ i; 



>^ 2 p. 



UJ < CiZ 



0) "o 
3 rs 



_5 a) 



0) J3 f^ 



v o 



o " „ 

^ £ S 

o o — 

Q ■- _>, 

• .2 a 



1| : 

>- .y . £ 
E "a E > 
a a ^ o 

to O Ml -c 



O Q 



o .i^ 



w 0) 



Z .£ 





v 


0) 










D 


D 







» 








6 

12 


a 

E 


"5 

0> 


(J 


0) 




"5. 




o 
o 


'o 


CO 


>. 




p 


a 


c 


o 


"^ 


o 


o 


CO 


Ic 


cs 


c 




0) 



:S ^ =• 



O o 0) u 

Q Q JQ 



3729 



-D E 



a a 
o E 



0) o 
■5 ">■ 

l-B 



a. ■£ 



^ 2 

-a t9 

_» Q 

o -' 

Z 



Q J3 



O o 



- 2 



(U 


a> 


OJ 




j: 





u 







</< 


4> 


u 


a 


u 


(1) 


_c 



a o _ 

"5 o E 



o *■ 

-2 .E 

O o « 

- a, E 

< "£ » 

u o _ 






j2 u -i: 
_ O .E 



(1) Z 
3 g 



O O D 'o 



■t D) TJ j: 



o ^ 



10 0) 

■ c 

o ■- 

D O 



>.CI 



5 2 



I 2 



_ c »- 

OJ (U D 

> (U * 

p. » o 






^ ^ 



CO ^ 



n »^ 



1; o 
O 5G 



36-513 O - 70 - Pt. 6C - 4 



3730 



•Se 






I- o 
° a 






6 S ? 
> a) 2 

v a> E 



£r-o- 

<u a> 






- E (u 



» ••S ~ 



o 





u. 
X 




E 




« 


c 
o 


-a 


4) 




o 
_o 


"a 


V 




c 


C 






Q. 


Q) 


o 

u 
u 

o 


o 


0) 

o 

JQ 


-ri 


o 


o 

-D 




c 


a 




c 


« 


a 


C 

o 





'o 


01 


o 

D 
4 




a 

4) 





E - 5 






< £ 3 



E = 



a « 



O) « 



= rs J 



= £= E 



O 'o) a 





D 

c 




a 


u 




a 


c 


o 





o 


_c 


>> 


U 




01 




v 




c 




o 


_«) 


3 


> 


[o 


D 


c 




>. 


'd 


0) 


O 


O 


> 
D 


E 


O 


.C 


E 


c 


a. 


Q. 


o 


D 




«/5 


u 


o 


01 


0) 


CN 


^ 


^ 


C 






^ cs 



^ ~ 



E 3 



^ a 



« E 



(u o 



0) o> r. 



D ^^ 0) 

2 o «^ 



o .E o o ■" Q- i" 
^ = E T b o ~ 

O S P = « ;C D 



3 » 



^ 3 



m .5 
o 4) >^ 

■•■ n ^ 



< -5 :£ 



aq 

E I 



3r? 



> 5 g i 



3731 



>» ^ 



-o ■£ 



< a 



III 

5^1 



o ^ 

O "5 



« Q. 

a 9- 



.£ £ ^ 



.E Q 
-E Q 



1^ *« :5 Z 



O :9 



o 5 



g-i 






^ « S 



9-T3 



5 = £ 



o ^ 



I— u "D >;i -a 



g 6? 



^5^ 



< O «/) 



D> ^ a) 0) 

'°'i -D ■« 

^ O C 0) 

•I o ° 3= 

■^ -^ Z 

C 3 0) O 

2. O j: -c 



v£ § u-£ - 0, 

t O T3 - S O 
^ (U " 3 C 



E o 



o " 
o ^ 



•i g 



« E 



(I) « ^ 



i;^ t 



< ^ 






qj *" <U >- 

c -5 p 2 

"5 ^ ^ Q. ■ 



31 

S3 I 

£ 15 4) cl) 

Q) « « CM 

-9 -^ -o 
~ -9 -9 



S i^ 



So? 

0) •— !« 

L. u- « 

" o s: 

— 0) a) 

o N <u 

ji: •« to 



0) 


U 


■D 


_c 


0) 


_C) 


'> 


to 


"a 


0) 


0) 

-o 





*" 


c 


-D 


_c 


3 


c 




TJ 


O 


"D 


0) 




0) 




3 


Q. 


•^ 




O 


^ 


3 


> 


O 


_«) 








a-Q 



w O 

Q- 9- 






0) o — 
2 ^ - 



M o 



E <u r£ 

^ o o 

— >< '-^ 



^ T3 



ai o 
1° a 

If 



"J 






_c 


D 


'? 


Q. 

£ 








>- 




r— 


(1) 


0) 


a. 
< 




C 










01 


u 


4) 


_« 


= 


0) 


It 




-n 


3 


u 






» 


0) 




a 


s 


_c 


o 




.C 


w 


_a> 




a 


D 


o 


<u 










^ 






o 


E 


c 


^ 


^ 


o 


c 






o 


0> 


V 


o 


o 


TJ 


o 


» 


c 
o 


j£ 




a 


o 


<u 


o 


Q. 


JQ 




E 




•i 






o 


0) 




a 


o 

4) 


« 


0) 


O) 


'o 


(U 


"o 


.9J 


o 






c 


.— 


a 


o 




a 





^ o o 



■- j_ 3 



0) 


B 


E 


£) 









0) 


3 


o 

E 


c 
o 

u 


'5 




a> 




>s 






D 


jQ 


4) 







^ 


Q. 


<£ 




(/> 




o 








0) 


3 




E 


E 


^ 


E 


(U 


.3 



>. 5 ~ 

jd >■ a. 

o •- a 

O •- c 

CO X 

. <o E 









o „; ~ ■= 



jQ 2 



3732 






n 



OZ 



> o 

LLI ^^ 
_l LU 

z 
z^ 

O a: 
P O 
< '^ 

u. LLI 

o ^ 



S Z 

2: Q 
— I »- o 



^"5 



(US'" 



21 



O D < o 

D o — a; ^ i= 



a Q.^ g 



• > M- ■£ ~ .9 
— _« — "5 ^ 
Q. .2 

O cQ 



o < 



0) J. <U ? s> 





o 
U 




ss 




CO 




^ 




o 




■^ 




D 




-D 




^-^ 




c 




'> 




<u 




to 








"E- 









-Q 













U 




s? . 




O J2 




•- O 




*+- 'C 




O OJ 








a, o 




b E 




D ^ 




!r 3 




«^ 








w 1) 




-Q t£ 




o 




o 




CO 0) 




.c 




c ♦- 




■B ^ 




<u «• 




o =9 




E 




'^ lO 


(O 


o CO 


1- 

z 


l^ 


UJ 


S " 


:S 


=) c 


1- 


. 0) 


< 


X 0) 


LU 


-i. J 


Q£ 




»— 


c aj 




.9 -^ 


1- 




lO 


tj (1) 


3 


0) « 
to 3 




c 








C 3 




0) "O 




> 








"ro'c 




«i o 




o ^ 








j2 *C 




<n t— 




3 — 




■a c 




0) o 




3 ^ 



-C ^ O 



i: i: c .h 
— ^ D 



Q. 0) 
< -D 



-t: lo 

o ^ 

u 



0) 










3 










^_ 










o 










o> 










_c 










15 


.*;• 


ci) 

c 




d) 


'q. 


'5 


15 


15 


I^ 






u 


u 




'o 


C 


■q. 


'a 


a. 


>. 


o 


'o 


'o 


'o 


o 
o 


c 
o 


D 

-a 


□ 
-a 



TJ 


CO 


.y 




o 


o 


_c 


"a 


CO 


'^ 




IE 


a 


_c 


c 


_c 


1 




o 


IE 
1 


% 


IE 
1 


o 
(1) 












o 


a 


o 


c 


d) 


d) 


a> 




D 










-C 


■*" 


♦- 


♦- 












o 




o 


o 


o 


c 


0) 


c 


c 


c 


o 


o 





o 





a 


E 


o 


a 


a 


^ 










:S 




*n 


U) 


u? 


N- 




^ 


^ 


^ 












CO 




CO 

a. 


CO 


CN 


a. 

CN 




CM 




a. 
o 




c 
.o 


o 

ID 


c 
o 


c 








c 


.2 




o 


1— 


'n 


IE 




o 


Q 


o 


LLI 




:S 


Q 


Q 












■^ 




<o 


>o 


rs 



5.f 



3733 



a, ^ = 

<J 0) 4) 

a °- o 

„ <u — 



« c 



5 o 



5 " « 

>* (I) 

a g* o> 



o -a 



u> 

.E -■ 5 " 

I o t *- ^ 

» oija " 

o ,_ aj 

= tt) o 5 

? 4) (J C 

O c I. o 

-5 -I .£ Q 






D) O 



5 ^ 



» -S E 



o> ^ o 



o aj oj 



- « E 
a <u 

< c ^ 



-g o 



o 


*- 


V) 


c 





_« 


o 




>» 


o 


IE 


a 






a 


(U 


^ 


a 


o 





^^ 


o 




o 




c 


c 


a 




o 
O 




_u 




4) 


"5. 


E 


O 


Q. 




» 


O 


o 



<= o " ^ 

a o ♦: o 
< E ^ •£ 



■B 2? 



< a 



-^ E 



Q. « >- 

O Q S2 



^ 
0. P 



.« £ 5 

If: 

"5. ^ E 

0) 



(I) > 
^ E 



c .t: 

* 4) 

u E 



«2^ 



3734 





A 


Je 


b 





E 


u 


et 



























™ 




» 








s 




E 




«. 













C 




3 
O 


j: 


E 
< 


D 
0) 




O 




O 








k 




a 




a. 


M 




oi 


•C 3 


«JE 


• • 


M 


ss 


M a 




^3 


* * 


«* k 


Oo 


& 





2 -D 



■D 




c 


D 

(0 






o 


a 


3 




•— 


t^ 


o 




V 


o 










0) 


o 


<u 


■o 


□ 


> 


jD 


o 


JC 


o 


>. 


■> 


1 


^ 
"o 




E 


a 
a 
< 



13 


1 


0) 

E 
o 



5? 


,_, 


n 


0) 




c 


"o 


o 




^ 


'o 




u 


"oj 


Q 


^ 



-° ■£ 



o 


.!. 




















1 ^ 










C (D 










o ^ 


"> 








^ 4) 


0) 








? .b 


-c 








2 T 


^ 


















o 


o 








>s ■•- 




















5 c 


a 








S 2 


o 




1^ 








o 


6 


<= s 


0) 




Hi 

a. 


u 
O 


0) " 






a. 


<U V 
^ CO 


-o 




a 


OJ 


1 *■ 


i 




"5 


a 


-" O) 


o 






J2 


>- p 






•t- 


O 




^ 




i2 


D) 


3 




«: 


O 


D O 


-D 




c 


O 




'o 




0) 


CN 


Hi -i^ 


OJ 




» 


O 


*" Q. 


D) 




>. 


>. 


c 

D 

lO 
CO 
1 
lO 
CN 


E 
o 

u 
:5 

7 

m 

CN 





^2 
'in 


a 
a 
< 

a 


a 
a 
< 

CN 




5? 




C 






». 


cs 




.2 




I) 


« 




'» 




>o 


TO 


c 
o 




^c 




CN 


^o 




u 


V) 


CO 


s^ 


-C 




3 


h- 


00 


N 


o 




X 


O 


^^ 


« 


a 
a 




^ 


o. 


ca 


c 
o 




W) 

3 




^fe 


^ 


■>. 




^ 


]o 


O "o 





.c 


«. 


'5 






o 
a. 

CN 


0) 
CO 


3 
-D 


o 
ca 


3 

1— 





>. e 



a -2 



O « J 

2 I o 



^ - I 



o ^ 



S E 



Oh DO 

'^ 2 « S 

O -S ^ 5 

° c 

CN S i: «) 



11 



01 o> 

ST I 



^ ^_ 



Jl 



3735 



7 t; 15 
".^ g 

"O > O 
_» ^ >J 
"* O 1= 

Q. 0) 
° S £ 

= Q. . 
-» Q. e 
O < 0) 



II) 4) 

o ^ 



8) aj •" 

".So. 

= a^ 

"S Q. <" 

«, ° « 

S a) > 

D J3 o 



o c •- 



o§ 



c :2 

O D 



3 -^ 

^ 0) 

J2 » 



■D C 



a c 

E £ 



-C (U 

:= c 

M — 

B » 

i« <u 

o c 



•— J2 ^ T= ~ 



-2 .2 "^ d> 5 c t; 



—I 0) 

I « i 

O «> > 

55 » £ 



^ £ 5 t; -^ ^ o 

C P 3 C *-> 0> 

-s z ^ :2 2 .g o 

o c — j3 (1) -Jj 

c «> ^ O c (U 

.- d) ^ — O 

2r£ J :S Q. 



Q. to 
O 

u 



f^ 5 



^c 



11 



« o " •" 



■= E 
= o 



.2 S "■ " 



o JJ 



3 o-^ E 



>•.« E 
o o 

E •- «> 

« «) •£ 

ti ■£ „ 



.E E 
•- 
<U -D 



s^ a 
a D> 

3 O 



•= S cr 



2 t; 2 -E >. ° 

*- «)_ ^ 4) w O 






O <u -o 



■— c 



t O) n >- 



Q "5; d a 



2 « a 



•S E t; S. 



0) 

a 




-o 


D 


i 


d) 


a 


0) 


0) 


2" 


3 


-a 

a 
-a 


a 


E 

3 

"e 


E 


U 
^ 

3 


c 


>- 


0) 





c 


D 


o 


3. 







E 



t£ .5 2 £ «> 

«> O ^ T t E 
O w ■" D) -i^ i: 



o 



0) 



H .^ -a o -J: 



3736 



g.2 



>. a 

Q. » 

a u_ 
< ^ 



«:■*■ 
So 



r- CM 00 



£ > 



O) 0) "5 
n 2 O 



^£"g 



u 


c 


a> 


d) 

c 


OJ 


n 


0) 


t» 


E 


^ 


o 


o 


1J 


U 



Q = 

o 

i i 

E o 

T3 > 
c ■> 



'o S >- 

-c O c 

■^ *^ 0) 

B -^ I 

i- o a) 

■^ CO 

0) 



7= C ~ >- O 



"O (U 



0) 



^ «) 0) „ 

:£ tt) Q -o -D 

^ c 

~ o c *: •- 

-a — ° "*■ 

o -t: 



D) 



0) 



S >^ - 



-^ '^ ^ ^ _■ r- ^ 



E 

0) 




O 


'5 


J3 


o> 




c 


3 

o 


O 


0) 


» 


(U 


13 


(U 


^ 


*- 


^ 


tA 


o 


o 




d) 






.c 






< 


» 


in 


c 

(U 




"o 


0) 

> 
o 


3 




S 


E 
o 

0) 


"5 


3 


■^ 


c 


4) 


o 




"5 


.y 






4) C E 
''^ "^ S 

j; S •- 

— Q. O 
0) o -^ 

-£-5 8 

o -Q & 
E >-< 

-Q E ^ 

-D r ^ 

o o o 

' dj "- <u 

15 « - 



D cr .£ 



O) 



o E ?; 
w " 3 ° p 

> o — >^2 

O "-^ :S T 



□ O <L 



CN 



(U 


"t 


^ 


;^ 


U' 


a 

D 


'o 


-D 
0) 


O 
u 
O 


'e 

3 


u> 


c 


3 


•^ 


^ 





g 


(U 


_c 


o 







^ 


>- 




s 


u 


o 


o 


"5 


■t 


□ 


c 


s 


^ 




0) 


o 


u 


D 


0) 




a 


OJ 


o 


4: 




c 


D 


c 


73 


'5 


"D 


01 


«/» 


J2 


2 


0) 


Ji 


— 


O 


o 


"m 


>• 


^ 



&*s 






. 4) dJ 
O V o 

O J) M- 

5^ -C 



O O 5 4. " 

s 3^ ^■^. 

O) c g ■£ >" 

§ t i O 8 

= 25 d) . 

„ ^ .« Ic — 

o 8- " ^ 

-c ,. g ■£ o 
3 ^ - 'i " 

^ u 'o J> o 
a E E jQ -D 

2 „- S <u 
a — o •£ 



.5 E 

_ d) 

« s 

dj 

O d> 
i: > 



d) >* 

IJ 
(U o 

kt ^ 

<U o 



^ 6 



I si 






-D E 



d) o 



E -t 



E ?! 



E £ - 

« -u J.- 

>^ d> .2 

o o o 

E ^ ^ 

dJ (U 

i! c c 

O d> 0) 



d) 



d) w 



V z 



■S 0)-E ^ 



E 



a « ^ 



4) 

> E 

O d) 



'o 'E T= 

ijj 

2 -D o 

J o = 
o t > 
g 4) > 

>- d> C 
d) 5 ■" 

d) O t. 

S 2| 

p c .<2 



4J d> 

E ■" 
E ■= 



D E 



- ">^ S 

15 ^ : 



•3 d) 

Jl 

°- E 
o o 

z ^ 

•i±- 

Q. Q. 
4J O. 
-O D 

it O 



E-2 ^ 



•- _c 

i -c d) .t: 

°-.: ?> ds 

D> 57 c >^ o 

^ £ £ D o 

^ t: "D d) O) 



o S 
-Q ^ 



Z '^ ^ 



d) d) o 



<o «" 

£ "o -• 



^ "2 >^ 



oe 3 

— CJ> 

o c 

o 3 

QC u. 



E o % 

< 9q 



>s E 



U> O 



^ O 



i ^-^ 

-t: d) _ 
o -2 

4) ■*- *- 



£ .0> .2> Tj 

4) E E <u 

E — « D 



o do; to ■= — 



f 5 o 

O o d> 



3737 



O D O -5 

c a> ^ 

^ 1 ^ ^' 

E y o "u 



~ 3 2 



Z ^ 

O P 



< 41 



E E 



0) « J, o 
— <U O 1. 






^ o 



t ^ ^ 



E a> -c 

-5 s i c 

ui i O 
C .XI — "O 

c — 10 

a| '^ I 
o'^ o 2 

Si ^ o- o 
-Q ^ 12 E 

cS| - 

'^ CO .S 5. 

D S ^ 

u c 3 ^ 
" j: a o 

" m ^ 
u S — 

lU <U OJ 



•*- -D E 
O cc O 



" O lU 
^ J3 E 

2 S o 



> ~ 5) 



-r n c 



» ^ r-^ 






— c ^ 0> -^ 



o^ E 



^ o 



-= c 



£ o Q. j; 



-a E « 

OJ 0) I (U 

o P'^ ? 

0) o = 2 

&| i O 

>. "° to' -J 

-5 p J^ ^ 

~ -13 'o O 

§ 32 c ^ 

^ Tl O O 



= > 



U O — 
4) = 



E 

o -^ C u 

; a, .5> £ 

2 E -Q J 

.5 1 |£ 

c ^ c O 

E 4) o •" 

< E jj, -D 

c O -Q D 



~ ^ 



> 5 •? 
J3 -Q 



c 3 2^ Si 



OS >i; j: JJ 



Q Q. 



■D ^ 



< ^ 'S O O 

7= O c 1. t 

O ■— O 0) — 

"" -^ 2 u T 

^°::^ 8 

S .2 S d. '^ 

-c :; _ 2 •- 



= E <" 
u. o > 



■•- <u c ^ 
o -^ ^ S 

10 O) 0) <_ 



J! o T= a 



a. ^ 



0—0 



E -D 



(1) j2 = 



U (1) 
■5 ~ 



E -B 



4) — 



o — j: oj 4) — .^ 



.- ^ o -y «/5 E 



« 

Of O 



o -a 

^ Q CO — 

2 oil ° I 

g -i i i O > 
<S ^ z i 



o 6 



c o 

2-D 



E -i; » 



E O 



.E X "D E 



M- _c O 



4) ^ 



■>- JC TZ. 



JJ ^ ^* 



2 S .2 2 'f 3^ 



■c o 

•T £ 



o ^ 

4} (1) 

si 5 



• O — 

-D — > 

C CN ~ 

(U I 4) 

^ :2 = 

4) •— *. 






.^ S -O D) 



4) _0 J^' C 



? E 



• — ^ "J 



3738 



g.2 
|5 



•I 

w ft 

9 k 



-a '> -o ^ = 

4) o o 

•S 12 "c >^ 'G 

4> O ^ O <1) 

□1 Q. E Q. 

3 'O < O S 



^ c J: 



.2 


a 

> 


o 


o 
_o 


9 


o 

E 


o 


V 


V 


'o 


^ 






>■ 

o 

u 


"o 


^ 


It 

o 




^ 


"5 






c 




]o 


_o 


o 

E 


o 


c 


"5 


"o 


>» 


v 


o 


> 


6 


E 




^ 






(1) 


£■ 


o 


0) 






0) 


V 




< 






o 



>0 


4) 


0) 


0) 


1 


^ 


c 


'* 






o 





D 


01 

c 


a 


o 


c 


V 



£ „, ^ o o 

"•^ ^ ?.° 

t 3 O "C <U 

"^ b -^ 

c I. ■ ■" 

c •— fli in _c 

1% 



J2 2 » 



p E ~ 



E ^ 



„ o 5 «> 
<u = 2 o • 



3" ° 



w o c 

0) >- E 



e u lO ~ 



3739 



U.S.D.A. Limitations on the Use of Chemicals Suggested in This Program 



Chemical 


Interval between last rj"*'*'? "", 
application and harvest '" £?,r* P*' 
million 


Dosage in pounds 

actual material 

per acre 


Captan 


No time limitations 


100 


5.0 


Carbon bisulfide 


Preplant treatment 





400-500 


Chlordone 


Do not apply to vines after 








blossoming 


0.3 


4.0 


DBCP 




25 


34-86 


DD 


Preplant soil fumigation 





320-480 


DDT 


40 days 


7 


5.0 


Delnav (dioxathion) 


30 days — one application after 








berries begin to form 


2.1 


1.0 


Diazinon 


10 days 


0.75 


1.0 


Dibrom (naled) 


4 days 





1.0 


Ethion 




2 


1.25 


Gibberellins 


Apply no later than two weeks 


0.15 


24 grams prebloom 




after shatter stage 




12 grams bloom 
48 grams postbloom 


Guthion (azinphosmethyl) 


No time limitations; not more than 
3 times a season 


5 


0.75 


Kelthane (dicofol) 


7 days 


5 


1 .2 spray 
1.5 dust 


Malathion 


3 days 


8 


2.75 


Methyl parathion 


14 days 


1 


0.75 


Parathion 


14 days 

Apply only before fruit is the size 


1 


1.5 




of bucksho! or after harvest 




2.5 


Phosdrin (mevinphos) 


2 days 


0.5 


1.0 


Pyrethrins piperonyl 


Time of harvest pyrethrins — 1 


— 


butoxide 


piperonyl butoxi 


de— 8 


— 


Sevin (carbaryl) 


No limitations 


10 


3.0 


Sodium arsenite 


Dormant application only 





9.0 


Standard lead arsenate 


Not after fruit forms 


7 


15 


Systox (demeton) 


21 days 


1.25 


0.38 


TDE (DDD) 


40 days 


7 


5.0 


Tedion (tetradifon) 


Spray, not more than 3 applicotioi 


is 


1 .0 spray 




during the fruit period; dust, 


5 


1 .5 dust 




not more than once after bloom 






Telone 


Preplant soil fumigation 





320-480 


TEPP 


3 days 





2.0 spray 


Thiodan (endosulfan) 


7 days 


2 


1.5 


Trithion (carbophenothion) 


30 days 


0.8 


0.5 spray 
1.0 dust 


Vapam 


Preplant soil treatment 





120-543 



JANUARY, 1969 
THE AUTHORS: 

M. M. Barnes, Department of Entomology, Riverside; C. S. Davis, Agricultural Extension Ser- 
vice, Berkeley; A. S. Deal, Agricultural Extension Service, Riverside; J. E. Dibble, Agricultural 
Extension Service, Kearney; R. L. Doutt, Division of Biological Control, Berkeley; W. H. Hart, 
Agricultural Extension Service, Davis; W. B. Hewitt, Department of Plant Pathology, Davis; C. 
B. Huffaker, Division of Bilogical Control, Berkeley; A. N. Kasimatis, Agricultural Extension Ser- 
vice, Davis; H. J. O'Reilly, Agricultural Extension Service, Davis; J. D. Radewald, Agricultural 
Extension Service, Riverside; D. J. Raski, Department of Nematology, Davis; E. M. Stafford, 
Department of Entomology, Davis; R. J. Weaver, Department of Viticulture and Enology, Davis. 



3740 

Senator Cranston. Could you testify which of those are specified 
chlorinated hydrocarbons? 

Mr. Lemmon. It shows product by product in the list here. It 
shows in the back, this is a publication of the California Agri- 
cultural Experiment Station and Extension Service, 1969 Pest 
and Disease Control Program for Grapes. The last page of which 
lists the various chemicals, the interval between the last application 
and harvest, under the USDA limitations, which they follow and 
the tolerance that is permitted, and the actual pounds per acre that 
is used, or maximum. The university recommendations are lesser 
amounts because under the particular conditions in California it 
is not necessary to use up the maximum. 

Senator Cranston. What are examples of some of those that 
are classified as hydrocarbons? 
Mr. Lemmon. You say which are or are not? 
Senator Cranston. Are. 

Mr. Lemmon. Kelthane is a chlorinated hydrocarbon; sulphur 
is not, it is the common dust that is used for mildew control. There 
are times when it is necessary to use dibrom, there are times when 
it is necessary to use malathion, which is a phosphate material. 

Senator Cranston. When a field has been sprayed with a hard 
pesticide, how long do you require the field to remain posted? 

Mr. Lemmon. With regard to those that are listed in the sub-class 
of injurious materials as restricted materials such as DDT, which 
requires a permit, there is no requirement for the posting. The 
requirement is that there be an interval of 30 days between applica- 
tion and harvest with regard to 

Senator Mondale. Did you say you don't have to post for DDT? 
Mr. Lemmon. You do not. 

Senator Mondale. How does the farm worker protect himself? 

Mr. Lemmon. To begin with, DDT, as you will recall through 

the years, particularly beginning in the war years in Italy, was 

dusted on the population over there and it is commonly used 

without any injury from the standpoint of skin absorption. 

Senator Mondale. Are you testifying it is not harmful ? 

Mr. Lemmon. No, I am testifying it is not a problem for skin 

absorption. Oral intake is the problem on DDT. You move to a 

material such as parathion, then there is a problem of skin absorption 

where it is necessary to post in order that people will not come in 

contact with these until the product is 

Senator Mondale. Is it your testimony that DDT, for which no 
posting is required in California laws, poses no occupational risks 
to the farmworkers in the field? 
Mr. Lemmon. Yes. 

Senator Cranston. Are you concerned only about skin absorption, 
or are you concerned about absorption in any other way? 

^u -'^^^^^^- There are three general ways for which a person 
can be poisoned: One is through oral intake, eating it; the other 
would be through inhalation, and the other would be through 
skm absorption. The purpose of our law is to protect people 
from each of those modes of poisoning and we base our regulations 



3741 

upon expert advise from the doctors and the State Department 
of Public Health. 

Senator Cranston. What actions do you take against the farmer 
who fails to post a required warning or who fails to keep the 
warning sign up as long as required ? 

Mr Lemmon. It would be a Adolation of the law and the usual 
thing would be to reA'oke his permit and not issue him another one 
if he used that type of material. 

Senator Cranston. How often does that occur in California? 

Mr. Lemmon. Probably rather seldom. I don't have figures in 
mind because there is compliance. 

Senator Cranston. Is there a systematic checkup? 

Mr. Lemmon. The agricultural commissioners and their inspectors 
do follow a pattern of checking to see that there is compliance 
with the law during this period. 

Senator Cranston. Would you see any objection to a labor health 
and safety standard that would require that a field be certified as 
free of harmful pesticides before the field is safe for harvest labor? 

Mr. Lemmon. I am not quite sure what type of certification. 

Senator Cranston. I am just asking what you would think of 
adding a step that is not now required which would be in eifect 
a health and labor safety standard which would require that a 
field be certified as free of harmful pesticides before the field is 
certified as safe for harvest labor. 

Mr. Lemmon. I tliink for practical purposes the law now requires 
the farmer to warn his employees not to go into the field if it is 
in a hazardous condition. 

You are asking, would I see any reason why he should not certify 
it and I can not see any difference. 

Senator Cranston. It will be taking a positive rather than a 
negative attitude. 

Mr. Lemmon. I think the bookkeeping involved would be difficult 
and expensive. 

Senator Cranston. I don't understand that. What extensive 
bookkeeping would be required? 

Mr. Lemmon. Well, if you were going to certify, I assume there 
would be a written certification. If there is a written certification 
then somebody has to keep records of those certifications and see 
that they are made. 

Senator Cranston. Yes. I don't see any extensive bookkeeping 
required. 

Mr. Lemmon. Well, there are thousands of different farms and 
fields in California, and it would depend upon who would be 
required to do the enforcing. 
Senator Cranston. Thank you. 
Senator Mondale. Senator Murphy. 
Senator Murphy. No questions. 

Senator Mondale. Doctor, are you satisfied that the health 
of the farmworker in California is fully protected from exposure 
to the pesticides? 
Mr, Lemmon. No. 



3742 

Senator Mondale. In what way would you change the law to 
provide that? 

Mr. Lemmon. I don't think I would suggest changing the law. 
I would suggest that we continue with the educational program, 
carried on by Department of Public Health and others to get 
workers, and others that may be in the fields, to change their 
clothes every day and to bathe every day. I think that this is 
proper and the most important protective thing that can be done 
in order to protect workers. 

Senator Mondale. Would you require that the grower provide 
showers so that the farmworkers can wash off pesticides and 
change clothes? 

Mr. Lemmon. It could either be the grower or whoever was 
handling the hiring and use involved. For example, I recommended 
to pest control operator firms that they insist that their employees 
handling the highly toxic phosphates bathe and not wear the 
same clothes home that they work in, and change every day. When 
this has occurred, the problems with regard to poisoning have 
disappeared. 

Senator Mondale. Now since it is the farmworker whose life and 
health is most at stake, would you recommend any changes in the 
law that empower him to find out what was in the field, or to have 
something to say about what kinds of poisons are used in the field? 
Are you satisfied with the present condition of the law? 

Mr. Lemmon. I am satisfied with the law, but I would urge 
the farmworker if he has a concern about a particular field to 
enquire of the farmer as to what is in there. I think it is a very 
complex subject, though, and he does have to go to the agriculture 
commissioner if he has a concern. 

Senator Mondale. You believe the farmworker is fully protected 
now in obtaining the information he needs? 

Mr. Lemmon. I think the law provides that he can get it. 

Senator Mondale. Do you think that in fact he is getting accurate 
information on all occasions to protect himself ? 

Mr. Lemmon. I think that he is not getting the information 
because he is not asking for it. 

Senator Mondale. Now is there not a lawsuit that has been 
under way for a year in which the farmworkers have tried to 
find out information from the agricultural commissioners on what 
kind of pesticides are being used by commercial applicators. Why 
did they bring that lawsuit if they are satisfied about the informa- 
tion? 

Mr. Lemmon. The lawsuit in Kern County was instructing the 
Commissioner not to allow anyone to go through his files with 
regard to those reports filed by pest control operators, but I am 
saying that if the farmworker inquires of the farmer with regard 
to pesticides used on that farm, this farmer has a responsibility 
to tell him. 

Senator Mondale. I understand that, but if the farmworkers 
are satisfied that they can get all the information accurately by 
that method, why the lawsuit? In other words, apparently" yoii 
are fully satisfied that there is no information problem at 'all to 



3743 

the farmworker in protecting himself against pesticide residues, 
or spraying in the fields ibecause he can simply ask. Is that right? 

Mr. Lemmon. I am satisfied that the information is available. 

Senator Mondale. Is made available or is available? 

Mr. Lemmon. Will be made available on request by the farmer. 

Senator Mondale. In your knowledge there is no problem in 
getting it or in the accuracy of it? 

Mr. Lemmon. No. 

Senator Murphy. Would the Chairman yield for a question ? 

Senator Mondale. Yes. 

Senator Murphy. Just to clarify this, I want to make sure the 
witness understands, and that I understand. You use the term 
"farmworker." Now one place it is my understanding that a 
farmworker can go and get the information. 

Mr. Lemmon. Right. 

Senator Murphy. I believe the lawsuit was a request on the part 
of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. Now in 
this case they were denied the information, is that right? Is that 
what the law suit is about ? 

Mr. Lemmon. That is what the lawsuit is about. 

Senator Murphy. So you are talking now, to differentiate, between 
the individual farmworker when they get the information and 
a union may or may not represent the people on that farm, 
and who may or may not have any reason to be given access to 
the books. Is that the difference? 

Mr. Lemmon. That is the difference. 

Senator Murphy, Thank you very much. 

Senator Mondale. How soon after parathion has been applied 
in the field may workers safely enter the field? 

Mr. Lemmon. It depends upon the amount of parathion that was 
applied and the type of crop upon which it was applied. Let me give 
you an example. In the case of artichokes on the Pacific Coast, 
San Mateo County, application at the rate they use for pest 
control in that area, can be sprayed 7 days before harvesting with 
no injury to the workers. 

On the other hand, if there are several pounds per acre on citrus, 
it may take a month before it is safe to go in and work all day 
in the hot weather of the valley on the citrus trees. 

The general rule is 14 days on the average on most crops if 
more than a pound per acre is applied. 

Senator Mondale. But it could be up to a month or more, depend- 
ing? 
Mr. Lemmon. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. No further questions. 
Mr. Lemmon. Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. We will print your entire statement, together 
with attachments, at this point in the record. 

(The material referred to follows:) 

Prepaked Statement of Allen B. Lemmon, Assistant Directoe, California 
Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, Calif. 

My name is Allen B. Lemmon, and I am Assistant Director of the Oali- 
fomia Department of Agriculture. May I explain my background? I am a 



3744 

graduate of Standford University with an A.B. in Engineering in 1930, and 
Degree of Engineer in 1932. 

I have been employed continuously by the California Department of Agri- 
culture since 1933. My first assignment was the inspection of fruits and 
vegetables for spray residues, and I have been interested in the protection 
of the public through enforcement of California pesticide laws ever since. Dur- 
ing the period 1946 to 1956 I served as Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry of 
the California Department of Agriculture. In 1956 I became Chief of the Di- 
vision of Plant Industry and have continued in this capacity. In 1968 I was 
designated Assistant Director of Agriculture covering Plant industry and 
other work as assigned by the Director. 

On August 1, 1969, our Director of Agriculture, Mr. Jerry W. Fielder, sent 
you a description of our California pesticide regulatory program. With this 
was included an article authored by me and published in "Residue Reviews" 
(Volume 6, 1964) that fully describes the details of our complex, compre- 
hensive pesticide regulator program. 

On September 17, 1969, in response to a request from the Chairman of this 
Committee, Director Fielder sent you a letter responding to three questions 
that were asked. If there is any further response that I can provide you. 
Director Fielder has instructed me to do so. 

(I request your consent to make these three documents a part of the 
hearing record. ) 

I would like to point out that our comprehensive pesticide regulatory pro- 
gram in California covers not only the licensing of the pesticides themselves 
but the licensing of the pest control operators with special examination for 
those serving as pilots to apply pesticides from aircraft. We have also 
classified 35 materials an injurious materials that require a permit before 
an individual may use the materials. These include materials such as parathion 
and DDT. 

The reason that we are able to enforce this type of program is that in each 
county in California there is a county agricultural commissioner who has an 
extensive staff of county employees that are in the field at all times and know 
what goes on in the various agricultural production areas. These men are 
trained inspectors and are distinct from the Agricultural Extension Service. 
The agricultural commissioners, deputies, and inspectors are law enforcement 
officers enforcing the laws set forth in the Agricultural Code and the rules 
and regulations adopted by the Director of Agriculture under the authority 
of this Code. 

A close, cooperative working relationship exists between the California De- 
partment of Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health. The 
Public Health Department's Bureau of Occupational Health and Epidemiology, 
under the direction of Dr. Thomas Milby, is conducting a study of the effect 
of pesticides on farm workers. Dr. Milby told me Friday that he had no re- 
sults to report as the study was in the process of interviewing 2,000 persons. 
From the testimony Mr. Chavez gave yesterday, it is apparent the United 
Farm Workers Organizing Committee has talked with one of the many per- 
sons conducting interviews for Dr. Milby. I am sure this is why Mr. Chavez 
was unable to obtain any authoritative information. 

Another example of Public Health's interest in cooperation is the informa- 
tion the Department has distributed to physicians in California on pesticides 
particularly organic phosphate diagnosis and treatment. Public health also has 
provided such material to any physician requesting it. 

In addition to regulation of the sale and use of pesticides, the Department 
maintains laboratories where samples of fruits, vegetables, hay, meat, milk, 
and other raw agricultural commodities used for food purposes are analyzed. 
These samples are drawn from fields or lots in the course of being harvested 
or transported or in the wholesale markets or in retail outlets. This spray resi- 
duce inspection program is statewide and is for the purpose of assuring that the 
produce offered for sale to the consumer complies with the spray residue re- 
quirements set forth in the federal and state laws and regulations. Routine 
testmg of produce enables us immediately to hold and require reconditioning of 
any produce that may be found with residue in excess of the permitted tol- 
erance. 

The samples of grapes that have been drawn in the routine process of our 



3745 

work have not shown any grapes with spray residues in excess of the per- 
mitted tolerance. In no case have we found any aldrin on grapes. In response 
to a report on September 11, 1967, that signs were being displayed in front of a 
Purity Store in San Francisco alleging that the grapes for sale were poisoned, 
we drew four samples of the grapes on hand, analyzed them, and found that 
they did not carry any pesticide residue in excess of the tolerance. Only one 
sample carried any residue, and that was kelthane 0.6 parts per million, well 
within the legal tolerance of 5 ppm. 

In California each agricultural pest control operator is required to submit 
a monthly report to the county agricultural commissioner in each county in 
which he does work showing the work that was done in that county. The records 
that are submitted to the agricultural commissioner enable him to determine 
if there have been misapplications and take proper action against a pest con- 
trol operator or other person who was involved. I have personally con- 
tacted several of the agricultural commissioners including the Commissioner 
of Riverside County and tlie Commissioner of Kern County, and have been in- 
formed that their records do not show the use of any aldrin on table grapes 
in their counties. In checking with other counties, I have been informed that 
they have no records of the use aldrin upon grapes. 

(For the record, I should like to submit statements by the agricultural com- 
missioners of Riverside and Kern Counties attesting to the fact that aldrin is 
not used on grapes. ) 

California's pesticide laws and regulations have emphasized protection 
for persons, animals and crops. The 1969 Legislature has given the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture the added responsibility of protecting the environment. The 
law has been amended to require registrants of the pesticides classified as 
injurious materials to render quarterly reports of sales to the director. It also 
requires each agricultural commissioner to report to the director the type and 
amount of injurious materials for which permits are issued and the crop 
and pest or pests on which the material is used. The contents of these reports 
are required to be summarized quarterly by the director as to the type of ma- 
terial and amounts and such summaries are to be made a public record. 

If there are any questions that I can answer, I will be pleased to have 
the opportunity to do so. 

Office of Agricultural Commissioner, 

Riverside, Calif., September 23, 1969. 
Senator George Murphy, 
Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Sir: I am informed that recently testimony was presented to the 
Senate Sub-Committee on Migratory Labor to the effect that Thompson Seed- 
less Grapes shipped from California were found contaminated with Aldrin 
at the rate of 18 parts per million (ppm). 

Examination of the pesticide usage records on file in the Riverside County 
Agricultural Commissioner's Office indicates there has been no commerical 
application of the pesticide Aldrin on any table grape vineyards in the County 
of Riverside in 1969. In fact, a .search of the records indicates that no Aldrin 
has been used for any agricultural purpose in the County of Riverside during 
the years 1968 and 1969. 
Very truly yours, 

Robert M. Howie, 
Agricultural Commissioner. 

Statement of Seldon Morley, Agricultural Commissioner, County of 
Kern, Calif. August 7, 1969 

Though May 30, 1969, there has been no commercial application of the 
pesticide 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. 



36-513 O— 70— pt. 6C- 



3746 

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. 

Senator Mondale. Our next witness is Mr. Anthony Bianco. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY A. BIANCO, JR., PRESIDENT, BIANCO 
FRUIT CORPORATION, FRESNO, CALIF. 

Mr. Bianco. My name is Anthony A. Bianco, Jr., a resident 
of Fresno, Calif., and president of the Bianco Fruit Corp., growers 
and shippers of table grapes in the Coachella Valley, Arvin, Delano, 
and Fresno areas of California. As such, I am engaged in business 
in the four largest table grape-growing regions of the State. 

I am also one of the 12 California table grape growers who 
agreed to negotiate — and tried to negotiate — with the United 
Farm Workers Organizing Committee in late June and early July 
of this year in an effort to achieve a labor contract covering my 
grape pickers. Those negotiations continued for 3 weeks and 
recessed, without a successful conclusion. 

May I add I don't even have a certified labor dispute. 

But more important to these hearings, I am the grower of the 
Thompson seedless grapes which were presented to this subcommittee 
on August 1 as containing harmful levels of the pesticide aldrin. 
Specifically, the report on my grapes by the C. W. England 
Laboratories said the aldrin content was 18 parts per million 
aldrin, or 180 times the established human tolerance level. 

The England report says UFWOC advised the laboratory the 
grapes in question came from my operation in the Coachella Valley. 
This subcommittee was told the Thompson seedless grapes were 
purchased from a Safeway store in Washington. 

I did not ship any Thompson seedless grapes from the Coachella 
Valley to AVashington. I did ship a carload of Thompson seedless 
grapes to a distributor in Baltimore on July 12, the second-to-last 
shipment from my Coachella vineyards. The final Coachella ship- 
ment went to Texas the following day. 

The owner of that company advised that the carload he received 
arrived in Baltimore on July 19 and that none of the grapes were 
sold to Safeway stores. Fifty boxes — the only grapes which could 
have reached Washington— were sold to the National Produce 
Co. The remainder of the shipment was broken into small lots 
for sale to other chains. But Safeway Stores, whose retail outlets 
in the Washington area were closed by a labor dispute at that time, 
did not purchase any. 

My first direct shipment of Thompson seedless to Washington 
this year was made July 25 from the Arvin area of Kern County. 



3747 

The first consignment went by rail and took 8 days to arrive, 
so the grapes could not have been on store shelves for UFWOC 
to purchase on July 30. A truckload of Thompson seedless left 
Arvin July 26 for Washington and arrived 5 days later— or July 
30. These must have been the grapes that UFWOC submitted to 
the England Laboratories. 

Senator Mondale. Would you yield there. 

Are you seeking to establish that the grapes which the farm- 
workers, and later Safeway, submitted to England Laboratories 
and Eastawai were not grapes from your farm? 

Mr. Bianco. No. 

Senator Mondale. Proceed. 

Mr. Bianco. But these grapes weren't in the same condition 
as when they left my vineyards. The reason — I don't use aldrin 
on grapes. No grower in the Coachella Valley or Kern County — 
and that includes Delano and Arvin — uses aldrin on grapes. I 
don't know of any grape grower anywhere who uses aldrin on 
grapes. 

A sworn statem.ent to the effect that I have not used aldrin has 
been placed into the Congressional Record, along with statements 
from my pesticide supplier and applicator. Copies of these state- 
ments are attached and I ask that they be made a part of the 
record at this point. 

Senator Mondale. Without objection, so ordered. For purposes 
of the printed record, we will print your entire statement, together 
with the attachments, at the close of your remarks this morning. 

Mr. Bianco. When I made that statement, I checked my 
records for the previous 6 years. Since then, I have examined 
the balance of my records and I am sure I have never used 
aldrin on any crop. 

The agricultural commissioners in the counties where I grow 
grapes have stated no aldrin is used in any vineyard in their 
counties. County agricultural commissioners in California must be 
advised of any commercial application of pesticides in their counties. 
The University of California, which advises farmers on pesticides, 
does not include aldrin in their 1969 pest control recommendation 
as a pesticide useful to grape production. 

The Food and Drug Administration survey on its 60 tests in 
market and packer samplings across the country found no trace 
of aldrin on any grapes, including mine, which were specifically 
tested by the FDA. 

I resent the tactic that has been used against me. 

This aldrin scare is no more than anot-her effort to whip me into 
submission. 

Senator Mondale. Would you yield there. 

Mr. Bianco. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. Would you say Safeway also uses aldrin as 
part of that effort to whip you into submission? 

Mr. Bianco. No. 



3748 

I tried to negotiate but could get nowhere in the face of UFWOC's 
nonnegotiable demands. Now UFWOC is trying to bring me down 
in retaliation. 

What has happened here is contrary to the stated principles of 
Cesar Chavez and his movement. Trace his movement. He failed 
to persuade workers on farms to join his organization. He staged 
a boycott aimed at forcing union organization by pressuring stores. 
Now he has moved to this new tactic of trying to destroy an 
industry with the false charge of pesticide contamination. 

I find it difficult to believe that UFWOC now makes its stand 
on pesticides in the name of worker and consumer health. Mr. 
Chavez testified yesterday that the negotiations broke down over 
the issues of wages and pesticides. 

The facts are that the negotiations failed over a number of 
issues. And, significantly, it was pesticides on which UFWOC was 
most ready to give. UFWOC used pesticides as a throwaway item in 
the negotiation. 

Mr. Chavez' committee made an offer in writing through the 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. I should like to read 
that proposal. 

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. 

That isn't the kind of offer a man who claims to be sincere 
about pesticides would make. 

Senator Mondale. Would you yield there? 

Mr. Bianco. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. When Mr. Chavez testified, I think he 
indicated that he had wired the growers indicating that he was 
willing to yield some on the wage issue if you were willing to 
accept more effective controls, as the wine grape growers have, 
in contracts on pesticides. Did you receive that wire? 

Mr. Bianco. No, I did not. 

Senator Mondale. Proceed. 

Mr. Bianco. AVhile this pesticide campaign has been going on, 
there have been firebombings of cars belonging to grape pickers 
working in the fields and of growers' packing sheds. Since the 
laoycott began, incendiary fires in rural areas of California have 
increased drastically, particularly in the grape-growing regions. 

We who tried to negotiate with the Chavez people have been 
a major target for harassment. On September 12, for example, I 
was investigating a mysterious $6,000 fire in one of my packing 
sheds when a firebomb was thrown at another shed 'and some 
lug boxes were burned in a Delano field. 

The campaign has taken another approach of late. The California 
Rural Legal Assistance, an organization financed with Federal funds 
and whose board of directors includes Cesar Chavez, has filed a 
number of nuisance suits against grape growers. One was filed 
against me, which my attorneys say is only further harassment. 

This UFWOC pesticide campaign is false. We in the table 



3749 

grape industry observe all regulations set forth by competent 
authorities and regulatory agencies in pesticide application and 
control. We do not take chances in the fields, either with our 
workers' safety or our own. 

I would point out that this suit I am wearing today is not 
my work uniform, and I did not get this suntan playing golf. 

I have no intention of committing suicide in my own fields. 

Senator Mondale. INIr. Bianco, are you satisfied that in the 
fields of Southern California where the grape workers toil, that 
they are fully protected from any pesticide poisoning which might 
affect their health or their life ? 

Mr. Bianco. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. There is no problem whatsoever ? 

Mr. Bianco. No. 

Senator Mondale. Then how do you feel about the survey 
conducted by Dr. Mizrahi which said that of the workers surveyed, 
80 percent had symptoms of pesticide injuries? Or the work of 
Dr. Irma West, who is with the State of California, which said 
that occupational disease in agriculture is a number one problem 
and three times higher than the average of all industries, and that 
3,000 children are treated for ingestion of pesticides every year? 

In addition to that, of course, HEW, and they included California 
in their survey estimates, testified that perhaps as many as 800 
people die a year from pesticides, and that possibly as many as 
80,000 are injured. 

Do you think it is fair to say then that this exposure to 
pesticides problem raised by the farmworkers is a scare tactic? 

Mr. Bianco. Well, in those statistics I would like to know, are 
they grape workers? Are they working in the vineyards, or what 
type of work were they doing? 

Senator Mondale. The one survey was grape workers. The HEW 
survey was farmworkers generally exposed to pesticides, including 
grape workers. Dr. West, I assume, would not conduct a survey 
of occupational diseases in California without including the grape 
industry. 

You heard Mr. Chavez' specific examples yesterday, which went 
about six pages, naming specifics and symptoms. Is it your testimony 
that this is all trumped up ? 

Mr. Bianco. Well, as far as our particular vineyards are 
concerned, our workers have never complained of any illness while 
working in our vineyards. 

Senator Mondale. Are you willing to limit your observations to 
your farm, or do you still want to say the farmworkers are 
trumping up a charge in terms of occupational hazards? 

Mr. Bianco. Well, I have not heard of any other farmers 
complaining of their workers being taken ill ' on account of 
working on the farms. 

Senator Mondale. Based on that, are you willing to testify that 
it is a trumped-up charge, and that the farmworker's health is 
not risked by pesticides? 



3750 

Mr. Bianco. No. 

Senator Mondale. Now suppose you were just a neutral citizen, 
living in Washington, D.C. You liked grapes, and you were not 
interested in this boycott at all. But, in the health of your children, 
and you were wealthy enough to decide that you wanted to 
test grapes for pesticide residues. What reasonable step would 
you take to test the grapes? 

Mr. Bianco. To do what? I didn't get that. 

Senator Mondale. You just wanted to find out if grapes in 
AVashington, D.C, have pesticides on them to determine whether you 
want your family to eat them. What would you do? What would 
be a fair thing to do? 

Mr. Bianco. I would wash the grapes and eat them. I have a 
lot of faith in our Government agencies that if there was anything 
wrong with the products, I am sure it would not be for sale. 

Senator Mondale. Suppose you took this step. Suppose you went 
down to the Safeway and you bought a bunch of grapes and you 
took it to England Laboratories, and England Laboratories came 
up and said they had 18 p.p.m. residue of aldrin, and you were 
disturbed, so you wrote a letter to the editor setting forth what 
the test showed. Do you think that would be false and irresponsible 
on the part of the citizen? 

Mr. Bianco. No, I 'would not, but why would I take a bunch 
of grapes from a store to a laboratory? 

Senator Mondale. Suppose you were the president of Safeway, 
and you were concerned, and you decided you wanted to know 
whether there was aldrin on those grapes or not. So you took three 
tests — four of them, one of them to Eastawai and another to 
Strasburger, and you determined that in your opinion these were 
good laboratories. Your major concern as a store president, is 
protection of your customers, which is very important. You have 
routinely over the years used these same laboratories to determine 
whether or not the consumers are protected, and you took those 
tests, and three out of four came back with findings of aldrin, 
and you were concerned. Would you think that was irresponsible on 
the part of Safeway? 

Mr. Bianco. No. 

Senator Mondale. Now what did the farmworkers do that was 
different in their test? 

Mr. Bianco. Why did they take the grapes to the laboratory ? 

Senator Mondale. Well, I am not asking you to be a psychiatrist, 
T am asking you what did they do that was different. 

Mr. Bianco. Nothing. 

Senator Mondale. Do you think that your statement in your 
handout yesterday that this is a false pesticide scare is a " fair 
characterization of what they did? 

Mr. Bianco. Well, we were warned about this. Either we 
com])lied with their contract or they would use this pesticide. 

Senator Mondale. Would you have any reason to believe that 



3751 

they were dealing falsely when they took a sample to England 
Laboratories, and got their results? 

Mr, Bianco. I would not know. 

Senator Mondale. Do you think it was irresponsible on their part 
to take grapes and have them tested at an independent laboratory 
saying that was the same that Safeway uses ? 

Mr, Bianco, No. 

Senator ^Mondale, Is it possible that what exists here is an honest 
difference of opinion, and not a false and irresponsible effort ? 

Mr. Bianco. It is possible. 

Senator Mondale. Any other questions? 

Senator Murphy. Yes. 

Now to go back on this, actually the Chairman asked what the 
farmworkers did that was different. As I understand it from 
listening to the testimony and reading, the farmworkers did go and 
buy grapes. One sent a' sample and they took that sample to the 
England Laboratories. Please correct me if I am in error. The 
England Laboratories found an extraordinarily dangerous amount 
of a pesticide called aldrin on the grapes and then they publicized 
this and made it a basis of a campaign to be used to further 
discourage the purchase of California grapes. So they did do 
something that was different and unique and particular, and 
certainly to be used in their interest in their desire to organize 
the grape industry. So they did actually do something different, 
I would think. 

Senator Mondale. Well, they testified 

Senator Murphy. Just to continue, subsequent to that when the 
interest was drawn, the Chairman, thank goodness, called the 
FDA and the FDA came in and did an examination and found 
that there were possibly traces of aldrin but not the extraordinary 
amount that was found, on the first samples. 

Now this aroused curiosity and we find now that the grower 
of the grapes — the alleged grower of the grapes — in his testimony 
here yesterday showing the sign taken from the frap; the grower 
of the grapes testifies today that he has not used aldrin on the 
grapes which brings me back to my starting point: Who put the 
overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder? Who put the aldrin on the 
grapes, how did it get there? 

Senator Mondale. The plot really thickens. Then the Safeway sells 
their own grapes with aldrin. It really thickens the plot. 

Senator Murphy. That is the Chairman's statement, not mine. 

Senator Mondale. Oh, you are being very selective. 

Senator Murphy. Yes; I am. I am just as mysteriously concerned 
as to how that aldrin in the Safeway test got on these grapes, which 
came from the same vineyard, and there was no aldrin put on the 
grapes, no evidence has been used, no sworn testimony that has 
not been used. How did the aldrin get on any of the grapes? This 
I don't understand. 

Senator Cranston, What pesticides do you use on the grapes 
you grow? 



3752 

Mr. Bianco. Use Kelthane 7 dust. 

Senator Cranston. Is that it ? 

Mr. Bianco. Yes. 

Senator Cranston. Is that less dangerous than chlorinated 
hydrocarbons ? 

Mr. Bianco. Kelthane is. 

Senator Cranston. Thank you. 

Senator Mondale. One final question: In addition to being a 
grower you are also a shipper, are you not? 

Mr. Bianco. Yes; I am a grower and shipper. 

Senator Mondale. Do you occasionally handle grapes as a 
shipper not grown on your farms? 

Mr. Bianco. Yes. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you. 

Senator Murphy. May I ask a question, Senator Mondale? 

Just to conclude what I assume to be the logic of tl/e Chairman's 
question, in other grapes that you have shipped do you think 
there is any possibility of aldrin having been used on those grapes? 

Mr. Bianco. That is impossible. 

Senator Murphy. So, in other words, neither the grapes which 
you grew nor the grapes which you shipped contained, or had 
been sprayed with aldrin? 

Mr. Bianco. They were not. 

Senator Murphy. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you. We will print your full statement, 
together with the attachments, at this point in the record. 

(The prepared statement of Mr. Bianco follows :) 



3753 



STATEMENT OF ANTHONY A. BIANCO, JR. 

Fresno, California 

President, Bianco Fruit Company 

Before the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 

Washington, D. C. 

September 30, 1969 

******** 



My name is Anthony A. Bianco, Jr., a resident of Fresno, 
California, and president of the Bianco Fruit Corporation, growers 
and shippers of table grapes in the Coachella Valley, Arvin, Delano 
and Fresno areas of California. As such, I am engaged in business 
in the four largest table grape-growing regions of the state. 

I am also one of 12 California table grape growers who agreed 
to negotiate--and tried to negotiate--wi th the United Farm Workers 
Organizing Committee in late June and early July ol this year in an 
effort to achieve a labor contract covering my grape pickers. Those 
negotiations continued for three weeks and recessed, without a 
successful conclusion, on July 3. 

But more important to these hearings, I am the grower of the 
Thompson seedless grapes which were presented to this Subcommittee 
on August 1 as containing harmful levels of the pesticide aldrin. 
Specifically, the report on my grapes by the C. W. England Labora- 
tories said the aldrin content was 18 parts per million aldrin, or 
180 times the established human tolerance level. 

The England report says UFWOC advised the laboratory the grapes 
in question came from my operation in the Coachella Valley. This 
subcommittee was told the Thompson seedless grapes were purchased 
from a Safeway Store in Washington. 



3754 



I did not ship any Thompson seedless grapes from the Coachella 
Valley to Washington. I did ship a carload o± Thompson seedless 
grapes to a distributor in Baltimore on July 12, the second-to-last 
shipment from my Coachella vineyards. The final Coachella shipment 
went to Texas the following day, July 13. 

The owner of that company advised that the carload he received 
arrived in Baltimore on July 19 and that none of the grapes was sold 
to Safeway Stores. Fifty boxes — the only grapes which could have 
reached Washington — were sold to the National Produce Company. The 
remainder of the shipment was broken into small lots for sale to 
other chains. But Safeway Stores, whose retail outlets in the 
Washington area were closed by a labor dispute at that time, did not 
purchase any. 

My first direct shipment of Thompson seedless to Washington 
this year was made July 25 from the Arvin area of Kern County. The 
first consignment went by rail and took eight days to arrive, so the 
grapes could not have been on store shelves for UFWOC to purchase 
on July 30. A truckload of Thompson seedless left Arvin July 26 
for Washington and arrived five days later--or July 30. These must 
have been the grapes that UFWOC submitted to the England Laboratories, 

But these grapes weren't in the same condition as when they 
left my vineyards. The reason — I don't use aldrin on grapes. No 
grower in the Coachella Valley or Kern County — and that includes 
Delano and Arvin — uses aldrin on grapes. I don't know of any grape 
grower anywhere who uses aldrin on grapes. 



3755 



A sworn statement to the effect that I have not used aldrin 
has been placed into the Congressional Record, along with statements 
from my pesticide supplier and applicator. Copies of these statements 
are attached and I ask that they be made a part of the record at this 
point. When I made that statement, I checked my records for the 
previous six years. Since then, I have examined the balance of my 
records and I am sure I have never used aldrin on any crop. 

The agricultural commissioners in the counties where I grow 
grapes have stated no aldrin is used in any vineyard in their counties. 
County agricultural commissioners in California must be advised of 
any commercial application of pesticides in their counties. The 
University of California, which advises farmers on pesticides, does 
not include aldrin in their 1969 Pest Control Recommendation as a 
pesticide useful to grape production. 

The Food and Drug Administration survey on its 50 tests in 
market and packer samplings across the country found no trace of 
aldrin on any grapes, including mine which were specifically tested 
by the FDA . 

I resent the tactic that has been used against me. 

This aldrin scare is no more than another effort to whip 
me into submission. I tried to negotiate but could get nowhere 
in the face of UFWOC ' s non-negotiable demands. Now UFWOC is trying 
to bring me down in retaliation. 

What has happened here is contrary to the stated principles 
of Cesar Chavez and his movement. Trace his movement. He failed 
to persuade workers on farms to join his organization. He staged 
a boycott aimed at forcing union organization by pressuring stores. 
Now he has moved to this new tactic of trying to destroy an industry 
with the false charge of pesticide contamination. 



3756 



I find it difficult to believe that UFWOC now makes its stand 
on pesticides in the name of worJs.ex-^nd consumer health. Mr. Chavez 
testified yesterday that the negotiations broke down over the issues 
of wages and pesticides. 

The facts are that the negotiations failed over a number of 
issues. And, significantly, it was pesticides on which UFWOC was 
most ready to give. UFWOC used pesticides as a throw-away item in 
the negotiations. 

Mr. Chavez' committee made an offer in writing through the 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. I should like to read 
that proposal. 

"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." 

That isn't the kind of offer a man who claims to be sincere 
about pesticides would make. 

While this pesticide campaign has been going on, there have 
been firebombings of cars belonging to grape pickers working in the 
fields and of growers' packing sheds. Since the boycott began, 
incendiary fires in rural areas of California have increased dras- 
tically, particularly in the grape-growing regions. 

We who tried to negotiate with the Chavez people have been a 
major target for harassment. On September 12, for example, I was 
investigating a mysterious $6,000 fire in one of my packing sheds 
when a firebomb was thrown at another shed and some lug boxes were 
burned in a Delano field. 



3757 



The campaign has taken another approach of late. The 
California Rural Legal Assistance, an organization financed with 
federal funds and whose board of directors includes Cesar Chavez, 
has tiled a number of nuisance suits against grape growers. One 
was filed against me, which my attorneys say is only further 
harassment. 

This UFWOC pesticide campaign is false. We in the table 
grape industry observe all regulations set forth by competent 
authorities and regulatory agencies in pesticide application and 
control. We do not take chances in the fields, either with our 
workers' safety or our own. 

I would point out that this suit I am wearing today is not 
my work uniform and I did not get this suntan playing golf. 

1 have no intention of committing suicide in my own fields. 

# # # 



3758 



COPY 
Statement of Anthony A. Blanco, Jr. 



This will certify that I, Anthony A. Bianco, Jr., owner 
and operator of the Bianco Fruit Corporation, have not purchased, 
obtained or received the chlorinated 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 Griffin 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 Chat period. 

(signed) 

Anthony A. Bianco, Jr. 

Bianco Fruit Corporation 
Delano-Arvin-Thermal 



STATE OF CALIFORNU ) 
COUNTY OF KEARN ) 55 

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 acknowledged to me that such Corporation 
executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a 
resolution of its Board of Directors. 

WITNESS my hand and official seal. 

(SIGNED) 

Notary Public 

(OFFICIAL SEAL) Joyce M. McPherson 

my commission expires Mar. 10, 1970 



3759 



COPY 



JP\, SOtffHMN VALLEY CH6MICAL CO. 



AHVIH 774. ■•7» 



#' o.aoa lai . amvim. QAkinjuNi* 

August 6, 1969 

To Whom It May Concern: 

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



(signed) 

Ed Sampson 

Manager & Co-Owner 

Southern Valley Chemical Co. 

ES/lj 



3760 

Senator Mondale. Our final witness this morning is Mr. John 
Giumarra. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. GIUMARRA, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, 
GIUMARRA VINEYARDS CORP., EDISON, CALIF. 

Mr. Giumarra. I am John G. Giumarra, Jr., a resident of 
Bakersfield, Calif., and general counsel of Giumarra Vineyards 
Corp. We are grape growers in the Arvin and Delano regions of 
Kern County and are one of the many targets of the United 
Farm Workers Organizing Committee boycott effort. 

Despite that boycott effort and intensive efforts by UFWOC 
to organize our workers and other farmworkers in California and 
across the Nation, our crops — and the total crop of the table grape 
industry — have been harvested and marketed in each of the past 
4 years. ( 

Our 1969 crop is similarly flowing to market right now as Mr. 
Cesar Chavez and UFWOC trumpet their strike and boycott 
calls before this committee and in the marketplaces of the Nation. 

This crop is moving because UFWOC has failed in each and 
every phase of its campaign and is now resorting to cynical and 
desperate tactics to keep its cause alive. 

UFWOC has failed in the fields where it has been unable to 
win over the workers and unable to halt the production or harvest of 
table grapes. 

UFWOC has failed with the boycott because the consumers of 
America want grapes and will eat them if they are for sale. 
UFWOC has further failed in the marketplace because the stores 
of America have stood up under the worst kind of coercion, 
refusing to serve as arbiters in a dispute which is not of their 
making and refusing to deny freedom of choice to the consumer. 

Now, as this hearing has established beyond doubt, Mr. Chavez 
and UFWOC, in a last ditch effort to buoy up their cause, have 
recklessly leveled the false charge that the grape growers are 
poisoning the American people. Mr. Chavez has come to Washington 
to testify before the highest legislative body in the land in an 
attempt to use this revered place as the staging ground for an 
effort which could well destroy the table grape industry and 
the livelihood of the farmworkers for whom he professes such 
deep concern. 

That tactic has failed because of the diligence this subcommittee 
has shown in pursuing the truth. His defamatory charge against 
this industry is based on the flimsiest possible evidence — Mr. Chavez' 
single laboratory analysis of one 4-pound sample from nearly a 
billion— and I emphasize that— pounds of California table grapes. 
And indeed even this test was demonstrated to be inaccurate. 

Let us look at that evidence. 

Dr. Paul E. Porter, a world-renowned chemist and unimpeachable 
expert in pesticides, has refuted beyond question the charge that 
California table grapes are contaminated by aldrin. His scientific 
expertise, brought down to language everyone can understand 



3761 

proves that the test cited to this committee on August 1 was either 
in error, or that the grapes were deliberately doctored by someone. 

Senator Mondale. AVould you yield there. 

Mr. GiuMARRA. Certainly. 

Senator Mondale. Did he say those tests were deliberately 
doctored ? 

Mr. GiuMARRA. He cited the fact that the only way that 18 
parts per million could have shown up would either have been 
an artifact or that they were deliberately doctored by someone. 
I think he used the word "spiked." If you will check the record 
in his responses to your question, he indicated that really the only 
two ways would be either faulty analysis or "spiked." If Dr. 
Porter is still here, you may ask him. It is in the record, Mr. 
Chairman, if you would like' to play it back after I am finished. 

Senator Moxdale. Do you think there is any evidence that the 
farmworkers got to that sample? 

Mr. GiuMARRA. I am reporting what Dr. Porter reported here. 

Senator Mondale. But you are sponsoring that, are you not? 
You are saying there is some basis to believe this was doctored? 

Mr. GiuMARRA. I am not sponsoring Dr. Porter. Dr. Porter 
was here to testify by invitation. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, 
is this: That to get 18 parts per million of the chemical aldrin on 
a California table grape is a highly unusual circumstance, and 
either there has to be a failure in the testing analysis, as indicated 
by Dr. Porter, or something was done to the grapes. He indicated, 
as an example, that something could have happened in transit. He 
used the word "spiked," though. 

Senator Mondale. Let me repeat my question: Do you want to 
conclude your testimony here by leaving the charge that the 
farmworkers deliberately doctored that sample? Do you want to 
stand behind that? Is there any evidence that that has been 
doctored ? 

Mr. GiuMARRA. I said "or" that the grapes were deliberately 
doctored by someone and I did not charge that the United 
Farm Workers Organizing Committee did it, specifically. I don't 
know whether they were doctored or whether the test was inaccurate. 

Senator Mondale. The samples that were submitted by the 
Safeway, were they deliberately doctored? 

Mr. GiuMARRA. I would say that the Safeway samples manifest the 
same type of inaccurate processes that Dr. Porter testified to here 
this morning and that the FDA testified to here yesterday morning. 
If I were the president of of Safeway, as you indicated before, and 
I were apprised of the fact that there might be some deleterious 
residue on my table grapes, I of course would make an analysis of 
that with a reputable independent laboratory. But by making a 
charge, as the union has done here, before a Senate subcommittee of 
the United States of America, indicating that the American con- 
sumer is possibly being poisoned, and then citing as evidence the 
one bad test in 100 years of table grape production, when there has 
never been any evidence in the history of this country presented 
by the Food and Drug Administration or any State agency— and 

36-513 d!— 70— pt. 6C 6 



3762 

I might add that state agencies, too, constantly check throughout 
the United States— that there was any deleterious chemicals on 
grapes, I would indicate that UFWOC "has made a reckless charge, 
and I would indicate that you have to put Safeway's tests in the 
context of the things I am going to get in my testimony. 

Senator Mondale. You said you are willing to stand behind your 
statement that the farmworkers may have deliberately doctored 
their samples. 

Mr. GiuMARRA. Please don't, you are putting words in my mouth. 

Senator Mondale. Well, that is your statement, too. 

Mr. GiuMARRA. I said here "or that the grapes were deliberately 
doctored by someone." You are saying the farmworkers. If you 
would like to conclude that, you heard the evidence. I indicated by 
"someone". 

Senator Mondale. When you make a statement like this who 
do you suppose the average American is going to assume you mean 
by "someone?" 

Mr. GiuMARRA. AVell, I will let my statement and the evidence 
presented here speak for itself, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact 
that there are only two ways that that grape sample could have had 
18 parts per million of aldrin. 

Senator Mondale. All right. Would you say, then, that we say 
the same of the Safeway samples, that it could have been deliberately 
doctored by somebody? Would you be willing to say that about 
both Safeway and the farmers? 

Mr. Giumarra. Since the grapes came from the same warehouse, 
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that is a possibility. 

Senator Mondale. In both cases? 

Mr. Giumarra. That is a possibility. They came from the same 
warehouse. 

Senator Mondale. I submit that is some sort of a record. Some 
of them came from the railroad cars, some came from the warehouse, 
some came from the stores. 

Senator Cranston. May I ask a question. 

Are you suggesting that not only the small samples may have 
been spiked by someone, but that a whole vast supply in the ware- 
house that was going out across the country may haA-'e been spiked? 

Mr. Giumarra. Well, it was not going out * across the country. 
Senator Cranston, it was really only going to a limited area here 
around the District of Columbia. 

Senator Cranston. Is it your suggestion that possibly the grapes 
picked up were not spiked in transit during examination, but that a 
supply gomg from a warehouse out to the general public in the 
Washmgton area may have been spiked at the warehouse? 
■ Mr. Giumarra. I suppose that that is a possibility. What I am 
really suggesting is that on page 25 of the original transcript of testi- 
mony presented to this subcommittee there was a question by Senator 
iiellmon to Mr. Cohen concerning DDT. Senator Bellmon said, "Do 
you remember what levels of DDT contamination there were?" Mr. 
Cohen had been talking about DDT and Mr. Cohen out of tlie blue 
said, which was not responsive, "We just got a report today from 



3763 

Washington that talks about 18 parts per million for aldrin. That 
was on Bianco grapes. Some of the grapes were two and three 
parts per million. It is under seven parts per million, but the problem 
is that they are using DDT." And he goes on about other things. 
The statement was made by Mr. Cohen that there were 18 parts 

per million. If I may show you 

Senator Mondale. That was a test, was it not ? In other words, 
they submitted a test from England Laboratories. 

Mr. GiuMx\RRA. And I am trying to explain the reason for the 
results of the test, because that is the reason for this subcommittee 
hearing, sir. This is why I was invited here, to explain why 18 parts 
per million were on that grape. I don't think there is any need 
to be supersolicitous as to who in fact is responsible for it. It may 
well have been, as Dr. Porter suggested in his testimony, that indeed 
the testing was faulty, and that is what the FDA indicated. 

Senator Mondale. Four independent laboratories found aldrin 

and one expert that is in the business, the company that sells aldrin. 

Mr. GiUMARRA. No, we only have two independent laboratories 

that found aldrin, the third laboratory did not jfind aldrin. The FDA 

took 60 tests around the United States and did not find any. 

Senator Mondale. Four separate tests. 

Mr. GiUMARRA. Four separate tests, but one laboratory made three 
of the tests. That is not very persuasive. 

Senator Cranston, You are making a more serious charge than 
I understood originally, because you are suggesting that perhaps 
this was not just a few pounds of grapes en route to the laboratory 
that were spiked, but some unknown and large quantity of grapes 
going from a warehouse out to where the general public would buy 
them were spiked. 

So you are suggesting what amounts to poison on goods that 
were headed for the public. 

Senator Murphy. Would the Senator yield for a question? 
Mr. GiUMARRA. I am not suggesting that. Senator Mondale is the 
one who said that. 

Senator Murphy. May I intersperse a question. Was the Senator'.s 
meaning that by some strange quirk of circumstances that the bunch 
of grapes that was taken first to England was the only bunch of 
grapes in that condition, that this was just not taken from among 
the whole group of grapes? 

Senator Cranston. I am trying to understand what he is sug- 
gesting—and I wish he would clarify this. I gathered from what 
you said, Mr. Giumarra, that it may not have been just the grapes 
that were en route from Safeway to a laboratory in two instances 
that might have been spiked, but since you have referred to the 
fact that they came from a common warehouse, that the spiking 
might have occurred back at the warehouse headed for the general 
public m the Washington area. Is that a correct understanding? 

Mr. Giumarra. If in one sentence I could summarize all the evi- 
dence, I would suggest to you that this testimony represents that, 
from a scientific standpoint, which is about the only way we can 
really conclude anything, as to how, from a scientific standpoint, we 



3764 

ended up with 18 parts per million of aldrin on a California grape 
in Washington, D.C. You would either have to have faulty testing 
or someone would have had to have doctored the grapes. 

Now I am suggesting that the evidence presented here yesterday 
and today indicates that the testing by the two laboratories which 
found aldrin was faulty, but from a scientific standpoint, I have to 
raise the other possibility because we should also take it into con- 
sideration. 

Senator Mondale. If you would leave it there, that there is an 
unresolved conflict among laboratories, I don't think anyone would 
disagree with you. But your testimony is laden with charges of 
fraud, of deliberate doctoring, and misuse, by a union that took 
grapes to an independent laboratory and found aldrin, and it is 
that charge for which you have no information. 

Mr. GiUMARRA. I disagree with that. Senator. The statement about 
the deceits and falsehoods I think relate to the overall issue of 
UFWOC's raising one test out of literally thousands and thousands 
of tests that have been taken, raising this issue when I am sure — and 
I think that if we had to support this by affidavit I could do so— 
that Mr. Cohen, who made the aldrin charge here, knew that aldrin 
is not even used on table grapes in California. He knew this be- 
cause the commissioner of Kern County publishes an annual pesti- 
cide report — which he offered to show to Mr. Cohen, and whether 
Mr. Cohen took a look at it or not, I do not know — showing all of 
the chemicals that are applied on California table grapes. 

I am suggesting that it is deceitful and a misrepresentation to 
present one test to this subcommittee when the FDA, in the entire 
history of this country and the entire history of the FDA, has 
never found any deleterious residue of aldrin on California grapes. 

Senator Mondale. Is it your testimony that the England Labs 
prepared a deceitful test, and that the farmworkers who took this 
bunch of grapes for testing knew that they had in possession a 
deceitful report? What is your testimony? 

Mr. GiHMARRA. I don't think I could state it any clearer than I 
just did. Senator. I stated that — well, it is in the record. I just stated 
that to submit one test out of all the thousands of tests that have 
preceded it, to disclose this test at a hearing, and make the charge 
that consumers are being poisoned, and use that test, in conjunction 
with an exhibit which I am going to enter into the record in a 
moment, to scare the American public into believing that there are 
illegal pesticides in excessive tolerances on grapes, is an irresponsible 
and deceitful act. Now this is something different than we were just 
talking about. 

Senator Mondale. Would you say that even though Safeway later 
tried three separate laboratories and two of the three also came up 
with aldrin, that those laboratories and their tests are deceitful? 
There just is not enough for a responsible and honest person to 
believe there is an issue? Is that your testimony? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. I believe there is not enough UFWOC evidence for 
an honest person to think there is really an issue here, that is right. 



3765 

Senator Mondale. Did Safeway in fact suspend some of their 
purchases with Bianco on the basis of those surveys ? 

Mr. GiuMARRA. Safeway, not knowing what the true facts were, 
as I understand it, suspended purchases from one shipper, not of all 
California table grapes, and the charge was made by UFWOC that 
all grapes were contaminated. 

Senator Mondale. Did they have some basis for their action? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. Yes, they had the basis, I think, of an inaccurate 
report. 

Senator Mondale. Was that a responsible and an honest reaction on 

their part? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. It was a responsible and honest reaction to the 
UFWOC's irresponsible statement, namely, that the grapes had 
aldrin on them and this statement was based on the only test that 
had ever manifested such results in the history of this country. 

Senator Mondale. Four tests? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. Pardon me? 

Senator Mondale. Four tests ? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. No, I am saying it was a responsible action to an 
irresponsible charge. 

Senator Mondale. They responded to their own test, did they 
not? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. They responded to the charge presented to this 
subcommittee. 

Senator Mondale. They took their own samples. 

Mr. GiUMARRA. Why did they take the test? Not out of the blue 
but because someone was warning, before this subcommittee, that the 
grapes had illegal residue on them. 

Senator Mondale. Is that because of the politics of it, or was it 
in order to defend the consumer? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. No, because the charge was made. 

Senator Murphy. Would the Senator yield. 

I would like to read into the record, I am reading now from Mr. 
Cohen's testimony when he first appeared before the committee. 
He said: 

I would like to summarize the main area of farmworkers concern. The 
reason for farmworkers testifying here is because we believe that the table 
grape industry in California is irresponsible in its use of economic poison, 
uses the wrong kind of poison, the wrong time and in the wrong amounts, 
and disregards the health of both consumer and workers. 

Now this statement would be enough to make me, were I running 
a grocery store, to say, "Wait a minute, I better find out what I am 
selling." And they did suspend purchases of one shipper's grapes 
for I think a period of two weeks while they had their tests. Then 
they resumed the purchase, which would indicate to me that they 
were satisfied that there was not any dangerous and irresponsible 
use and disregard to consumers and workers. 

Mr. GiUMARRA. Senator Murphy, you raise an important point 
and that is this : That the union at the very outset of its testimony 
made a charge that we were irresponsible in the use of pesticides, 
not only with respect to the farmworker in the field but more 



3766 

importantly, from a pesticide campaign in terms of dissuading 
people to eat grapes, that we were selling grapes that had illegal 
residues. 

To substantiate that charge, the union only comes forward with 
its own one test, which showed 18 parts per million of a chemical, 
called aldrin, not even used on the table grapes. 

I would suggest that to substantiate a very, very serious charge, 
such as the union made, with evidence like that, which is only one 
test, without first going to the FDA and checking their tests 
throughout the country, and the State tests throughout the State, 
I think is an irresponsible act, and that is the reason for my claim 
in my news conference, and here, that this was a deceitful act. 

Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, if I may say, it was due to the 
good judgment of the Chairman that this matter was brought to the 
FDA and that the further tests were made which showed that 
there was some sort of an error, or a mystery here, which led to these 
hearings today which I think point out very clearly that there has 
been a very definite error, and there have been some mistakes made 
and some injuries done that possibly should not have been done. 

Mr. GiUMARRA. And I thank the Chairman for asking the FDA 
to make those inspections because they did exonerate our industry 
and find that the grapes were certainly and truly safe. 

Senator Mondale. Does your statement deal with health risks to 
the farmworkers? 

Mr. GiTJMARRA. Indirectly it does, sir. 
Senator Mondale. Does it deal with it directly? 
Mr. Gtumarra. Well, I suppose you would have to define that 
but I will proceed with it and then we can determine. 
Senator Mondale. All right. 

Mr. GiUMARRA. We have just discussed Dr. Porter's testimony 
and then I continue. 

Even disregarding for the moment the scientific technicalities 
of the matter, the irrefutable fact is that aldrin is not used on 
California grapes. 

Anthony A. Bianco, Jr., who grew the grapes in question, swears 
he has never used aldrin on any crop. 

Mr. Allen Lemmon of the California State Department of Agri- 
culture showed that aldrin is not used on grapes and that his De- 
partment's tests of grapes on the farm, in the transportation process, 
and in the markets, have never turned up aldrin. 

The people who apply pesticides . for the growers, and the agri- 
cultural commissioners of every county in California state that 
aldrin is not used on grapes. 

Finally, the Food and Drug Administration, with its broad-scale 
tests and its widely recognized array of technical experts, processes, 
and equipment, have totally cleared the California table grape crop 
of charges that it is contaminated by aldrin — or that it is contami- 
nated in any way whatsoever by pesticides, herbicides, and what Mr. 
Chevez called "economic poisons" of any kind. 

This, then, is the evidence that disposes of UFWOC's pesticide 
charge and which destroys the credibility of Mr. Chavez' own 



3767 

testimony before this committee and the dangerously irresponsible 
propaganda he is spreading in his travels about the country. 

But this is only part of the story. The contrived pesticide issue 
represents a final desperate move in Mr. Chevez' campaign to grab 
control of the Nation's food production. The pesticide scare was 
obviously launched to shore up UFWOC's sagging boycott. UF- 
WOC's stated concern for the farmworker and consumer is no more 
than a cynical weapon in its arsenal of trickery and deceit. 

The first I personally heard of pesticides as an issue between 
the growers and UFWOC was about a year ago from Mr. Cohen 
himself. We were litigating a matter in superior court in Bakersfield, 
Calif., when Mr. Cohen warned me that UFAVOC was considering 
launching the pesticide campaign which has now materialized. 

At that time, however, he stated that UFWOC was being re- 
strained from doing so by the AFL-CIO because such a campaign 
might destroy the industry. Mr. Cohen insisted that UFWOC 
could raise the issue in the future if the industry continued its 
refusal to negotiate with UFWOC, and that if UFWOC did, the 
grape industry would be faced with another cranberry situation. 

And he warned that we could not beat this tactic because, he said, 
in the cranberry situation every time the Food and Drug Admin- 
istration or the industry advised the public that cranberries were 
safe, sales of that commodity plunged even lower. 

The ironic parts of all this is that apparently not only the AFL- 
CIO but Mr. Chavez himself opposed the use of this tactic by his 
followers. 

On June 10, 1969, Mr. Cohen walked into the office of the South 
Central Farmers' Committee in Delano, Calif., and engaged in a 
conversation with Mrs. Eleanor Schulte, the committee's office 
manager. 

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the 
record Mrs, Schult«'s affidavit regarding that conversation. 

Senator Mondale. For purposes of the printed record, I will order 
your entire statement, with all attachments, printed at the close of 
your remarks. 

Mr. GiuMARRA. Mrs. Schulte notes therein that Mr. Cohen said 
his purpose was for Mrs. Schulte to pass along to the growers the 
conversation that took place between them. 

I will also quote three brief paragraphs from Mrs. Schulte's 
affidavit : 

The Board of UFWOC (He [Cohen] mentioned the names of Larry, Dolores, 
and Phil whom I assume to be Larry Itliong, Dolores Huerta, and Phil 
Veracruz [All UFWOC officials]) had met the previous night and voted 
to mount an all-out campaign this year on the boycott, including the pesticide 
issue. Cesar did not want to push the pesticide issue, and tried to restrain 
the others but finally agreed to go ahead with it if necessary. The only 
alternative to this intensive campaign will be for the growers to negotiate. 
Cesar wants to avoid this intensification because it will be so destructive to 
both sides 

And quote : 

He spoke of the "cranberry scare" and said that every time the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture issued a bulletin denying pesticide poisoning in cran- 



3768 

berries, it only made the situation worse. He said we couldn't fight the pesti- 
cide issue. 

And again I quote : 

He said that 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. Then we told him that we would bring up the pesti- 
cide issue, and he laughted, but we did all these things." 

Yes, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, they did do 
all these things and more. 

They have lied to the American people. They have deliberately 
distorted fact. They have libeled this industry and this commodity. 
And they have demonstrated the most vicious irresponsibility the 
agricultural community of this Nation has ever witnessed. 

For example, consider the next document I will ask to be made 
part of this record. It is a handbill put out by UFWOC urging 
"Don't Eat Grapes." This handbill and thousands like it are flooding 
the country in a deliberate effort to frighten the American consumer 
and to destroy this industry. 

In it, UFWOC charges the growers with using pesticides of a 
kind, and I quote, "developed by the Nazis during World War II" 
which "works just like war gases in its effect on human beings." 

I am not a technical expert in pesticides but I do read the English 
language and I understand deliberately misleading propaganda 
when I see it. The same handbill says, "There are no inspection pro- 
cedures and no safeguards to protect consumers from dangerous 
pesticide residuse remaining on grapes." 

The testimony before this committee yesterday and today demon- 
strates the utter falsity of UFWOC's claims. 

Along these lines, if UFWOC wants to talk about gases, I would 
like to tell you of an incident in our vineyards near Delano on August 
26. A picking crew reported to a field for work and within a few 
moments many of the workers complained of feeling ill. Their eyes 
were watering and they were coughing. One worker attempted to 
use a portable field toilet which is provided for our workers, but 
was driven out in several seconds, tears streaming from his eyes. 

The Homkohl Laboratories of Bakersfield, chemical and testing 
engineers, were asked to analyze the problem because we fully antici- 
pated that UFWOC would charge the incident up to pesticides in 
some fashion. A Hornkohl chemist, L. H. McAuley, said he was 
unable to remain in the toilet building for more than 3 seconds 
because of what he described as "a very pungent odor and burning 
effect of the eyes." 

Laboratory tests (and I am submitting the Hornkohl certificate for 
the record, Mr. Chairman) showed that the portable toilet had been 
sprayed with an organic chemical with an aldehyde base. Aldehyde, 
I am told, is an abrasive agent, a basic ingredient in tear gas. 

When Mr. McAuley attempted to leave the area with his sample, he 
was accosted by UFWOC supporters on the road outside the vine- 
yard and warned to get rid of his sample. He refused, however, and 
was safely escorted from the area by one of our ranch officials. 



3769 

Moreover, while Mr. McAuley was taking his samples, the same 
UFWOC group harangued the workers in the field with shouts 
asking: "Do your eyes burn? Do you have tears in your eyes?" 

All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that before Cesar Chavez and 
UFWOC came to the valley, our workers were not tear gassed in the 
fields. 

Mr. Chavez knows that the pesticide issue is false. He is completely 
willing to have it go away — even without resolution on his terms — 
if he can whip the growers into submission and take his first step 
toward control of America's food production. 

Proof that the is willing to throw away the pesticide issue is 
evidenced in the next document I now submit for the record. 

In June and July of this year, 12 table grape growers entered 
into negotiation with UFWOC under the supervision of the Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service. Those negotiations failed. The 
evidence stemming from those negotiations demonstrates beyond 
question that UFWOC was willing to throw away the pesticide issue 
to get its first contracts with the table grape industry. 

The document I submit is an August 6 press release by the labor 
relations consultant who represented the 12 growers in the negotia- 
tions. It states that UFWOC submitted an offer in writing through 
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service which read as 
follows : 

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would submit the following : 

The United Farm Workers Organizing Committee purports to 
represent the farmworkers, yet the majority of those workers have 
not chosen UFWOC as their collective-bargaining agent. The 
charges by UFWOC on wages, working conditions, pesticides and the 
rest only obscure the real issue. 

We, the growers, favor Federal legislation that would allow the 
farmworkers in the vineyards of California, and, indeed, the Nation, 
to state whether they want UFWOC as their representative, or some 
other union, or no union at all. 

This should be part of a comprehensive legislative program 
dealing with the whole issue of employer-employee relations in 
agriculture and the right of the American consumer to the free flow 
of food from the farm to market. 

Only if the Congress takes action can this controversy be ended 
forever. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Murphy. 

Senator Murphy. I have only one question : Yesterday there was 
testimony that the farm employees in California could obtain no 
relief under workmen's compensation laws if injured while working in 
the fields by pesticides. 

Is that item true? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. Senator Murphy, that is absolutely false. That was 



3770 

a statement made yesterday before the committee by Mr. Chavez. 
He said the farmworkers do not have the protection of worknien's 
compensation in California, particularly with respect to the pesticide 
issue. That is absolutely false. 

California is one of the few States throughout the country that 
provides absolute and total coverage of all farmworkers in that 
State by workmen's compensation and that includes any injury^ that 
they might sustain on the job, whether it be pesticides or whether 
they trip and fall down or whatever it might happen to be. 

I might add that even if they are injured off the job, not neces- 
sarily by pesticides or in any accident, they are also covered by 
State disability insurance, and I might also add that California is 
one of the few States in the United States that provides such cov- 
erage for farmworkers. 

While I am on the subject, let me just elaborate in this respect. The 
statement was also made that the farmworker cannot determine what 
pesticides are being used and as evidence of that Mr. Cohen testified 
that he went to the agricultural commissioner and asked for all of 
his records with respect to what pesticides were being used, when 
they were used, by whom they were applied, the amounts used, 
the manufacturer, and the like. That is not accurate in this respect, 
and in a very important respect. Any farmworker in the county 
of Kern, where we are located, who thinks he has a pesticide injury, 
of any injury that might in any way relate to pesticides indirectly, 
even, can go to the county agricultural commissioner — or his doctor 
can go — or the workmen's compensation board, and ask the county 
agricultural commissioner what pesticides were used on such and 
such a ranch at such and such a time, and in what amounts, the 
manufacturer who applied it, every single detail — ^the date, the wind 
direction, every minute detail — and the county agricultural com- 
missioner will disclose it to the farmworker or to his doctor or to 
the workmen's compensation board. 

The reason that the county agricultural commissioner did not 
disclose all of his records to Mr. Cohen was that Mr. Cohen walked 
into the office purporting to represent farmworkers throughout the 
county, all of the farmworkers, and wanted records on all ranches, 
all pesticide applications under all circumstances ; and for very good 
reason the county commissioner was not obliged to do so. 

I might bring up another point while we are on this subject, 
because it has been raised and that is this: Before a subcommittee 
like this, without any kind of cross-examination on any rules of 
evidence, a man like Mr. Cohen can come in here and testifv that 
people are being poisoned all over the fields and he can testifv that 
farmworkers— Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown, Mr. Gonzales, or whoever it 
might be — complained they had pesticide poisoning. But in a case 
m a court of law, where there is the right of cross-examination, one 
must present evidence which will withstand the careful and searching 
scrutmy of the judge and jury. 

Such a case was brought in Kern County when Mr. Cohen at- 
tempted to obtain these pesticide records from the Kern County 



S771 

agricultural commissioner. Mr. Cohen alleged in the complaint that 
95 farmworkers were injured by pesticides during the preceding year, 
and h© alleged he needed to obtain the commissioner's records in 
order to prove that the injuries were related to the pesticide appli- 
cations. 

The judge heard all of the evidence. Mr. Cohen did not bring in 
one single individual to testify that they had been injured. He did 
not bring in one single doctor to testify that someone had been 
treated. He only brought in one public health official who read off 
the names of 95 people where the evidence tended to indicate that 
they had pesticide implications of some kind. 

It turned out, interestingly enough, that 80 out of the 95 people 
were directly employed by commercial applicators, such as airplane 
pilots, such as people who loaded the airplane, such as the flagmen 
sometimes used to direct the flier and hired by the pesticide company. 
Only 15 out of the 95 were in any way related to farmworkers, and 
of the 15 in almost every single case the only evidence of injury 
at all, or any symptom at all was related to sulphur. Sulphur is 
nontoxic and noninjurious. It causes, in some cases sneezing, and it 
can cause watering of the eyes, but it is not injurious. 

Senator Mondale. You have heard the statistics presented by the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that possibly as many 
as 800 people die, at least, annually from pesticides, and that possibly as 
many as 80,000, at least, are injured. You have heard of the doctor's 
survey in Kern County that showed that 80 percent of the people 
surveyed suffered symptoms of pesticide poisoning. You have heard 
of the results of Dr. West's surveys of occupational diseases in Cali- 
fornia. 

On the basis of this, and whatever else you might know, how are you 
prepared to describe the extent of risk to which a farmworker is 
exposed in terms of pesticides in the table-grape industry? 

Mr. GiuMARRA. Senator Mondale, the HEW did not testify that 
there were 800 deaths a year and 80,000 injuries per year; you stated 
that. They testified, and I cite page 67 of the transcript of the hearing 
record, the HEW cited 150 t-o 200 deaths per year relating to pesticide 
injuries throughout the entire United States — and not just in agricul- 
ture, I might add, in all of the United States; in the cities, on the 
farms, everywhere. 

You cited then on page 68, and I quote you, in response to the 
HEW testimony that there were 150 to 200 deaths per year, you say, 
"I think so, where I read or heard of a specialist in the field who says 
he thinks those estimates are about 400 percent under the actual 
deaths and injuries attributable to pesticides." 

And then you asked the HEW if that is true, and they said they 
didn't know. 

And I suggest there are not 800 deaths per year and 80,000 injuries. 

I suggest that there are no accurate figures in the United States. 
I also suggest to you that of the 150 to 200 deaths in the United 
States, that a substantial number of those are children in the urban 
area who have taken ant poison, roach poison, who have spray cans 



3772 

of DDT and other things that are sold to the consumer in the market- 
place, and it does not specifically relate to the farmworker. 

Now with respect to the reports 

Senator Mondale. Will you please yield right there? 
Mr. GiuMARRA. Yes. . . . 

Senator Mondale. I didn't want to disclose this but the statistician 
who was being questioned told me privately that he estimated 800 
deaths and 80,000 injuries at least, so when I referred vaguely to 
a source of statistics, I was referring to his comment in order to 
avoid embarrassing him. He went on later, I think, and confirmed in 
his testimony that those figures would not be an improper estimate. 

In any event, let me just be sure I understand your testimony. 

Mr. GiuMARRA. The only reason I cited that is because I don't 
want to be using figures that may not even be accurate. I don't 
know what the figures are, and I don't think you do, and I don't 
think the statistician does, accurately. 

Senator Mondale. You don't think he does either? 

Mr. GiuMARRA. It has never been published; no. As he indicates 
in the record there has been no final summary. I am only trying to 
be accurate, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mondale. I can see that. 

What is your appraisal of the risk to farmworkers from pesticide 
poisoning? Is it a minimum thing? Is it a serious thing? Is it some- 
thing which is being adequately dealt with now? Are the farm- 
workers raising a phony issue when they talk about the risk to 
their health ? Are these surveys by Dr. West, these specific examples 
which Mr. Chavez has indicated of reactions to pesticide poisoning, 
have these been exaggerated? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. I would say this, Mr. Chairman: That the issue 
of pesticide residues on farm products, particularly table grapes, is 
a phony issue, yes. I would unequivocally state that it is part of a 
campaign to scare people away from eating table grapes. 

Senator Mondale. Would you say there is no evidence of ill health 
by farmworkers in the table-grape industry in California from pesti- 
cide exposure? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. That is the next issue I am coming to. 

Senator Mondale. Would you say that is your answer? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. No, I would say that just like any occupation, 
whether it be industry or whether it be in agriculture, there are 
certain risks and liazards and I would say 

Senator Mondale. How would you describe those in the table-grape 
industry ? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. I would say in the table-grape industry those risks 
and hazards are fairly minimal for this reason : Most of the chemicals 
that we use are not of the extremely dangerous nature. As an ex- 
ample, parathion. 

In 1969 on our ranch in particular we did not use one drop of 
parathion. Not only that, but we are extremely careful in our 
industry to adhere to the rules and regulations set down by the 
Food and Drug Administration, by the State government, by the 
county agricultural commissioners. ' If there is substantial evidence 



3773 

that farmworkers-and I might remind you that the evidence that 
investigators are supposedly finding is not necessarily limited to 
the grSpe industry, although I think you did cite one report of 
Mrs West's relating to the grape industry-I might indicate that it 
there is substantial evidence that shows that farmworkers are indeed 
engaged or exposed to greater dangers than they should be and it 
this is a real problem, then I would suggest that supplemental laws 

be enacted. , • i • -4. ;^ „^4-9 

Senator Mondai^. "If this is," by that you are implying it is not^ 

Mr. GiUMARRA. I don't think it is. No, I do not. 

Let me give vou an example : Mr. Bianco said, and I think it is a 

very valid point, he does not want to commit suicide, and the reason 

that Mr. Bianco said that is the same reason my uncle, who is the 

president of our company, 70 years old and working 16 hours a day, 

does not want to commit suicide. They are the first ones in the 

After this material is applied and after the designated time 
goes by, they are the first ones in the field to check to see if it had 
a beneficial effect. Then during the course of a working day they 
are in the field because the farmers for the most part m California 
are not absentee landlords, they are people who actually live with 
their crops ; that is a part of their lives, they work with the farm- 
workers, know them by name, year in and year out— not everyone 
by name, obviously. So to the best of my knowledge, no farmer has 
ever had pesticide" poisoning, and he is exposed more than the farm- 
workers. That is one point. 

Senator Mondale. In other words, you are satisfied that there is no 
serious risk to the farmworkers' health from pesticide exposure? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. Not if the farmer adheres to the rules and regu- 
lations set down by the various governmental agencies. 

Senator Moxdale. Would you see any need for improving the law 
giving the farmworker any rights beyond those he now has expand- 
ing the powers, or in any other way changing the powers of Federal 
or State government to "protect the worker from pesticide exposure ? 

Mr. GiUMARRA. I would say this, that we shoud never be compla- 
cent about anything, whether it is automobile safety or whether it is 
pesticide safety. 

I think you cited the Automobile Safety Act yesterday, the Coal 
Mine Safety Act was cited. You as Senators and we as citizens 
should never be complacent about anything in this country because 
we can always improve. I think that tests should be always be 
undertaken and not only on pesticides but in many other areas. I 
would welcome tests in the table-grape industry in other parts of 
agriculture to clear up this issue once and for all, and indeed if there 
are any breaches in the protection against pesticide poisoning of 
farmworkers, I would want it disclosed and I would want regulations 
passed and we will adhere to those regulations and rules, whether 
they be by your subcommittee on the Federal level or whether it be 
out in California. 

But I think that to raise this as a dual issue, that pesticides are 
being used — that is the first step — and farmworkers are being 



3774 

poisoned. And why are they being poisoned? Because there are 
residues on the grapes — of, my, just tons of it, and therefore if you 
eat the grapes you are going to drop dead. That is irresponsibility, 
sir. 

I submit that if you would like any cooperation from us in our 
industry with respect to providing information, we will certainly 
be cooperative as we have cooperated with governmental agencies in 
the past. As to our commercial applicators, as an example, let me 
give you one example: Mr. Cohen raised the point that the farmers 
don't have to disclose anything to the Kern County agricultural 
commissioner. An important reason for this is that for the most 
part the commercial applicators do almost all the spraying them- 
selves. They must report on a monthly basis every single detail, and 
in Kern County it goes to the extent of the pesticide applicators 
turning in the invoices which is the invoice that they give to the 
grower, they turn that over to the Kern County agricultural com- 
missioner, which has every minute detail, and more than is even 
required by California law because the commissioner requested it 
about 6 or 7 years ago. 

I think we go a long way toward trying to protect our workers; 
you are not the only one interested in their welfare, obviously. 

Senator Mondale. Aren't I ? [Laughter.] 

Mr. GiUMARRA. No, you are a subcommittee, you are Senators. We 
as farmers are just as interested as you are. ^Vliy? First of all, we 
don't want to injure anyone. I think that is obvious. 

Secondly, from an economic standpoint, it is sheer absurdity to 
provide working conditions in which your ;people get sick, because 
if they get sick they will leave. There are thousands of farms in 
California and there is a labor shortage, particularly for people in 
the grape industry who are skilled workers. They could go to any 
other ranch in that area. So certainly from an economic standpoint 
we would not want to do anything like that. 

There is even another economic standpoint I will raise : workmen's 
compensation. Every time there is an injury covered by workmen's 
compensation — and all farmworkers are covered by workmen's com- 
pensation — the workmen's compensation bureau awards a money 
judgment for doctor fees and off-work time and the like. Our insur- 
ance premiums skyrocket. It is affected directly each time. 

So from an economic standpoint we go out of our way to protect 
people, make sure there are no injuries. Our insurance premiums 
have been going up on packing sheds — one out of two burned down 
and 15 or 20 of our trucks have blown up and numerous activities 
like that — but on our workmen's compensation insurance the prem- 
iums have not gone up very much because there have not been 
pesticide injuries. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Cranston. 

Senator Cranston. I have no questions. 

Senator Mondale. Senator Murphy. 

Senator Murphy. I have no questions. 

I would like to say that I would like to congratulate you, Mr. 
Gnimarra, because your testimonv here I think has been straight- 
forward, It has been logical. I think it has been presented in a manner 
that IS proper before a Senate committee. Obviously your training 



3775 

lias put you in good stead, your background being a family of growers 
in Kern County lias helped a great deal, and I am very thankful 
that you came along as a witness today. 
Mr. GiuMARRA. And I thank you very much. Senator. 
Senator Murphy. I am proud of our State, I am proud of the 
farmers in our State. I know there are some bad fellows here or there 
but by and large we have the best working conditions of any State 
in the Union ; we pay the highest wages, we have the best conditions. 
I am glad that your testimony is here today in the record to help 
clear up this entire situation. 

As I say, I am almost back where I started. I still don't know 
how the aldrin got on the first group of grapes. 
Mr. GiuMARRA. We may never know. 
Senator Murphy. So we have done a complete circle. 
Senator Mondale. One final comment. Would you submit for the 
record the acreage of the total Giumarra Corp. holdings, the esti- 
mated net worth, and the gross sales? If you will, please submit that 
for the record. 

Mr. Giumarra. The estimated net worth, I am not authorized to 
do that. I would have to check with my family. I don't think it is 
really relevant to how 18 parts per million on somebody else's grapes 
that arrived in Washington, D.C. 

Senator Mondale. \ou don't intend to respond? 
Mr. Giumarra. To that question? 
Senator Mondale. Yes. 

Mr. Giumarra. What is the relevance of that question, sir? 
Senator Mondale. I asked for it. 

Senator Giumarra. Oh. Weil, I don't mean to be disrespectful 
but because you ask it, that doesn't make it relevant. I mean does 
it have to do with pesticides? 

Senator Mondale. In my opinion, one beauty about a Senate 
committee is that we try to take a look at the whole picture. One 
of the things I would like to know is the size of your operation, the 
acreage, net worth, the total volume. 

Mr. Giumarra. We farm about 5,000 acres of table grapes, it is 
run entirely by my family — Joe Giumarra, Sal Giumarra, John 
Giumarra, George Giumarra, George Giumarra, Jr., John Giumarra, 
Jr., Dominic Corserve, Dave Danly, John Murray. 
Senator Mondale. What are your annual gross sales? 
Mr. Giumarra. I would imagine it is around $12 million. 
Senator Murphy. We generally reserve these kinds of questions 
for people who are to be appointed to the executive branch. 

Mr. Giumarra. I might add that the $12 million, most of that is 
represented by grapes that are shipped throughout the world, and 
are enjoyed by people everywhere. 
Thank you very much. 

Senator Mondale. Thank you, Mr. Giumarra. At this point, I 
order printed in the hearing record your remarks in their entirety, 
along with the attached exhibits. I also submit a prepared statement 
by Congressman John V. Tunney to be printed in the record at this 
point. 

(The material referred to follows:) 



3776 

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. GIUMARRA, JR. 
General Counsel 
Giumarra Vineyards Corporation 
Edison, California 



Before the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor 
Washington, D. C. 
September 30, 1969 

****** 



I am John G. Giumarra, Jr., a resident of Bakersfield, California, 
and General Counsel of Giumarra Vineyards Corporation. We are grape 
growers in the Arvin and Delano regions of Kern County and are one 
of the many targets of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 
boycott effort. 

Despite that boycott effort and intensive efforts by UFWOC to 
organize our workers and other farm workers in California and across 
the nation, our crops--and the total crop of the table grape industry — 
have been harvested and marketed in each of the past four years. Our 
1969 crop is similarly flowing to market right now as Mr. Cesar Chavez 
and UFWOC trumpet their strike and boycott calls before this committee 
and in the marketplaces of the nation. 

This crop is moving because UFWOC has failed in each and every 
phase of its campaign and is now resorting to cynical and desperate 
tactics to keep its cause alive. 

UFWOC has failed in the fields where it has been unable to win 
over the workers and unable to halt the production or harvest of grapes 

UFWOC has failed with the boycott because the consumers of 
America want grapes and will eat them if they are for sale. UFWOC 
has further tailed in the marketplace because the stores of America 
have stood up under the worst kind of coercion, refusing to serve as 
arbiters in a dispute which is not of their making and refusing to 
deny freedom of choice to the consumer. 



3777 

Now, as this hearing has established beyond doubt, Mr. Chavez 
and UFWOC, in a last ditch effort to buoy up their cause, have reck- 
lessly leveled the false charge that the grape growers are poisoning 
the American people. Mr. Chavez has come to Washington to testify 
before the highest legislative body in the land in an attempt to use 
this revered place as the staging ground for an effort which could well 
destroy the table grape industry and the livelihood of the farm workers 
for whom he professes such deep concern. 

That tactic has failed because of the diligence this Subcommittee 
has shown in pursuing the truth. His defamatory charge against this 
industry is based on the flimsiest possible evidence--Mr . Chavez' single 
laboratory analysis and one four-pound sample from nearly a billion 
pounds of California table grapes. And indeed even this test was demon- 
strated to be inaccurate. 

Let us look at that evidence: 

Dr. Paul E. Porter, a world renowned chemist and unimpeachable 
expert in pesticides, has refuted beyond question the charge that Cali- 
fornia table grapes are contaminated by aldrin. His scientific expertise 
brought down to language everyone can understand proves that the test 
cited to this committee on August 1 was either in error, or that the 
grapes were deliberately doctored by someone. 

Even disregarding for the moment the scientific technicalities 
of the matter, the irrefutable fact is that aldrin is not used on Cali- 
fornia grapes. 

Anthony A. Bianco, Jr., who grew the grapes in question, swears 
he has never used aldrin on any crop. 

Mr. Allen Lemmon of the California State Department of Agriculture 
showed that aldrin isn't used on grapes and that his department's tests 
of grapes on the farm, in the transportation process and in the markets, 
have never turned up aldrin. 

The people who apply pesticides for the growers, and the agricultura 
commissioners of every county in California state that aldrin isn't used 
on grapes. 



36-513 O - 70 - Pt. 6C - 7 



3778 

Finally, the Food and Drug Administration, with its broad scale ' 

tests and its widely recognized array of technical experts, processes 

and equipment have totally cleared the California table grape crop of 

charges that it is contaminated by aldrin — or that it is contaminated 

in any way whatsoever by pesticides, herbicides and what Mr. Chavez 

calls "economic poisons" of any kind. 

This then is the evidence that disposes of UFWOC ' s pesticide and 

which destroys the credibility of Mr. Chavez' own testimony before 

this committee and the dangerously irresponsible propaganda he is 

spreading in his travels about the country. 

But this is only part of the story. The contrived pesticide 

issue represents a final desperate move in Mr. Chavez' campaign to 

grab control of the nation's food production. The pesticide scare 

was obviously launched to shore up UFWOC ' s sagging boycott. UFWOC ' s 

stated concern for the farm worker and consumer is no more than a 

cynical weapon in its arsenal of trickery and deceit. 

The first I personally heard of pesticides as an issue between 

the growers and UFWOC was about ayear ago from Mr. Cohen himself. We 

were litigating a matter in Superior Court in Bakersfield, California, 

when Mr. Cohen warned me that UFWOC was considering launching the 

pesticide campaign which has now materialized. At that time, however, 

he stated that UFWOC was being restrained from doing so by the AFL-CIO 

because such a campaign might destroy the industry. Mr. Cohen insisted 

that UFWOC could raise the issue in the future if the industry continued 

its refusal to negotiate with UFWOC and that if UFWOC did, the grape 

industry would be faced with another cranberry situation. 

And he warned that we couldn't beat this tactic because, he said, in 

the cranberry situation every time the Food and Drug Administration 

I 
or the industry advised the public that cranberries were safe, sales 

of that commodity plunged even lower. 



3779 

The ironic part of all this is that apparently not only the AFL-CIO 
but Mr. Chavez himself opposed the use of this tactic by his followers. 

On June 10, 1969, Mr. Cohen walked into the office of the South 
Central Farmers Committee in Delano, California, and engaged in a 
conversation with Mrs. Eleanor Schulte, the committee's office manager. 

(At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the 
record Mrs. Schulte 's affidavit regarding that conversation.) 

Mrs. Schulte notes therein that Mr. Cohen said his purpose was 
for Mrs. Schulte to pass along to the growers the conversation that 
took place between them. 

I will also quote three brief paragraphs from Mrs. Schulte 's 
affidavit: 

(Quote) "The Board of UFWOC (He /Cohen/ mentioned the names of 
Larry, Dolores and Phil whom I assume to be Larry Itliong, Dolores 
Huerta and Phil Veracruz /All UFWOC officials/ had met the previous 
night and voted to mount an all-out campaign this year on the boycott, 
including the pesticide issue. Cesar did not want to push the 
pesticide issue, and tried to restrain the others but finally agreed 
to go ahead with it if necessary. The only alternative to this 
intensive campaign will be for the growers to negotiate. Cesar wants 
to avoid this intensification because it will be so destructive to 
both sides." (End quote) 

(And quote) "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..." (End quote) 

(And again I quote) "He said that 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. Then we told him 
that we would bring up the pesticide issue, and he laughed, but we did 
all these things'." 



3780 

Yes, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, they did do 
all these things and more. 

They have lied to the American people. They have deliberately 
distorted fact. They have libeled this industry and this commodity. 
And they have demonstrated the most vicious irresponsibility the 
agricultural community of this nation has ever witnessed. 

For example, consider the next document I will ask to be made 
part of this record. It is a handbill put out by UFWOC urging "Don't 
Eat Grapes." This handbill and thousands like it are flooding the 
country in a deliberate effort to frighten the American consumer and 
to destroy this industry. 

In it, UFWOC charges the growers with using pesticides of a kind, 
and I quote, "developed by the Nazis during World War II" which "works 
just like war gases in its effect on human beings." 

I am not a technical expert in pesticides but I do read the 
English language and I understand deliberately misleading propaganda 
when I see it. The same handbill says "There are no inspection pro- 
cedures and no safeguards to protect consumers from dangerous pesti- 
cide residues remaining on grapes." The testimony before this committee 
yesterday and today demonstrate the utter falsity of UPTVOC's claims. 

By the way, if UFWOC wants to talk about gases, I'd like to 
tell you of an incident in our vineyards near Delano on August 25. 
A picking crew reported to a field for work and within a few moments 
many of the workers complained of feeling ill. Their eyes were 
watering and they were coughing. One worker attempted to use a port- 
able field toilet which is provided for our workers, but was driven 
out in several seconds, tears streaming from his eyes. 

The Hornkohl Laboratories of Bakersfield, chemical and testing 
engineers, were asked to analyze the problem because we fully anti- 
cipated that UFWOC would charge the incident up to pesticides in 
some fashion. A Hornkohl chemist, L. H. McAuley, said he was unable to 
remain in the toilet building for more than three seconds oecause of 
what he described as "a very pungent odor and burning effect of the 
eyes . " 



3781 

Laboratory tests (And I am submitting the Hornkohn certificate 
for the record, Mr. Chairman) showed that the portable toilet had 
been sprayed with an organic chemical with an aldehyde base. Aldehyde, 
I am told, is an abrasive agent, a basic ingredient in tear gas. 

When Mr. McAuley attempted to leave the area with his sample, 
he was accosted by UFWOC supporters on the road outside the vineyard 
and warned to get rid of his sample. He refused, however, and was 
safely escorted from the area by one of our ranch officials. Moreover, 
while Mr. McAuley was taking his samples, the same UFWOC group 
harangued the workers in the field with shouts asking: "Do your eyes 
burn?" "Do you have tears in your eyes?" 

All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that before Cesar Chavez and 
UFWOC came to the valley, our workers were not tear gassed in the 
fields . 

Mr. Chavez knows that the pesticide issue is false. He is 
completely willing to have it go away--even without resolution on his 
terms--if he can whip the growers into submission and take his first 
step toward control of America's food production. 

Proof that he is willing to throw away the pesticide issue is 
evidenced in the next document I now submit for the record. 

In June and July of this year, 12 table grape growers entered 
into negotiation with UFWOC under the supervision of the Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service. Those negotiations failed. The 
evidence stemming from those negotiations demonstrates beyond question 
that UFWOC was willing to throw away the pesticide issue to get its 
first contracts with the table grape industry. 

The document I submit is an August 6 press release by the labor 
relations consultant who represented the 12 growers in the negotiations. 
It states that UFWOC submitted an offer in writing through the Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service which read as follows: 



3782 

"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." 

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would submit the following: 

The United Farm Workers Organizing Committee purports to 
represent the farm workers yet the majority of those workers have 
not chosen UFWOC as their collective bargaining agent. The charges 
by UFWOC on wages, working conditions, pesticides and the rest only 
obscure the real issue. 

We, the growers, favor federal legislation that would allow the 
farm workers in the vineyards of California, and, indeed, the nation, 
to state whether they want UFWOC as their representative, or some 
other union, or no union at all. This should be part of a comprehensive 
legislative program dealing with the whole issue of employer-employee 
relations in agriculture and the right of the American consumer to 
the free flow of food from the farm to market. 

Only if the Congress takes action can this controversy be ended 
forever. 

# # # # 



3783 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

: ss AFFIDAVIT OF 

COUNTY CF KERN ' ) ELEANOP M, SCirTLTZ 

ELEANOR M. SCHULTE, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 



THAT I AI{ THE OFFICE MAMAGER OF SOOTH CENTRAL FARMERS CCta-ITTEE; 



m. JEROffi COHEN CAME TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL FARMERS CGlIOiTTSE OFFICi: AT 
APHIOXIMATELY 300 P.M., JUNE 10, 1969, ASKED, FOR ME 3Y NAIC A*!D 3AIE HE WATITED 
TO TALK TO ME. HE SAID HIS PURPOSE WAS TO HAVE ME PASS AlO"" 70 Ol'R C^.C/JERS 
THE CONVERSATION. IK MOST CASES I CAMOT QUOTE HE-: VER3ATI1';, BIT THE SUBSTAilCE 
IS ACCURATE. 

HE MADE THESE POINTS OK PESTICIDES: 

—THE BOARD OF UFWOC (HE I'SNTIOtraO THE NAMES LARRY, DOLORES AMD PHIL, 
WHCM I ASSUME TO 3E LARRY ITLIONC, DOLORES HUERTA AND PHIL \fERACRUZ) HAD MET 
THE PREVIOUS NIGHT AND VCTED TO MOTC»T AN ALL-OUT CAMPAIGN THIS YEAR ON THE 
BOYCOTT, INCLUDING THE PESTICIDE ISSUE. CESAR DID NOT WANT TO PUSH THE PESTICIDE 
ISSUE, AND TRIED TO RESTRAIN THE OTHERS, BUT FINALLY AGREED TO GO AHEAD WITH IT 
IF NECESSARY. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO THIS INTENSIVE CAMPAIGN WILL BE FOR THE 
GROWERS TO NEGOTIATE. CESAR WANTS TO AVOID THIS INTENSIFICATION BECAUSE IT liJILL 
BE SO DESTRUCTIVE FOR BOTH SIDES . 

—HE SPOKE OF THE "CRAfraERRY SCARE" AND SAID THAT E'/ERY TEIE THE DEPART- 
MENT OF AGRICULTURE ISSUED A BULLETIN DENYING PESTICIDE POISC^HING IK CRANBERRIES, 
IT ONLY MADE THE SITUATION WORSE. HE SAID WE COULDN'T FIGHT THE PESTICIDE ISSUE, 
AND EVEN "BAXTER AND IffllTAKER" WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WAGE AN EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN 
AGAINST IT. 

—HE CIAmS THAT TRACES OF DDT HAVE BEEN FOUND IN GRAPES, AMD THAT DDT 
HAS BEEN FOUND TO CAUSE CANCER IN MAMMALS. HE TEJTIONED THAT THE "AICPJCAN 
EAGLE, THE SYMBOL OF AI'ERICA" IS BEING KILLED OFF BY DDT. Iffi SAID SUITS HAVE ^EE*: 
FILED ON DDT, AND MORE WILL BE FILED. I ASKED HUI IF NEGOTIATPIG WITH THE UirTCII 
WOULD RENDER PESTICIDES HARMLESS, AND HE SAID THAT THE HEALTH AIO '^ELFARE CLAUSES 
IN THE CONTRACTS COUID PROVIDE SAFETY CONTROLS THAT "WIIX PROTECT ?OTH .THE WORKER 
AM) THE CONSUMER. 

—HE HINTED THAT UFWOC COULD SCARE THE '/ITS OUT 07 THE AI'E.xICAII R^BLIC 
WITH THE THREAT OF PESTICIDE POISONING, AND 'AE COULDN'T DC ANYTHOC- ABOUT IT. 

—WHEN THE PESTICIDE ISSUE CAME UP v;iTK SSLDON TICRLEY, THE KERN COUIITI 
AGRICULTURAL CCJOttSSIONER, UFWOC TRIED FOR NINE IIONTHS TO SETTLE THINGS QUIETLY, 
BUT MR. MORLEY AND HIS PEOPLE WOULD NOT COOPERATE AIJD THEPJTA' FORCED THE UNIO:«', 
AGAINST ITS WISHES, TO BRING THE aSE INTO COURT A^D INTO THE PUBLIC EYE. 

—HE SAID THE UNION HAD HAD CONVERSATIONS IN THE PAST WITH JOHN 
CIUMARRA, JR., AND THAT "WE TOLD HIM WE WOUID MAKE THE BOYCOTT A NATIONAL ISSUE, 



3784 



AND HE LAUGHED, THEN VS TOLD HIM WE WOULD 3RING UP THE PESTICIDE ISSUE, AMD HE 
LAUGHED, BUT WE DID ALL THESE THINGS." HE SAID HE HOPED I WOULD IE MORE EF- 
FECTIVE IN PASSING ALONG TO THE GROffiRS HIS MESSAGE. HE SAID SaiETHING ABOUT 
ESTABLISHING A LINE OF CCMTONICATIONS , AND THAT I COULD TURN M OFFICE INTO A 
NEGOTIATING CENTER. I GOT THE FEELING HERE THAT HE WAS TRYING TO SEE IF HE 
COUID 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 KOT NEED TO BE 
SO FEARFUL OF NEGOTIATING. HIS EXACT WORDS IiERS "THE GROWERS SEE^T TO FEEL THAT 
IF THEY SIT DOWN TO A NEGOTIATING TABLE littTH THE UNION THEY VJILL LOSE THEIR 
VIRGINITY." 

~I ASKED mil AGAIN HIS PURPOSE lil VISITING KE AND HE SAID IT WAS TO 
HAVE ME PASS ALONG TO THE GROWERS THE MESSAGE THAT IF \:E DO NOT NEGOTIATE, THE 
UNION WILL PRESS THE BOYCOTT AND THE PESTICIDE CAIIPAIGN, WHICH WILL 3E NEEDLESSLY 
DESTRUCTIVE FOR BOTH SIDES, 



ELEANOR M. SCHUUE 

Subscribed and Sworn to 
Z^rd day of September, 

v<^ nrN. r\\ 



>^ . ^^^^^S^-Z^-^-^^r - 



me this 






OFFICIAL ! 

JOYCE M. Mcpherson 

NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA 

PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN 

KERN COUNTY 



Notary Public 
for the County of Kern, State of California 

JOYCE M. Mcpherson 

My Commission Explrts Mar. 16, 1970 



3785 



ORTHO PRODUCTS 

p. O. BOX 323 / HIGHWAY 111 & AVENUE 54 / THERMAL, CALIFORNIA 



Express 9-5192 
EXpress 9-5193 



INSECTICIDES 
FERTILIZERS 
WEED KILLERS 
FUNGICIDES 



TO WHOM IT fJiY GONCiiRI^': 



Richard Bagdasarian Inc., Mali riasta Ranch, and 
^Ir. Grape Vineyards Inc. for the past five years have 
never purchased Aldrin Insecticide in any form. Nor 
have we carried this product in any form in our Inventory. 

Mr. I'like Bozick owner of i^ali Basta Ranch and 
General Manager of Richard Bagdasarian Inc. and Mr. Grape 
Vineyards Inc. has personally supervised all applications 
of pesticides on the above mentioned ranches. 

Having been in the Agricultural Chemical business 
in Coachella Valley for the past 11 to 12 years we have 
never had the occasion to stock or sell this product. 

Ycurs very truly, 

DATELaND GHEi-IlCAL 

V. Duane i-icFadden 



Kartin S. Grunnet, 



3786 



Statement of Michael Bozick. 

This will certify that I, Michael Bozick, owner of 
the Male Basta Ranch and General Manager of Richard Bagdasarian, 
Inc. and Mr. Grape Vineyards, Inc., have not purchased, obtained 
or received the chlorinated hydrocarbide Aldrin and have not 
applied, administered or used Aldrin in any of my fields during 
the past four years. Aldrin has not been authorized for use on 
my property in any form or method during that period. 

I have personally supervised all applications of 
pesticides on our ranches during the past four years. These 
applications were made with our equipment by our employees and 
there has been no use of the chemical Aldrin during that period 
Dated: September 25, 1969 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) 
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) 



Michael Bozicks'' Vice President 
of Richard Bagdasarian, Inc. and 
Mr. Grape Vineyards, Inc. 



On September 25, 1969, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public 
in and for said County and State, personally appeared Michael Bozick, 
known to me to be the Vice President of Richard Bagdasarian, Inc. and 
Mr, Grape Vineyards, Inc., the corporation that executed the within 
instrument, known to me to be the person who executed the within 
instrument on behalf of the corporations therein named, and acknow- 
ledged to me that such corporation executed the V7ithin instrument 
pursuant to its By-Laws or a resolution of its Board of Directors. 

WITNESS my hand and official seal. 



OFFICIAL SEAL | 

ETHEL S. BEAL | 

lM=rt NOTARY PUBLIC CALIfOHNIA | 
¥WJ PWINCIPAL Office IN 
RIVERSIDE COUNTY 




Notary Public in and for said 
County and State. 

ETHEL S. BEAL 
My Commission Expires Feb. 6, 197fl 



3787 



HORNKOHL LABORATORIES, Inc. ' iJ^J' '''""'' " ""' ^"t^^ 

CHWilCAL AND rt^TING ENGINC-tRS ':'■■•'■• ■■■■■' 

7li TR1A1UK' AVtIJUf 
AAK-ORSFII'lU.CAllFUklVIAfSaOJ ., 

!:.(^J,teID1>e^ "2 , 19(59 ^' 

tMhonhny No. 198S)3l MarM An flhovn bolov 

,S'(«/ip/« . UnJuioVA Coapound \ 

Re^elvtJ. Au^juat 26, l^^i? 

SiiUmined by Oiuiaarrtt Vineyarde Corporation 
P. 0. Bo* 96 

lidlaoa, California 93220 
Attsi Joiua Clum&rra, Jr< 

Introdmitloat Oa Au«u«t 26th, 1969 » HoroJcohl LaboratoriM* Inc. wm r«q.u«»ttd by 
01unArr& Vineyards Corporation t»''tcnr«I to Delano in ordar to caBpla, analyst and 
identify an uaksovn oaspoundt 

Aoalyaia ; Upon arrlriac at the daaisnatcd 7lao«> I4r. L, U. MeAulty of Sorskohl Lal>> 
oratory contacted lir. Lloyd Hill vho dlractad Mr. McAuley to tha portablt unit in 
<lu«»tioe, idcntifiad aa Unit fS^S. Aftar arrlTisK at Unit »o. 3i^3« Atr. Bill aaked 
Mr. McAuley to cntar and cloaa tb« door for a f«v nooanta to datermln* tha natura 
of the tWi0$ within tha tmit, 

Ky. MoAulay van unabla to raoain inald* for any graat lon^b of tioa dua to tb« veir 
pungent odor and a burning effect of tbe cyaa axperltnoed ioaedlately xipoa entering 
the unit. The total time spent in the \uilt did not exceed 3 second*. 
m£htavay» I>^. (McAuley reported to Mr. HIU that due to the high concentration vi th- 
in the unit and the buraing effect of the eyes and face» Iva would bu unable to re- 
main inslda for a lenijthy tlaev and advised at this tine that he vould obtain a 
■aiaple froa vithin the unit and return it to tha laboratory for further analysis. 
When leaving the area vltb the saaple contained ia a liter bottle, rir, KoAulcy'vaa 
adTlaed to dispose of the bottle by a eroup of people, other than the piokers then- 
sclTea, that vere gathered at the side of the road. 



3788 



Ljxb. Ko,l')li931 



HORWXOWt. LAUOrJATOKIiES, INC. 

CHEMICAL AND TESTINC ENGINEERS 

714 TKUHTVH AVCNUK 
BAKiriVEFIELD. CALlfOnKIIA 03302 



Pace 2 



J<ir, JiJoAuloy voo eccorted by to. lilli for L\p-proxiaixtol^r 3 niiga, tli(» contlouM 
oliwia to the IswDoratorir to cwnplsrto tha oaolyaia. 

Aftesr jaaaj' testa wer® perfonEc<l en the laanplo, the uiJuiown ccwipcmod could Tsa 
laentifled au} follovos 

RemgrkB^ ^ (mmj. Congl.\iK:{Qni,i ; E.'ju;ed ca tha laitoratory taattis tJiat wora pftrfonaed, it 
it rdsaaoaoble to conclu«le that tho coRipoujiA J,e of sa orgealc nftt;a-<» vtth wi &1<S«- 
bydc base, 

\fti<«j suxnaarlsiB^ th* trmrloua laboratory teatts, th« bvanalng o«afflatloii» Ho,, tlaa 
cojapoujui appears to iukvc tbe chaxacteriatica of oa orsaoic ehcjuiccd J'.nwn a» 
'AcxoJjsia', Thja chcp/.lcal ta knovn to Ii&vo a very pungent odor, and irritfttiag 
• to the ffyfttt and bwooor., t'o ciirooXc IH effects, other tJwn the ones rsoatloned 
Biore hAve been reported to date. 




UMta.p 









'C'<-//~:. c i'V .' .■■^^cy.^< .; C. 



.» «..»»„»»-« », TM» rONFll>eNT(*L VRnvCnTV or CLIKNT». AUTHORIXATIOW TOB fUHUlCATIftW Or 0(,« 



3789 




v anr 




GJ^AT' 




WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PESTICIDE POISONS ON GRAPES 
Org.inophosphates 

There are 3 ki.nds of poisons which ?rape ^rovers use on 
their graoes. . . ,, , . ,,=», tt 

The first kind V7as develoned bv the Nazis flurrnr^ ?orld war ^i 
and i,7orks just like war gases in Its effect on human bemgs. 

The names of these pestTCTd3<: are parai-hion. -nalathion, and 
tetraethyl pyrophosphate. 

PARATHION Is used widely In graie vineyards. One droooi P^ra- 
thlon will cause ceath. Parathi.on is the poison that 

killed 19 children In Tijuana. Mexico a rew years a^o 
■ ■ when they ate bread fron wheat that had parathton 

residue on It. 

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 

The second of Dolsons used b-' growers are the chlorinated 
hydrocarbons. They are the sa-ne fa-nlly of poisons as DDT. 
There are other oolsons used In vineyards wh I.ch act ll)te_ 
DDT. There na-nes are dleldrln, aldrln and endrln._ Once 
these poisons are cpi-ayort, the do not disappear for 10 
years. 

Poisons like DDT do not wash off the 'trapes. They cause_J 
cancer in 'na-n'nals. S-se Medical 'tor Id N ews , March 11+, 1969. 

The third kind of poisons are called nitrates. They are 
used as fertilizers in the vineyards. 

The water supply In Delano Is so contaminated due to 
such a hlph level of nltratf^s that children under six 
•nonths of a-i^e cannot take In the water forder of 
Delano City Mana^,er). 



Q 



THERE ARE NO INSPECTION PROCEDURES AI'D NO SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT 
C0NSU1ERS FORM DANGEROUS PESTICIDE RESIDUES REMAINIirG ON GRAPES, 

FARM WORKERS MUST HAVE A UNION TO PROTECT THE'ISELVES , THEIR 
FAMILIES AND CONSUMERS 

RICH, CORPORATE GROWERS H/'lVE TO PE FORCED TO STOP THEIR RECKLESS*"] 
DISREGARD OF THE EFFECTS OF POISONS ON ih'JMAN LIFE AND T"EIR . » 



ENVIRONMENT NO" 



FOR FURTHER INFOR 1ATI0N: Peggy tlcGlvern "^.Y-. 
Boycott Rep., UFVOC-Delano 936-0137 



3790 



FOR YOUR INFORMATION 

A.H. CAPLAN & ASSOCIATES 
1165.1 Montecito Road 
Los Alamitos, California 90720 
(213) 431-0869 

PRESS RELEASE — August 6, 1969-Al Caplan, Labor Relations Consultant 
and Spokesman for the TABLE GRAPE GROl'rt;RS NEGOTIATING 
COMMITTEE, Lbs Angeles Hilton Hotel, Los Angeles-, 
California 

The "Rule or Ruin' policy of the United Farm Workers 
Organizing Committee continues. 

In conjunction with their bad faith bargaining, the Union is 
using the U.S. Senate hearings as a springboard to deliberately 
mislead and attempt to scare the American people by its ' holier than 
thou ' attitude regarding the use of pesticides. 

The purpose of the Union's allegations regarding pest control 
is to unconditionally force the table grape growers into their union. 
The proof of this is in the following offer made by the Union in 
writing on July 3rd, 1969 through the director of Federal Mediation 
and Conciliation Service, Mr. Edwin J. Scott, and we quote: 

"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." 

As we said to the American people last July 15th . . . 
"you, the American public, whether you be a consumer or a seller in 
the market place, are entitled to the truth." On June 30th, 1969, 
at 12:55 a.m., in the presence of the Union Committee, four growers 
and their spokesman and the three representatives of the Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service, the Union said, through their 

(more) 



3791 



spokesman, that the Union had been preparing a pesticide program 
for two years and this weapon was to be used only as a last resort 
for bargaining and organization purposes. 

The Union has recently issued statements to the effect that 
the pesticide program was what broke off negotiations. THIS IS NOT 
TRU13. This is only to camouflage their bad faith bargaining technique. 
Negotiations broke down simply because the Union withdrew its 
agreed upon proposals and escalated their demands. 

We have stated to the Union and v;e repeat to everyone — we 
growers have and will continue to abide by all Federal, State, County 
and t'iunicipal regulations regarding the use of pesticides. We 
welcome any bonafide and sincere safeguards. 

OUR GRAPES ARE CLEAN and can be eaten without danger to anyone. 

Certain pest controls are necessary. Without them, food crops 
would be destroyed. Not only would this affect the farmer and the 
grower, but would affect products of agriculture necessary to feed an 
every increasing population. 

TABLE GRAPE GROWERS MEGOTI^'TING C0 ?t r4ITTEE 

BIANCO FRUIT CORPORATION, Delano, Arvin & Thermal, Calif. 

S.A. CAMP FARMS CO., Shafter, California 

CENTENNIAL VALLEY FARMS, Phoenix, Arizona 

BRUNO DISPOTO COMPANY, Delano, California 

H & M CO., Thermal, California 

KARAHADIAN RANCHES, INC., Thermal, California 

EL RANCHO FARMS, Arvin, California 

JOHN J. KOVACEVICH, Arvin, California 

r4EL-PAK RANCH, Thermal, California 

WILLIAM MOSESIAN CORP., Bakersfield, California 

EUGENE NALBANDIAN, INC., Lomont, California 



3792 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John V. Tunney, a Representative in Congress 
FROM THE State of California 

At least 1000 farmworkers in California were injured by pesticides last year. 
This has been going on for years. In 1964 for example, there were over 1300 
reports of injury blamed on pesticides. The true figures may be even higher, 
taking into account an assumption of unreported injuries and illnesses. 

When a farmworker tried to find out from the county agricultural com- 
missioner in Riverside, a part of my district, just what pesticides were being 
used, he was given the cold shoulder. These facts according to long tradition 
were trade secrets, he was told, and could not be released. He had to go to 
court to try and obtain disclosure of the information. The state attorney 
general's office joined in the suit, and the action is still pending. Trial was 
held last month, and the result is expected soon. 

It seems incredible to me that a member of the public, whose health is 
possibly endangered by the use of various chemical poisons, has no right to 
know what kinds of pesticides are being used and in what quantities. The 
California attorney general's office puts the problem very well in pointing out 
that the fish and game department can inspect this information when there 
is a fish kill; human beings are simply asking for the same advantage as 
striped bass, but before they are injured. 

Fortunately the California legislature recently responded to the unfairness 
of this situation, and passed a bill which requires that companies report all 
sales of pesticides classified as injurious materials. There are some 30 of 
these, including 10 very toxic phosphates and 6 chlorinated organic chemicals, 
among them DDT. 

In addition, the county agricultural commissioners must report the quantities 
of these pesticides which they permit to be used. Pesticide users must give 
statements of amounts which they use in their fields. All this data will be 
public. This is certainly a necessary first step in creating an open atmosphere 
where experts can begin to study whether pesticides are being applied 
appropriately. 

The strong implication is that they are not. 

I am appalled by the situation which is developing in California, where in 
most cases pest advisers are nothing but salesmen for the chemical companies, 
without extensive ecological training or understanding or environmental prob- 
lems. Application of chemical poisons has been likened, by one scientist, to 
drug usage : the more you use, the more you find you need. Insecticides can 
kill off necessary predators which would otherwise help to control the harmful 
insect population. In this way the chemical companies rub out a competitor 
who might otherwise horn in on their business of killing insects. If there is 
a resurgence of the harmful pest, or a secondary outbreak, or if the pest 
develops resistance to the insecticide initially used, the answer is to apply 
more of the same poison or more of a combination of poisons. Clearly what is 
harmful to the farmer is helpful to the chemical manufacturer. The more out- 
breaks of pests there are, the more poison has to be used. Heavy repeated 
doses of expensive chemicals are not in the interest of the farmer and are 
destructive to the environment — to the detriment of man — most directly the 
farmworker — and to nature. 

It is so much easier to develop a broad si)ectrum poison that will kill 
everything in site, including useful predators and wildlife, than it is to 
develop specific pesticides which are safe for man and wildlife, and which 
do not kill useful as well as harmful insects. 

Such selective pesticides would be expensive to develop, and when developed, 
would have less of a wide market. It does not seem to matter that such 
pesticides would be far more economical for the farmer in the long rim. The 
farmers remain lulled into accepting the nostrums of the pest advisers — more 
and more chemical poison. 

I am informed by a California entomologist, with over 20 years experience 
with insecticides, that because the phosphate poison, azodrin, was so lethal 
to insects, it won overnight acceptance, even though the agricultural extension 
service had recommended against its use. This material was applied in great 
quantities to over 1 million acres, not all of which were infested. Although 
this chemical is not long-loved as DDT is, it caused widespread destruction 
of wildlife, because of its undifferentiated toxicity. 

The very preventive use of this hard insecticide, many scientists feel had 



3793 

an opposite effect from that intended, by killing off predators of later appear- 
pests, requiring the application of even greater quantities later on, compound- 
ing the environmental contamination. 

A new requirement passed by the California legislature produces a glimmer 
of hope. County agricultural commissioners, under this law, must consider 
environmental effects in granting i>ermits for pesticide use. The same holds 
true for the registration of new pesticides by the state department of agri- 
culture. The meaning of this is clear to me, and my impression eachoes that 
of a person holding an important position in the California department of agri- 
culture — it means that if the pesticide has harmful effects on fish and wildlife, 
it better not be used. 

In the San Joaquin Valley alone, 1% million pounds of DDT are still used 
on about 725,000 acres of crops. This is so although total domestic use dropped 
by about 50% between 1958-59 and 1966-67, representing a decrease of 39 
million pounds. It is most heartening to see that it will decrease even further 
when the expected California ban on its use for 35 farm crops and 12 farm 
seed crops goes into eft'ect. We must go further than this. Justifications for 
continued use on remaining crops should be clearly stated. Alternative 
controls should be carefully explored. 

Environmental considerations call for a complete ban on DDT. The California 
law — requiring consideration of environmental effects of insecticide use — 
should be given strict construction. 

DDT does not dissolve in water and it breaks down very slowly in the 
environment. Each year more is aded than disintegrates, and we are therefore 
accumulating a stockpile of this poison. The poison passes up the food chain, 
where it again accumulates in the tissue of fish, wildlife and in man. 

Bit by bit evidence is coming in which underlines the disastrous effects 
which DDT could have on our whole environment Most disturbing is an 
experiment which indicates that small quantities of the poison interfere 
with the oxygen producing ability of marine plankton, a small single-celled 
algae which helps to replenish the earth's supply of air. Equally disturbing 
is the confiscation by government authorities of coho salmon from Lake 
Michigan, and the confiscation of Jack Mackerel caught in the Pacific off 
southern California, because of excessive DDT content. Recently a million 
young salmon were killed in Lake Michigan because, it is believed, of the 
presence of DDT in the water. DDT is everywhere. It has penetrated all our 
oceans, and to the polar icecaps. 

The effects of this pollutant on our water resources is critical, because of the 
hope that we can harvest food from this source to meet the nutrition needs 
of an exploding population. It is one thing for pesticide supporters to scoff at 
those who a.ssert the threat to wildlife. I react to their insensitivity with dis- 
belief and alarm. The approaching extinction of the bald eagle, the falbon, 
the brown pelican, and other wildlife, due to their inability to lay viable eggs, 
is a terrible thing, and it strongly implies that the effects on man's own 
physiology may not be so benign either. Still the insensitivity of these 
scoffers nowhere nearly matches their opaqueness when they argue for the 
use of chemical poisons to boost world food production, when the use of 
those same poisons threatens to destroy and contaminate tons of equally 
imprtant nutriment from the seas. The demise of the Dungeness crab, formerly 
a bay area delicacy, is a case in point. 

Laboratory tests have shown that large doses of 11 pesticides including DDT 
and three other persistent insecticides produce a high incidence of timaors in 
mice. We can all remember the part mice have placed in our experiments with 
the effects of cigarette smoking. The difference is that we can give up cigarettes, 
although many of us cannot give up breathing the polluted air of our cities, 
which amounts to smoking two packs of cigaretts a day. Where DDT and 
other persistent i>esticides are concerned, we absorb these poisons into our 
system now whether we like it or not, and whether we choose to do so or 
not. I believe that all of us have a right to an environment which does not 
endanger our well being. Intensified studies of the effects of DDT and other 
insecticides are urgently needed. In the meantime, the indiscriminate use of 
these poisons must be halted. The development of more selective chemical 
poisons, and the use of alternative methods of control actually promise surer, 
cheaper control of certain pests. For example, biological controls are being 
developed which raise the hope of controlling insect populations through the 
release of hundreds of thousands of sterilized males. The males are released 



36-513 O— 70 — pt. 6C- 



3794 

over an infested field, where they mate with females. Since the eggs are never 
fertilized the insect population does not perpetuate itself Since the stexilized 
males flood the site of the infestation, the odds are that few new insects will 
be produced by the limited number of virile male insects already in the area. 

Experiments of this kind sponsored by the United States Department of 
Agriculture, are now going on in parts of Kern county, and in the Coachella 
Valley which is part of my district These experiments involve a cotton pest, 
the pink boUworm. There are problems of breeding a sufficient number of 
sterilized insects, but there is every expectation that this control method 
will prove effectiw. The result will be greatly reduced dependence on chemical 
poisons to kill insect pests. . 

Even more exciting to me are various forms of non-toxic sprays consisting 
of hormones which are specific for a single variety of insect. These so-called 
third-generation pesticides arrest the development of a whole species of 
harmful pest so that they do not reproduce. At least one company has begun 
commercial development of such a pesticide. 

I am planning to introduce legislation which will significantly increase the 
amounts of federal money available for research and curriculum planning in 
the field of pest control. I believe that this kind of support will develop non- 
toxic methods of pest control, usiug highly specialized chemical poisons as a 
last resort. 

Wp must undoubtedly face the fact that the chemical companies are not 
going to enthusiastically develop cleaner pesticides, or alternative controls any 
more than the automobile industry is going to energetically develop a pollution 
free veMcle. Both may talk about the need for improvement of their product. 
But when it comes to protection of the environment, government incentives 
are going to be necessary. We are going to need Federal funding as well as 
legislation and strict regulation, if we expect our environment to remain a suit- 
able place for us to live and work, without great danger to our health. 

The time has come for the quality of our environment and the health needs 
of our people to be given the same importance and recognition as the annual 
growth in our gross national product. In fact, it might be more accuriate 
to begin speaking of a new kind of national product. Measured against the 
gross national product would be the costs on the other side of the balance 
sheet — the foremost of which is reflected in the pollution and destruction 
loosed upon our environment in creating what is hailed as unparalleled material 
success. That pollution has now become a burden and a concern to the vast 
majority of us, wlhile the illusory gains of an ever-expanding, but misdirected 
gross nationial product contribute less and less to improving our quality of life. 

Seniator Mondale. At this point in the hearing record, I order 
printed statements of those who could not attend and other pertinent 
material relating to the problem of farmworker exposure to pesti- 
cides. 

(The material referred to follows:) 

United Farm Workers, 
Organizing Committee AFL-CIO, 

Delano, Calif., October 21, 1969. 
Senator Walter S. Mondale, 
Old Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senator Mondale : I have read with interest the statement of John 
Giumarra, Jr. which was submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory 
Labor on September 30th, 1969. 

On Page 3 Mr. Giumarra states that the Food & Drug Administration has 
totally cleared the California table grape crop from charges that it is con- 
taminated by Aldrin or in any way whatsoever by pesticides. I would like to 
point out to the committee that Safeway's own tests found Aldrin on the 
grape and the test which Senator Murphy introduced into the Congressional 
Record on August 12th found residues of Aldrin on Bianco grape. Furthermore, 
the survey which Senator Murphy submitted on August 12th conducted by 
the F.D.A. reveals that many grape growers have residues of DDT on their 
crops. We fail to understand Mr. Giumarra's claim that the industry has been 
cleared. We think that Murphy's own F.D.A. survey is a damning indictment 



3795 

of the practices of the table grape growers in their use of pesticides. There 
is much evidence which has recently been brought to light which indicates 
that DDT and other related chlorinated hydrocarbons currently used by the 
Oalifomia table grape industry are causing cancer in mammals and that 
there is a relationship between certain diseases such carcinoma, leukemia, 
arteriosclerosis and high levels of DDT in the body fat of humans. A recent 
petition filed before the F.D.A. has asked that the tolerance of DDT be 
lowered from 7 to 0. It would seem that grapes containing any resiidues of 
DDT should be banned from the market, especially in light of Secretary 
Finch's recent action in banning cyclamate. Secretary of Health, Education & 
Welfare, Robert Finch stated that "it is imperative to follow a prudent 
course in all matters concerning public health." This Finch test as applied 
to cyclamate meant that once cyclamate was proven to cause tumors in rats 
it was removed from the market. Following this principle as articulated by 
Mr. Finch, it would seem that since DDT and its related chlorinated hydro- 
carbons also cause cancer in mammals and tliat since it has been proven 
by Senator Murphy that DDT and its related chlorinated hydrocarbons are 
widely used in the grape industry (See Page S 9865-S 9869 of the August 12th 
Congressional Record) that any grapes containing residues of DDT should 
immediately be taken off the market Furthermore, it is of course clear 
that DDT and other related chlorinated hydrocarbons which cause cancer 
should be immediately banned by Secretary Finch. 

Mr. Giumarra discusses at length conversations which I had with him and 
with Mrs. Eleanor Schulte of the South Central Farmers Committee. I did 
tell Mr. Giumarra and Mrs. Schulte that if the grape industry did not sit 
down and resolve the pesticide problem through the collective bargaining 
process that we would have to take our case to the public. Mr. Chavez was 
hesitant in using the pesticide issue because he thought that as long as 
there was any chance of resolving this issue at the bargaining table it should 
be pursued in that matter. It was only after the table grape industry refused 
to sit down and discuss this issue with us and only after negotiations with 
12 grape growers broke up over the use of economic poisons that we had no 
alternative but to take our case to the public. The table grape industry 
has refused to sign a health and safety clause similar to the one which 
we have just negotiated with Perelli-Minetti and which is on file before 
your committee. This clause protects the workers and it bans DDT, Aldrin, 
Endrin and Dieldrin. Perelli-Minetti can live with this clause and we believe 
that the table grape industry can live with this clause. 

Mr. Giumarra implied that we used the economic poison issue as a "throw 
away issue." The fact that we have recently included this in our Perelli- 
Minetti contract after many months of negotiations indicates that this is 
a false charge. Giumarra quotes a proposal which was submitted to the 
whole industry which would have given them a moratorium on the pesticide 
campaign for a limited time in exchange for an acceptable contract covering 
all workers, all crops. This proposal accurately reflects our position during 
the negotiations. An acceptable contract would have been a major step in 
solving the pesticide problem as it relates to workers and consumers because 
it would have included a Health and Safety Clause similar to that recently 
regotiated with Perelli-Minetti which provides: (1) access to information 
currently withheld by the state, (2) the formation of a Health and Safety 
Committee to determine with the aid of experts when the fields become safe 
for crew to work in after the application of economic poisons, (3) a total 
ban on DDT, Aldrin, Endrin and Dieldrin and other dangerous chlorinated 
hydrocarbons, (4) a requirement that the employer provide adequate protective 
equipment, (5) a requirement that the employer provide adequate sanitation 
facilities, such as toilets and handwashing facilities, (6) cholinesterase tests 
provided at the expense of the employer and other protections. 

Mr. Giumarra accuses the union of lying to the American people by distribut- 
ing handbills which charge the growers with using pesticides of a kind 
"developed by the Nazis during World War II," and "which work just like 
war gases in its effect on human beings." This is not a distortion, this is 
the truth. Grape growers are currently u.sing the organo phosphate poisons, 
parathion, and pesticides related to it operate on the human system in a 
matter similar to the nerve gases which were developed in Germany before 
and during World War II. 

As the letter from Dr. Mizrahi which had been submitted to this committee 



3796 

indieaites, farmworker children are suffering from an epidemic of pesticide 
poisoning wliicli involves not only high DDT levels in their blood plasma 
but low cholinesterase levels. During the court hearing which held in January 
in an attempt to obtain records concerning the use of economic poisons by 
commercial applicators, Dr. Thomas Milby of the California Deiiartment of 
Public Health testified that only two substances inhibit and lower cholinester- 
ase levels in human beings. Those substances are war gases and pesticides. 

Finally, Mr. Giumarra in his oral presentation stated that his insurance 
rates had risen because of rei)eated arsons in the table grape area. He implies 
that the UFWOO is connected with these arsons. I am enclosing an article 
from the Fresno Bee of Tuesday, September 23rd, which indicated that state 
investigators found no evidence of UFWOC arson. Subsequently to that time, 
arrests have been made and the sheriff of Tulare County indicates that 
there is no connection between the fires and our union. 
Yours truly, 

Jeeome Cohen, General Counsel. 



State Peobebs Find No Evidence of UFWOC Abson 

[From the Fresno Bee, Sept. 23, 1969] 

(By Ron Taylor) 

Delano — State fire investigators say there is no evidence to support poli- 
ticians' statements that indirectly link incendiary packing house fires to the 
Delano grape strike and Cesar Chavez' United Farm Workers Organizing 
Committee. 

There have been three packing house arson fires in the Tulane-Kern Covmties 
strike area this month ; two of them were set on the same night. The 
California Division of Forestry (CDF) reiwrted the total three fire loss at 
$364,000. 

CDF records show Tulare County has had 180 incendiary fires this year, 
causing $1.3 million damage. Twenty of these fires were set in the grape 
strike area. There have been packing house arson fires in Strathmore ($1 
million) and in Woodlake ($56,000). 

There have been two other packing house fires in the City of Delano. One 
was a reported arson, the other was started by unknown causes. Total damage 
was estimated $70,000. 

Last week Michigan State Sen. Lorraine Beebe called a San Francisco press 
conference to announce she had been to Delano and found : "A pattern of fires, 
fire bombings and threats has developed in the vineyards . . ." 

A press release of her statements, prepared by Whitaker Baxter, the grape 
growers' public relations firm, quoted the woman senator as she quoted 
CDF fire investigator Euel Goldsmith on the Tulare County arson figures. 

W and B said Sen. Beebe rei>orted Goldsmith said Tulare County "had 
less than 100" set fires in the grape-growing areas of the county in 1964-65. 
According to W and B and Sen. Beebe, Goldsmith's figures indicated this 
figure has "increased to between 200 and 400 set fires a year" since the start 
of the grape strike. 

From his Visalia oflSce, Goldsmith said the press release statistics were a 
distortion of figures he supplied at the public relation firm's request. 

"In the first place I was talking about the entire county, not just the 
grape strike area," Goldsmith said. 

Goldsmith said he gave only ai>proximations, and said the countywide 
1964-65 incendiary fire rate was "between 100 and 200 fires a vear." He said 
this has gone up to between 200 and 400, countywide. 

A check of county fire records shows arson has gone up. But the highest 
figure reported was 256 incendiary fires, out of 1,975 calls for 1967. In 1965 
the rate was 172 arson fires in 1,253 fire calls. The 1968 figure was 181 
incendiary fires out of 1,505 fire calls. 

The day after Sen. Beebe's press conference. State Assemblyman William 
Ketchum of Paso Robles asked the state attorney general's oflice to aid the 
CDF.in its arson investigations. 

Goldsmith, and his boss, Ray Banks, the CDF oflJcer in charge of the Tulare 
County operations, said they then began to get questioning calls from various 



S797 

state legislative and administrative offices, including the office of State Sen. 
Howard Way. 

Goldsmith has prepared a map of arson-caused fires in the grape strike area 
since the first of the year. It shows 20 locations — including the packing house 
fires — the dates the fires were set and the estimate of damage. 

Other than the packing house fires the incendiary fires were set in piles of 
boxes, farm tractors, irrigation pumps and in pickup trucks. In Kern County 
Fire Chief Robert Williams reported such fires have been on a steady increase 
of 5 percent a year for the last five years, but, he said, none is directly 
related to the strike as far a.s he is concerned. 

These incendiary fires in Tulare County make up less than 10 percent 
of the total set in the county. However, in dollar value they constitute about 
25 percent of the fire losses. 

Combine this total with the $1 million Euclid Citrus Packing house fire in 
Strathmore and it makes most of the total arson loss for the year. A Euclid 
official said he could find no connection between the citrus house fire and any 
of the other packing house fires. 

Banks said. "We are asking ourselves, 'Why the packing house industry?' 
They are a big, significant i^art of our agriculture economy and we're seeing 
more packing house fires this year than we have had, in total, for several 
years. Why?" 

Banks explained the CDF job is to investigate these crimes and to gather 
evidence. Although he did not say so, it was obvious the politicians' state- 
ments were disconcerting because they invoked emotion and confusion. 

He said when investigators have enough evidence to make a case, they will 
ask for warrants and arrest the guilty imrty and until that time they would 
not make accusations or imply guilt in any direction. 

Mrs. Beebe in her press release circulated by Whitaker and Baxter, avoided 
definitely linking UFWOC with the fires. Three sentences, however, read as 
follows : 

(1) "The anti-solution forces of the United Farm Workers Organizing Com- 
mittee have done everything they can do to prevent peace . . . 

(2) — "The only reason Chavez would stoop so low (bring the pesticide issue 
into the boycott) would be to further his determination to rule or ruin the 
grape industry . . . 

(3) "There weren't fires at harvest time until ambitious elements began 
their rule or destroy maneuvers." She concluded, "These people don't want 
peace, except on their own terms." 

Goldsmith, after noting there were distortions of his county-wide figures, 
said he. Banks and other CDF officials are concerned about an increase in 
arson. He said arson in the grape strike area is only a part of the total 
picture. 

Banks added, "all over the country we are going through the same patterns 
of increased arson as Los Angeles and other places in the state. We are very 
concerned about this. Arson is a crime that is just as bad as theft. If someone 
committed a $l-million robbery, that would be big news, but the public 
seems apathetic to a $1 million arson fire." 

Goldsmith pointed out, "We look at who the victims are, try to establish 
patterns. In this case, the fires in the grape strike areas seem to be set to 
destroy grower property. In my mind they are related, somehow." 

What are the patterns? So far the only common links are use of inflammable 
petroleum products to ignite the fire and the fact that on two nights, the fire- 
bugs set two fires within a few miles and a few hours of each other. 

On Sept. 2, at 3 : 38 a.m. a fire was reported in the Elmco Cold Storage 
Plant's box shed, northwest of Ducor. This fire caused an estimated $104,000 
damage to boxes, machinery and farm equipment. 

At 4 : 50 a.m. the same day, arsonists set the Dispoto Packing House on 
fire in Delano, causing $200,000 damage. Five nights later the second set of 
fires was touched off, one in a forklift truck in a vineyard, near Richgrove ; 
the other, in a farm labor barracks in Richgrove. Neither caused great damage. 

The barracks belonged to a labor contractor who reported three other 
incendiary fires on his property in the past two months. 

The district attorney's office and sheriff's department have been aiding the 
CDF in the investigations. In addition, the state sent down additional arson 
investigators. 

Following Sen. Beebe's statements, the Delano grape growers put up a $5,000 



3798 

reward for the capture and conviction of tlie package house arsonists and 
announced a 24-hour guard was being placed around their buildings. 

A spokesman for the Tulare County district attorney's office commented, 
"Things are getting pretty touchy down there." 



[The Bakersfield Californian, Sept. 30, 1969] 
Sen. Murphy Retbacts Pesticide Chabges 

WASHINGTON (UPI)— Sen. George Murphy, R-Calif., today retracted 
charges that a California union had falsified a sample of table grapes to show a 
dangerous level of pesticide residues. 

"Let's say that I was mistaken," he said during a Senate hearing called at 
his request to consider conflicting laboratory reports on pesticide residues m 
California table grapes. 

Murphy's retraction and near apology came during an exchange with ben. 
Walter F. Mondale, D-Minn., chairman of the Senate Migratory Labor Sub- 
committee. ^ . . 

Murphy denied he had accused the United Farm Workers Organizing 
Committee (UFWOC) of misleading the committee with "a vicious type of 
deceit" in its efforts to organize California grape workers. 

Mondale said he did not believe UFWOC had doctored a sample of grapes 
purchased from a Washington area store and found by an independent labora- 
tory to contain a dangerous level of the pesticide aldrin. 

"I think it is abundantly clear the union took an honest sample, took it to an 
honest laboratory, and came up with an honest report," Mondale said. 

As a result, Mondale said, he felt the committee was "kicking a dead horse." 

The chairman's comment resulted in prompt disagreement by Murphy, who 
said the committee should seek to determine the facts about a report that 
had done "a great deal of harm" to industry. He said he wanted to know 
how the pesticide got into the sample in light of testimony that aldrin was 
not used on California grapes, 

"This is not just an accusation," he said. 

Mondale said Murphy's comments suggested "the nature of this hearing 
has changed," but went on a few minutes later to cite Murphy's charges of "a 
vicious type of deceit" by UFWOC. 

"I did not understand that my statement was on trial here, and I resent the 
implication," Murphy said. "I have made no charges against anyone." 

Mondale then read another of Murphy's statements suggesting UFWOC's 
charges grapes had dangerous amounts of pesticide were "part of an attempt 
to mislead the subcommittee by presenting false testimony." 

When Murphy asked where Mondale was reading from, the chairman said it 
was from the Californian's letter requesting the hearing. 

"This is a personal letter from me to the chairman, isn't it?" Murphy said. 

"It was released to the press," Mondale noted, adding it made a "serious 
charge." 

"Let's say that I was mistaken," Murphy said. "I intended no accusation. 
I'm not in the habit of accusing without facts and knowledge. Let's get on with 
the hearing. If the chairman has any complaints about me, I think we should 
take them up at a different time." 

"Yes, I'm very fond of Senator Murphy," Mondale said. "I have no com- 
plaints." 

Sen. Alan Cranston, D-Calif., sat silently throughout the exchange. 

Expert testimony presented to the committee did little to solve the mystery 
of how the aldrin got into samples which both UFWOC and Safeway Stores 
had tested by independent laboratories. Tests by the Food and Drug Admin- 
istration, on the other hand*, showed only traces of aldrin. 

Dr. Paul E. Porter, a chemist for a Shell Development Co. Research 
Laboratory at Modesto, said — as did grape growers — he knew of no use of 
aldrin on grapes for at least three years. To have produced the large amount 
of residue found in UFWOC's sample, he said, would have required "a ridicu- 
lous rate of application on the grape cropsi. 

Porter also suggested sulphur, which is used for mildew and mite control 
on grapes, might have been mistaken for Aldrin in the tests. 

Anthony A. Bianco Jr., a Fresno grape grower conceded during questioning 
by Mondale it was possible the conflicting reports on pesticide residues were 



3799 

"an honest difference of opinion" rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive. 
However, in opening his testimony, Bianco charged the "Aldrin scare is no 
more than another effort to whip me into submission." He said he was one 
of a dozen growers who tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a labor contract 
with UFWOC. 

[From the Fresno Bee, Oct. 1, 1969] 

Gbape-Dgctoeing Chakge Is Disclaimed by Muephy 

By Michael Green 

WASHINGTON — Senator George Murphy, R-Calif., has backed down from 
charges he had made suggesting the United Farm Workers Organizing 
Committee may have doctored California table grapes found by a laboratory 
to contain the dangerous pesticide Aldrin. 

In a heated exchange with Sen. Walter F. Mondale, D-Minn., chairman 
of the Senate migratory labor subcommittee studying the charges, Murphy 
disclaimed ever having made them in the first place. 

"I haven't charged anyone with deceit to my knowledge," Murphy said. 
"I meant no charge against anyone. I think that's fairly clear." 

Pressed by Mondale, Murphy acknowledge that he "may have to apologize" 
if statements he made appeared to accuse the UFWOC of doctoring grai)e 
samples. But he said he still "wondered" how an independent Washington 
laboratory found California grapes to contain Aldrin 180 times the level 
of tolerance when the grower Bianco Fruit Corp., of Delano, Arvin and 
Thermal, denied buying or using Aldrin the past six years. 

"It brings me back to my original questions," he said "Who put the overalls 
in Mrs. Murphy's chowder? Who put the Aldrin on the grapes?" 

Testimony in two days of hearings from several chemists, officials of the 
Food and Drug Administration and the head of the laboratory that ran the 
grape tests indicated that the lab may have mistakenly identified a harmless 
quantity of ordinary sulfur as being Aldrin. 

Both the lab, C. W. England of Washington, and a second laboratory in 
Baltimore found Aldrin present on grapes taken to them for testing by both 
the UFWOC and later by Safeway Stores, Inc., where the original tested grapes 
were purchased. 

An expert in pesticide testing told the subcommittee today that because of 
sophisticated testing procedures and the tendency of Aldrin to break down 
chemically within a short time, the likeliest explanation for the lab results 
was an error in testing procedures. 

Murphy said after the expert's testimony, however, that he still hadn't 
"heard any testimony yet as to how there got to be 18 parts per million of 
Aldrin on those grapes. This is not, of course, an accusation." 

"Well, some might take it as such," Mondale interrupted. He quoted Murphy 
as saying the farm workers had engaged in a "vicious type of deceit" when 
they submitted the lab report to the subcommittee in testimony last month. 

"There might be someone who would take offense at that," Mondale said 
wryly. 

"Where did I say that?" Murphy asked. 

Mondale cited the letter Murphy wrote requesting hearings on his charges. 
Murphy suggested in the letter the possibility "that a subcommittee of the 
U.S. Senate has been the victim of duplicity. 

"If this be the case," the statement continued, "this tactic on the part of 
tBe United Farm Workers Committee is a vicious type of deceit . . ." 

"I may have to apologize," Murphy said. "I didn't mean it that way . . . the 
chairman knows that." 

As the exchange grew more heated. Murphy implied Mondale violated 
senatorial courtesy by mentioning the letter. "This is a personal letter from 
me to the chairman of the committee. Is that right?" 

KELEASED TO PBES8 

"And it was released to the press," Mondale observed. 
"I didn't release it," Murphy said. 

The text of the statement, however, appeared in a speech made by Murphy 
on the Senate floor Aug. 12 and printed in the Congressional Record. 

Growing red with anger, Murphy insisted, "I'm not making accusations 



3800 

. . . I'm not in the habit of accusing without facts and knowledge. I've been 
around some time now. If the chairman lias any complaints I think we should 
take it up at a different time." 

Mondale smiled. "I'm very fond of Sen. Murphy." 

"Thank you !" Murphy snapped. 



[From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 1, 1969] 

Murphy Retracts Accusations Against Union on Pesticides 

By Thomas J. Foley 

WASHINGTON— Sen. George Murphy (R-Calif.) backed off Tuesday from 
earlier accusations that Cesar Chavez and his United Farm Workers Orga- 
nizing Committee (UFWOC) had attempted to mislead a Senate subcom- 
mittee on the presence of pesticide on California grapes. 

The setting was a labor subcommittee's hearing into circumstances sur- 
rounding UFWOC's charge Aug. 1 that California grape growers had applied 
excessive amounts of a pesticide to their product. 

The farm workers cited a laboratory analysis which showed that grapes 
were coated with a pesticide called aldrin 180 times above human tolerance 
levels. 

It was in an exchange with the committee chairman, Sen. Walter F. Mondale 
(D-Minn. ), that Murphy offered his near apology to the farm workers union. 
Mondale said the committee had been "kicking a dead horse." 

MURPHY states VIEW 

"I think it is abundantly clear the union took an honest sample, took it to 
an honest laboratory and came up with an honest report," Mondale said, 
conceding that the report might be wrong. 

Murphy promptly disputed that it is a "dead horse," declaring "playing 
games with California table grapes has done enormous harm to the industry, 
and to the workers." 

If testimony shows aldrin is on grapes in Washington after not having been 
used in vinyards in California in three years, "it's extremely important." 
Murphy added, "This is not, of course, an accusation." 

Mondale said this seemed to change the nature of the hearings and cited 
Murphy's statement last month that UFWOC's tactics were "a vicious type of 
deceit." 

Murphy said, "I did not understand that my statement was on trial here, 
and I resent the implication. I have made no charges against anyone." 

"There might be some who would take offense," Mondale said wryly, as 
farm workers supporters in the room laughed. 

He went on to quote Mun>hy again as having said UFWOC's charges that 
grapes had dangerous amounts of ijesticides were "part of an attempt to 
mislead the subcommittee by presenting false testimony." He said "I find that 
a very serious charge." 

"This is a personal letter from me to the chairman, isn't it?" Murphy 
asked. 

"It was released to the press," Mondale replied. 

"In any event, let's say that I was mistaken," Murphy said. "I've been 
around for some time, and I'm not in the habit of accusing without facts 
and knowledge. Let's get on with the hearing. If the chairman has any 
complaints about me, I think we should take them up at a different time." 

"I'm very found of Sen. Murphy," Mondale said "I have no complaints." 

Tuesday's session was given over to the growers' side of the story, and if 
Murphy shied away from attacks on UFWOC, John G. Giumarra Jr., of 
Edison, Calif., did not. 

Giumarra, general counsel of the Giiunarra Vineyards Corp., made a point- 
by-point refutation of nearly every charge made by Chavez and UFWOC 
counsel Jerome Cohen. He concluded by calling the union's Aug. 1 charge 
"an irresponsible and deceitful act." 

Giumarra cited exi>ert witnesses who said lab analyses of pesticides are 
difficult to interpret, that aldrin's characteristics are almost identical to 
sulphur, and that aldrin is not used as a i>esticide in California vineyards. 

Either the grapes purchased in the Washington supermarket by UFWOC 
were doctored," Giumarra said, or the lab analyses were wrong. 



asoi 

Salud-Woodville, 
Woodville, Calif., September 24, 1969. 
Dr. Lowell Chamberlain, 
Health Officer, 

Tulare County Health Department, 
Visalia, Calif. 

Dear Dr. Chamberlain : This summer part of the Salud staff has been 
involved in a survey to assess the nutritional status of our patient population. 
As you know, most of our patients are low-income farm worker families; 
a random sample of those who used the clinic during the summer were 
selected for the survey. 

As part of the hemotological data collected by our team, blood levels of 
pesticide residue and serum and red blood cell cholinesterase activity have 
been determined by the State Department of Public Healtli laboratories. 

The results are not yet complete for all the parameters measured in the 
survey. But based on the findings which we have received, we have been 
surprised to find the nutritional status is above what we had anticipated. 
But the pesticide levels reported on our children can only be classified as an 
epidemic. 

Of the 29 children for whom we have received results, 41% (12) show 
cholinesterase levels depressed below the lower limit of the range suggested 
by Nabb and Whitfield, 1967, 3.6 mMole/min/ml. for plasma. 

Of the 12 children for whom we have received DDT level determinations, 
42% (5) show a higher level of pesticide re.sidue than the highest limit of the 
normal range suggested by Edmunson et al, 1969. 

Of the 12 children for whom we have received DDE level values, 75% (9) 
show a higher residue level than Edmunson's highest limit of normal range. 
The mean value for our children are more than Sy^ times as high as the 
mean value Edmunson reports. 

I had not taken the i>esticide problem very seriously until recently myself. 
Much like the union controversy, it seemed to me that there were those 
who believed there was a problem and those who did not. I had personally 
felt that it was hard to say, one way or the other. But now I am convinced 
that there is a serious problem, that it must lead to an action and research 
program in this area, and that I would like to be involved in it. 

I believe first that these preliminary findings demand that we study a 
much larger population over a longer period of time. The state was anxious 
to analyze samples for our survey because routine screening for pesticide 
levels had never been done on rural children in this state before. This also 
means that the "normal range" values which we are using to evaluate our 
findings are those of adults. We are not at all sure that the tolerance levels 
should be as high for children as they are for adults. We do not know 
whether values for rural children are the same as those for urban children, and 
we have no data on farm workers children from other states where similar 
pesticides are used with which to compare our findings. Considering the 
great amount of money that goes to investigate the effect of different pesti- 
cides on crops, I feel that it should be possible to get some monies to find 
out how different pesticides affect children. 

Second, I feel that we should call the i>esticide problem a public health 
problem. Public health departments are quick and eflScient in working on other 
types of epidemics— such as the dangers posed by the floods in our coimty 
this past winter. They provide free service to people in ruling out communi- 
cable di.sease, and they co-operate well with the private physician. I do not 
believe any longer that the pesticide problem is limited to a concern between 
employer and employee, because many of the children we tested were not part 
of the labor force. I feel that we physicians should help ensure that public 
health receives enough funds and staff to fulfill this responsibility. I feel 
funds should be available to allow all rural citizens of our state to have 
routine pesticide testing in 1970. Perhaps Migrant Health Act monies should 
be tapped for this purpose. While we very much appreciate the relationship 
we have had with the state laboratory this summer, we realize that they are 
not staffed or funded to accept routine specimens from ail the concerned 
physicians and farm workers in this state. So, we feel that their grants for 
expanded research and routine monies for periodic testing of rural people 
should be forthcoming. 



3802 

Third, I feel that research should be encouraged to find out what abnormal 
pesticide levels mean to those afflicted. At present, there is emotional specula- 
tion on both sides, but very little fact. In most cases, I feel competent to 
interpret an abnormal lab test and to initiate therapy. But in the case of 
a low cholinesterase or a high DDT level, I have no answer for my patients. 
Do I tell small children to stay away from their parents after they have 
just come from work? 

Do I tell teenagers from large, poor families to stop working, lest they 
develop clinical symptoms of chemical poisoning? 

Do I tell families in grower-provided housing to move off the ranches 
because they are too often sprayed by passing planes and tractors? 

Do I tell my young patients not to accept the fruits that their parents 
bring home to them ? 

Are all of these things, together enough? Or should I be lobbying against 
the use of pesticides which I am told are essential to the agriculture of our 
state and to the jobs of our patients? 

I would appreciate your views on this problem and would like to help you 
in any way that I can. For your information, I am enclosing a table which 
summarizes the results we have received thus far on our children, along 
with interpretative materials supplied by the state. My patients, their parents, 
and I are becoming increasingly alarmed over the pesticide problem. I realize 
that this issue is controversial and emotional, but I would like to be on the 
side that is seeking answers now. I need help in this and would appreciate 
a chance to talk with you or others you might refer me to. 
Sincerely, 

Lee Mizbahi, M.D. 

LABORATORY DETERMINATIONS OF CHOLINESTERASE LEVELS AND SELECTED CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON 
PESTICIDE RESIDUES, 29 CHILDREN, RURAL, TULARE COUNTY, CALIF., AUGUST 1969. 



Cholinesterase activity 



Chlorinated pesticides 



Age Ethnic 



plasma i 


R.B.C.2 


ppmDDT3 


ppmDDE^ 


4.28 


5 10.95 






4.72 


12.60 






5 3.52 


13.75 ... 






5.79 


12.90 ... 






5.64 


13.05 






6 3. 44 


15.50 






4.52 


13.80 . 






5 2.14 


8 8.25 .. 






8 3.25 


8 10.45 .. 






5.40 


12.50 






8 3. 02 


5 10.95 






5 3. 52 


13,75 .. 






5 3.09 


12.25 






5 3.41 


11.80 .. 






3.95 


11.70 .. 






4.30 


5 10.15 


5 0.021 


5 0.034 


5 3.40 


12.40 


8.032 


5.053 


4.53 


14.80 






3.84 


12.20 


6.026 


8.047 


4.71 


13.35 


5.028 


5.038 


5.10 


14.95 


.006 


8.022 


4.63 


15.15 


.009 


.015 


4.44 


13.20 


5.022 


8.047 


3.71 


11.45 


.010 


5.017 


4.59 


12.55 


.002 


.012 


5 2. 52 


11.85 


.012 


5.028 


6 3. 59 


12.30 


.005 


.010 


5.00 


. 11.70 


.005 


5.039 


6 1.76 


6 6.75 .. 







2 Anglo 

6 do 

12 do 

12 do 

13 do 

14 do 

14 do 

16 ao 

4 Negro 

5 do 

14 do 

13 Puerto RIcan 

15 do 

2 Mexican-American 

4 do 

5 do 

8 do 

8 do 

10 do 

11 do 

11 do 

12 do 

12 do 

12 do... 

,3 do 

U do 

U do 

15 do 

16 do 

1 



1 The range of values for the general ad'ilt population wfithout known pesticide exposure was reported by Nabb and 
Whitfield (Archives of Environmental Health 15: 147, 1967) to be: Cholinesterase plasma: 3.6-6.8 uMoles/mln/ml. (A low 
cholinesterase level is of concern.) 

2 Op. Cit. Cholinesterase Red Blood Cells: 11.1-16.0 uMoles/min/ml. 

5 Levels for nonoccupationally exposed males, as reported by Edmunson et al. (Public Health Reports 84, pp. 53-58, 
1969) are: DDT mean: .007 p.p.m.; DDT range: .007-012. (A high DDE or DDT level is of concern.) 

«0p. Cit. DDE mean: .008 p.p.m.; DDE range: .003-016 p.p.m. 

6 Indicated value is outside normal range in undesirable direction. 



3803 

State of California — Health and Welfare Agency, 

Department of Public Health, 

Berkeley, August 22, 1969. 
Mrs. Wendy Brooks, 
Salud Clinic, 
Woodville, Calif. 

Dear Wendy: Attached are the latest results of our laboratory determina- 
tions of cholinesterase levels and selected chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide 
residues in blood samples submitted to the laboratory in accordance with 
the memorandum of July 9th from Mr. Thierry Brun to Dr. Margen, Messrs. 
Roth, Jones and myself. 

Plasma and red cell cholinesterase levels were determined using the 
automated pH Stat method described by Nabb and Whitfield (Archives of 
Environmental Health 15: 147, 1967). The range of values for the general 
adult population without known pesticide exposure was reported by these 
authors to be as follows : 

Cholinesterase, Plasma 3.6 to 6.8 uMoles/min/ml. 

Cholinesterase, Red Blood Cell 11.1 to 16.0 uMoles/min/ml. 

The blood was also analyzed for the presence of the following pesticide 
residues : 

o,p' DDT p,p' DDT o,p' DDE p,p' DDE a,B & d BHC Methoxychlor Toxaphene 
p,p' DDD Lindane, Chlordane Heptachlor, Strobane, Thiodan, Kelthane, Hepta- 
chlor Exposide, Endrin, Dieldrin, Aldrin. 

Using gas chromatographic analysis, residues of two different materials, 
pp DDT and its metabolite, pp DDE, were detected as indicated on the attach- 
ment. 

For comparative purposes, Dale et al, (Life Science 5 47, 1966), using a 
laboratory technique similar to the one we employ, determined the following 
levels in the general male population of the United States. 

DDT— 0.0068 ppm. 

DDE— 0.0114 ppm. 

Again for comparison, Edmundson, et al (Public Health Reports 84 53-58, 
1969) report the following for non-occupationally exposed white and non- 
white males. 







Mean (p.p.m.) 




Range (p.p. 


m.) 


Race 


Persons 


DDT 


DDE 


DDT 


DDE 


White ..-_ 

Non-white 


23 

37 


<.007> 
<.007> 


.008 
.022 


<. 007-. 012 
<.007-.015 


. 003-. 016 
. 009-. 098 









The above levels were determined on whole blood and are expressed on 
a whole tissue basis. For comparative purposes the ppm ixnits used above 
and r/ml used in the attachment may be considered to be the same. 

Our laboratory experience had led us to conclude that the ranges cited above 
are applicable to the general population of California. 
Sincerely yours, 

Donald C. Mengle, 
Research Specialist II, Community Studies on Pesticides. 



Prepared Statement of Lee Mizbahi, M.D., Woodville, Calif. 

Gentlemen : My name is Lee Mizrahi. I am a pediatrician who came from 
Los Angeles 8 months ago to practice medicine at Salud Woodville, a clinic 
located in southern Tulare County, which serves mainly low-income, farm 
labor families. We are the only medical facility in a 750 square mile area, 
where about 4000 farm worker families live in small towns, labor camps, 
and isolated ranch housing. 

Because our clinic has evening and weekend hours, a Spanish speaking 
staff, reasonable prices, active social service workers as well as a public 
health nurse, the majority of seasonal farm worker families in the area have 
had contact with our clinic in the past two years. 

In Los Angeles. I did not treat many children who worked. In Tulare County, 
many of the children I see go to the fields with their parents. Some work 



3804 

beside them and others, smaller, play nearby or spend the day playing 
and sleeping in the family ear parked on some ranch access road. This means 
to me that the occupational health and safety codes you are considering 
today for the industry of agriculture have great importance to the health, 
growth and development of the children as well as to their parents. 

When I moved to Tulare County, I became aware of the growing con- 
troversy over pesticides but I considered it an emotional issue with little 
scientific basis, not to be taken very seriously. Then this summer our clinic 
conducted a nutrition survey of patient families and, as an afterthought, 
asked and obtained cooperation from the State Health Department laboratories 
to analyze the sampled children's blood for possible pesticide residues and 
effects. Among the pesticides studied was the group known as organic phos- 
phates. Let me cite for you some salient points concerning organic phosphates, 
contained in my medical toxicology texts: Organic phosphate insecticides are 
among the most poisonous materials commonly used for pest control. In 
terms of toxic actions to man, they are related to one another and also to 
a group of chemical warfare agents known as the nerve gases . . . Absorption 
to a dangerous degree can occur through any portal including the intact 
skin. . . . Their action is to inhibit the enzyme cholinesterase in all parts 
of the body. Toxic signs and symptoms are regarded as an indirect conse- 
quence of this enzyme inactivation . . . clinical intoxication is possible from 
small repeated subclinical exposures . . . The situation is particularly hazardous 
because of the narrow margin between the dose which is just suflScient to 
produce symptoms and that which is adequate to kill." Clinical Toxicology of 
Commercial Products, Gleason, Gosselin, Hodge, Smith, p. 183. Williams and 
Wilkins, 3rd Edition, 1969. 

Of the 58 children studied this summer, we found that 27 had abnormally 
low cholinesterase levels in either their plasma and/or red blood cells when 
compared to normal values which are established for adults.* However, 
when I began to ask scientists what these low" laboratory values really 
meant to my patients, I was reminded that our clinic was the first in the 
United States to analyze rural children's blood in this manner. To me, 
it is tragically absurd that in 1969 such a study by an obscure rural doctor 
should be found to be the first one ever done on children. Were these findings 
an ominous sign of a serious public health problem of epidemic proportion 
or, perhaps, do children normally have lower cholinesterase levels and should 
science not be using these accepted adult norms? We all agreed that 
more research is urgently needed — and needed now. 

When I pondered, as a practitioner, what to tell the children's families, 
this absence of reliable data on which to base conclusive diagnosis became 
intolerable. Most of the children were not clinically sick — but then many 
patients with early cancer do not feel sick and yet a positive Pap lab 
report tells me to take action immediately. Some of the children, like their 
parents, had been feeling sick. They may have had skin rashes or burning 
eyes or nausea, vomiting, dizziness. Some parents said they'd never thought 
about a connection between i)esticides and symptoms like these and others 
said, "Well, this is something that farm workers just have to suffer with — 
it happens to everybody in the fields. We think this problem of low-grade 
poisoning is widespread. For example, during our summer study of children, 
we tested 12 of their parents. All the parents were working in crops where 
organic phosphates are used. 7 out of the 12 tested had depressed choline- 
sterase levels, none in the critically low range, but below the lower limit of 
normal. Again, what do these tests mean? The implied mandate for more 
research is clear; provision to that end as contained in HR 13373 is strongly 
supported by our group. 

Let me talk more generally now about the problems that a physician in a 
place like rural Tulare County faces. Our county is the second richest agri- 
cultural county in the world. Cotton, with 125,000 acres under cultivation, 
is the largest crop in our county ; DDT compounds are applied regularly — 
but cotton is almost completely mechanized so few of our patients are ever 
in the cotton fields. Grapes, with 73,000 acres, oranges — 69,000 acres, olives — 
11,000 acres, peaches and plums — 14,800, are our other major crops. Each 
of these depends heavily on farm laborers for cultivation and harvest activities. 
Bach of these crops is protected by organic phosphate sprays. Each of these 
four fruits is well surrounded by broad leaves — which accept and hold 
"powder and dust" — as the workers call the pesticides. Each of these crops 



• See Appendix A. 



3805 

is picked by people working on "piece rates" — i.e. the more sacks or boxes 
filled, the higher the daily wage. This means that the harder they work, the 
greater is the exposure to the poison. The more the worker perspires, the 
greater the potential for absorption of poison through the skin. This is the 
cycle producing greater health hazard to the hardest workers. The workers — 
(my patients) — complain frequently of headaches, nausea, dizziness, nervous- 
ness, of waking up at 5 a.m. feeling sick as they dress for work. They joke 
about the field boss calling them all "sickly", saying — you people are always 
passing the Hong Kong flu to one another on the road to work. The workers, 
more and more, think the sprays cause their sickness, but there is not much 
field work in our county where organic phosphate sprays are not present 
and so many of them accept chronic discomfort as the price of earning a 
living. (I don't think this is acceptable — the workers are entitled to work 
in greater safety). Once in a while, one of these workers passes out, or gets 
so weak that he can't work, or vomits near the point of dehydration — and 
comes in for care. We have started cholinesterase testing on all these 
victims the last few months. By this time, their levels are often already very 
depressed. They receive medical treatment then. But they must also stay 
away from the fields until their body reproduces the cholinesterase enzyme — 
which takes up to ten weeks. I want to see a system where sprays are tested 
for being people-safe as well as plant-safe before they are marketed. The 
workers health, like the harvest, is a valuable commodity. Right now, nobody 
has the responsibility for this. Any worker who is around organic phosphate 
pesticides regularly must be guaranteed the right to routine testing. He 
must be informed of the results of his blood test before it is so depressed 
that he has clinical symptoms and must face a longer period of disability. 

The responsibility for this testing cannot be placed solely on the worker. 
There are many reasons why farm workers won't come regularly to the 
physician with early symptoms. For example, if they come as a Workmen's 
Compensation case (which means their employer pays for the care because the 
illness is work-related), many fear that they will lose their jobs. If they 
come with the idea of paying themselves, not realizing their symptoms are 
work related, it is expensive for proper care and laboratory testing and they 
will delay. I believe the routine testing should be required as a condition of 
employment. No company using organic phosphates should be allowed to 
employ a man unless he has monthly cholinesterase blood test reports showing 
he is normal. These tests should be made readily available to the workers. 
When farm workers become completely unionized, this will certainly be a 
problem which will be negotiated and written into contract, with workers 
and/or employers bearing the cost. I believe this is the appropriate long-term 
solution, but we cannot afford to wait for this to happen before we begin 
action. 

The tests could be financed in part by one of the following ways: 

a. A special sales taxe added to organic phosphates sales, which revenue 
would pay for the cost of testing of people working around them. 

b. Each test drawn could be filed as a workmen's compensation case with 
the company's insurance carrier, if there were any indication that the person 
was affected. 

c. Federal funds should be appropriated to state and then county health 
departments and these tests could be performed by the laboratories in the 
local health department offices in each county on a low cost mass production 
automated scale. This is accepted practice for the infectious diseases like 
tuberculosis and other public health problems. In other areas of employment, 
I don't believe the burden of payment should be born by the already under- 
paid workers. Neither should the test be a physical burden on the farm 
worker simply because he is being unwillingly subjected to possible pesticide 
poisoning. The very minimum safeguards enacted should provide for tests 
available within 10 miles of the place of employment conducted on company 
time, ideally, being tested at the work site. An analogy which immediately 
comes to mind is the case of chemical companies contracting with the Atomic 
Energy Commission. It is inconceivable to imagine employees working in 
areas of radiation hazard leaving their place of work without the rigorous 
showers, decontamination procedures, and strictly monitored tests for radiation 
exposure. I am not necessarily suggesting "pesticide badges' similar to the 
radiation badges worn by these radiation workers. The point is simply that a 
program of preventive medicine is often taken for granted in other industries 
where there is potential danger to its employees. The lack of similar safe- 
guards for the agricultural industry should no longer be tolerated. Workers 



3806 

whose tests show depressed levels should be required to stop work until their 
blood enzymes return to normal and they must be compensated for time lost 
through the workmen's compensation insurance fund of the employer. During 
the months of April through October 1969, there were 75 workmen's com- 
pensation cases treated at Salud. 26% (16) of this total were suspected 
pesticide poisonings. At the present time, workers are not compensated for 
the 1st 7 days of a work incurred illness or injury unless hospitalized. 
Because of obvious financial pressures, it is difficult to convince patients 
with minor symptoms of pesticide poisoning to remain off the job for sufficient 
period of time to completely recover. For example, of the pesticide cases 
just mentioned, only one remained absent from work for more than eight 
days. The worker should not and cannot bear the financial burden of this 
occupational hazard ! 

In order to provide routine testing more laboratory facilities mvist be estab- 
lished to carry these out. Right now, there is no place in our county's health 
and medical care complex where bloods can be tested for pesticide residues. 
This, in spite of the fact that there are 27,000 farm workers employed this 
month in our county. *FPS Report. 

I believe part of the reason why the poison cases are so seldom reported now 
is that it is so difficult to get the tests run. Cholinesterase levels must be 
determined within 24 hours of the time blood is drawn. At present this 
means we must send a staff member with the blood 20 miles to the Grey- 
hound Bus depot, pay for the blood to travel, spend another 50^ on a long 
distance phone call to the lab 70 miles away to inform them to dispatch 
one of their employees to meet the bus and take the blood to the lab for 
analysis. This procedure is inconvenient and expensive. Legislation requiring 
testing must make funds and/or technical assistance available so that 
laboratories in each agricultural county are equipped to do pesticide residue 
testing on a mass scale. 

My second area of concern in treating our patients working in agriculture 
relates directy to a point in the bills you are considering — the physician's 
problem in dealing with the medical consequences of "trade secrets". Most 
workers who come in with symptoms, acute or low-grade, have no idea what 
sprays were used on the trees or vines they have been working in. We have 
an excellent system of poison control information centers in this state and 
across the U.S. relying on the physician knowing which poison has caused the 
patients illness. Such information must be always immediately available to 
physicians. 

I do not believe your proposed legislation will make it any easier for me 
to treat poisoned victims for the following reasons. First, those spray 
operators who are currently required to report spray patterns to our County 
Agricultural Commissioner's office deposit their information with an agency 
which is open only 40 hours a week. A poison information center cannot 
operate on this limited basis; a patient can't be held from 5 p.m. Friday till 
8 a.m. Monday, to find out what poisoned him. Secondly, small farmers who 
mix and apply their own sprays, and commercial operators who spray 
"special combination compounds" are exempt from all reporting of spray 
composition and schedules. If we try to find the rancher, just informally, when 
one of his workers presents at the office, it is sometimes impossible to get 
in touch with him quickly. If the "trade secret" argument is compelling to 
you as a general principle, then I urge you to make at least a special pro- 
vision for supplying information to licensed physicians and hospital emergency 
rooms. The name of a poison is an unacceptable secret in our office. 

Perhaps you should require counties to contract with a hospital or the 
well established nation-wide poison control center system so that they will 
receive information about all sprays used, on an area-by-area basis. Whatever 
system you decide upon must, however, have information available 24 hours 
a day, 7 days a week, and must receive reports from all agricultural employers 
who ever apply any pesticide which may have adverse effects on persons 
who accidentally or routinely come into contact with them. It is totally 
wrong that one man's trade secret or payroll size should preclude another 
naan's receiving appropriate and/or emergency medical care. I believe there 
IS urgently needed a federal law to prohibit the commercial production and 
marketing of any new pesticide, until there is a blood test specific to identify 
early poisoning and a specific treatment regimen that is effective for that 
chemical. There should be normal values known specific for each age group, 
as well as pregnant women. Tests for all commercial chemicals already on 
the market must be developed within 2 years with age-specific normal 



38D7 

values determined along with a treatment program or the product be im- 
mediately removed from the market until this is done. 

My third area of- concern as a rural physician is with the carelessness, 
almost indifference, which prevails in work with and around very dangerous 
poisons. Sometimes this nonsense is legally and administratively correct 

The safety precautions exercised by spray company employees on the 
job is one case in point. But I would like to wait and have Mr. George Crowder 
testify to this. The current regulations about time lapse between the application 
of pesticides and the "safe entry point" for people returning to sprayed 
fields is a second point that concerns me. The rules may be conscientiously 
followed by all employers. But there are overlapping areas of responsibility 
when one group does the spraying and a second runs the crews, so that 
people sometimes enter prematurely. 

The rules designed to keep people away from fresh or active sprays are 
definitely not adequate. They assume, against all rules of nature, that a fine 
powder, applied by planes or truck rigs, will always fall only on the area for 
which it is intended. This is simply not so, and so many people's symptoms 
and sicknesses are a function of the wind or of "spray-drift". For example, a 
truck rig is applying parathion to a field with distinct boundaries. Para- 
thion is a powerful organic phosphate which must have 14 days to dissi- 
pate before people can safely enter a field where it has been sprayed. A 
family's small children are playing outside their home on this ranch which 
is 10 feet from the edge of the orchard. The children are sprayed directly. 
The family is forced to live in the ranch house during the 14 day dissipation 
period. All may develop the set of symptoms which the 14 day wait was 
designed to avoid. Or a crew is picking fruit along one rancher's property 
line, a safe three weeks after the trees have last been sprayed. This property 
line is clearly marked by a narrow dirt access road which an adjoining 
rancher also uses. The neighbor, a small operator who doesn't have to report 
spraying, schedules, sends his rig out to spray his orchard. The spray rig 
travels along the access road, and points his equipment to the right. By 
evening the workers of his neighbor, on the left of the road, are all getting 
sick, but they are replaced by others who work the trees along the road 
which have one day old spray on them. Running the further risk of exposure. 
The laws about safe entry are based on an assumption that individual 
property lines are adequate boundaries for monitoring traffic. They must 
be rewritten to consider that winds blow across proi)erty lines and that 
sprays fall, at best, into a rural environment, caring little about who owns 
which part of the dirt below, (introduce pictures) 

If that class of agricultural chemicals which can do such great potential 
harm to people is necessary to the industry, then there must be area-wide 
industry responsibility for monitoring spray application and safeguarding 
the work force. To say as we say now, that one rancher may legally spray 
his neighbor's workers, but not his own, is totally unsatisfactory. 

My fourth and final point of concern is that so much ignorance still 
abounds among farm workers and others about the toxic effects of pesticides, 
about early symptoms of illness, and about health and safety practices which 
workers should follow. Although I think this is slowly changing, there is not 
an active and accurate education program going on anywhere. There are 
exaggerated fears and false information among some workers, a studied 
indifference among others and total ignorance among still too many others. 
I don't think changes in the law, however well-written, will make a lot of 
difference unless the people also understand why there is any law at all 
and feel free to help enforce the law. You could never get an appropriation 
large enough to hire enough inspectors to remove all the danger of pesticide 
poisoning from rural America. To illustrate, look at our state's Industrial 
Welfare Commission rules on field sanitation for farm workers. The law 
is there, but the prescribed toilets, drinking water and hand-washing facilities, 
are not There are two inspectors for the entire San Joaquin Valley. Lack of 
enforcement of this law contributes to the problem of pesticide residue — 
people can't wash their hands and face before leaving work. 

In most industries education and enforcement is a responsibility accepted 
by the union of workers involved. But although the farm workers' union has 
begun working to inform people, they don't have enough contracts to cover 
all the areas involved. 

People need to learn about the importance of protective clothing, about 
the disposal of spray-covered clothing, and about the importance of bathing 
well after work. At our local child care center, for example, there is a new 



3808 

ruling that parents cannot pick up their children until after they have gone 
home and showered and changed clothing. This, because children run and 
want to be picked up by the parents who are covered by sprays. 

People need to know that they should refuse work if spraying is being 
done in an adjoining field and that they should wash exposed parts of 
their body during the day, especially when the residues on the trees they 
are working are heavy. 

People also need to know the symptoms of pesticide poisoning so that they 
will present for early medical care. Many do not associate vague symptoms 
like headache, vomiting, dizziness, nausea with the sprays. In our summer 
health study of children, for example, we asked parents whether their chil- 
dren had any of hundreds of symptoms to rule out different health problems. 
Of those children who had complaints which are considered part of the pes- 
ticide poisoning syndrome, only 1 out of 3 had seen a doctor for their symp- 
toms. Yet, children with these symptoms had an average cholinesterase 
plasma level of 3.46 ±.86 and an average cholinesterase red blood cell level 
of 11.22 ± 2.32 as opposed to an average plasma of 4.18 ± .87 and an 
average RBC of 12.42 ± 1.17 for children studied who had n symptoms of pes- 
ticide poisoning. This finding strongly suggests that certain symptoms are 
associated with lowered cholinesterase and that children or adults with these 
symptoms should be under a doctor's surveillance. Early medical care, which 
may involve removing the person from the source of his illness, would prob- 
ably cut down sharply on the number of actual cases seen. 

And I cannot project all the ignorance and blame onto others. The medical 
profession is, in many cases, not well informed. The physicians at our clinic 
have only this summer really began to work up patients' with an eye toward 
ruling out pesticide poisoning. Our practice of medicine has changed as 
we became aware of our patients' working environment. Until this spring, 
for example, we had never used cholinesterase testing as a diagnotic tool. 
Now we use it reguarly. 

In summary, my concerns with new health and safety legislation fall into 
three major areas. 

First, there is a need for law to encourage research into the effect of 
aericultural chemicals on the work force. New chemicals on the market must 
be proven people-safe as well as plant-safe. If the proposed phaseout of DDT 
comes, it seems probable that there will be increased use of the more toxic 
organic phosphate sprays. I am not sure that this is any bargain for the 
farm workers. 

I am very sorry to have to talk about research at all. Farm workers are 
always being studied, it seems. But I feel that this area must be studied, well 
and quickly. It is really appalling that an isolated rural doctor's oflSce should 
be the one doing the first research project in the country on the cholinesterase 
levels of children. I am sorry that we must go through the long and tedious 
process of many research years before we know whether the sprays that will 
be used liberally during these research years are causing chronic disabilities 
to workers and their children. But I would urge that a crash program be 
initiated through your legislation so that many agricultural areas can use 
the coming harvest season as a time to learn about what is happening to the 
chronically exposed work force. 

Second, there is a need for law which better regulates the applcation of 
spray, which requires identification of all sprays used by all agricultural enter- 
prises, which makes testing facilities available and tests mandatory as a 
condition of employment, and which builds a strong education program for 
all those people who need to know more. 

Thirdly there is need for the kind of law which can be translated into 
meaningful administrative procedures. This involves recognizing the comipex 
patterns among ranchers, commercial snray operators, labor contractors, and 
groups of farm workers. Too often laws regulating the agricultural industry 
have been passed by a zealous but isolated majority and they never really 
work out in our rural counties. Enforcement must be adequate, worker ed- 
ucation must encouraee public enforcement of the law, and there should be 
economic sanctions built into the law so that tho.se who continue to use sprays 
incorrectly are held responsible for the medical care and full compensation 
pay for those who become disabled. 

Before I turn the stand over to some patients and friends who came with 
me, let me add one final noint. I realize that your committee's concern today 
IS limited to occupational health, but a lot of us who are not agricultural 



3809 

workers are also concerned about the presence of so much pesticide in and 
around our homes, our children, our food. I am concerned about what appears 
to me to be a steady invisible trend toward the ultimate total pollution of 
our rural environment. I like where I live and I want to stay there, well and 
practicing medicine. 

There follow statements by certain of Dr. Mizrahi's patients, including : 
Violet Absher, Petra Ojeda (translation by Thierry Brun), Lupe Arellano, 
Nelda Mirelez, Blma Espinosa. 

APPENDIX A.-CHOLINESTERASE LEVELS OF CHILDREN FROM SALUD CLINIC, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1969 



Gamma R.B.C. Age Ethnic 



Sex Child works Parent works 



MORE THAN 25 PERCENT BELOW LOW 



1.76 6.75 16 Mexican-American M 

2.14 8.25 16 Anglo _.__ M 

2.40 11.05 8 Mexican-American F 

2.52 11.85 14 do.. F 

2.70 10.80 14 do F 



yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


no 


yes 


no 


yes 


yes 


yes 



BELOW LOWER LIMIT OF NORMAL 



2.83 


9.60 


2.91 


13.70 


2.91 


13.45 


2.98 


12.70 


2.98 


12.00 


3.02 


10.95 


3.09 


12.25 


3.25 


10.45 


3.38 


12.00 


3.40 


12.40 


3.41 


11.80 


3.44 


15.50 


3.82 


13.75 


3.52 


13.72 


3.59 


12.30 



3 Mexican-American F 

15 do - F 

11 do. F 

14 do F 

12 do. F 

14 Negro F 

15 Puerto Rican M 

4 Negro F 

4 Mexican-American M 

8 do ..-- F 

2 do. M 

14 Anglo F 

13 Puerto Rican M 

12 Anglo N 

14 Mexican-American F 



no 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


yes 


no 


yes 


no 


yes 


no 


yes 


no 


yes 



yes 



yes 
no 
yes 



NORMAL RANGE 



3.60 


14.40 


3.60 


12.00 


3.68 


9.60 


3.71 


11.45 


3.78 


11.80 


3.84 


12.20 


3.84 


12.25 


3.84 


12.25 


3.95 


11.70 


4.00 


10.80 


4.00 


11.50 


4.08 


10.80 


4.08 


16.30 


4.16 


11.50 


4.24 


11.25 


4.24 


12.00 


4.28 


10.96 


4.30 


10.15 


4.33 


10.85 


4.44 


13.20 


4.47 


9.60 


4.52 


13.80 


4.53 


14.80 


4.56 


15.35 


4.59 


12.55 


4.63 


15.55 


4.70 


12.00 


4.71 


13.35 


4.72 


12.60 


4.80 


12.00 


4.88 


10.10 


4.88 


9.60 


5.00 


11.70 


5.10 


14.95 


5.40 


12.50 


5.60 


11.05 


5.64 


13.05 


5.79 


12.90 



10 Anglo. 
3 
5 



Mexican-American M 

Anglo 



12 Mexican-American. 



12 .. 



.do. 



10 do. 

6 do. 

5 do. 



4 do. 

5 do. 

5 do. 



M 

M 

M 

6 do -- M 

6 do M 

7 Anglo F 

3 Mexican-American M 

15 do F 



2 Anglo 

5 Mexicna-American. 
14 do 



M 

F 

M 

12 do F 

12 Anglo F 

14 do M 

8 Mexican-American F 

4 do M 



M 

do - F 

do M 

do ... F 

Anglo. M 

Mexican-American M 

do - M 

Anglo - F 

Mexican-American M 

do F 

5 Negro.. - , M 

9 Mexican-American F 

13 Anglo F 

12 do. :--- F 



no 
yes 



no 
yes 
yes 



no 
DK 



yes 
yes 



yes 
no 
DK 



yes 



yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

DK 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

DK 

yes 

yes 

yes 



Source: All values above related to normal ranges as reported by Nabb and Whitfield 1967, for adult population without 
known exposure to pesticides. 



36-513 O— 70— pt. 6C- 



3810 

[From the Fresno Bee, Dec. 29, 1969] 
Chemical Overkill Reduces Yields, Gets Blame as Hazard to Health 

By Ron Taylor 

This is the first of five articles dealing with hazards to animal and plant 
life evolving from the use of agricultural pesticides and what can be and is 
being done to cope with the problem. 

Operating on the pesticide theory that if a fly swatter kills flies, a sledge 
hammer will be a super killer, too many growers are destroying production, 
poisoning workers and polluting the environment. 

These scare words are a calculated verbal sledge hammer, used the way 
some growers over-use chemical pesticides to "make sure" all the bugs are 
extra-dead. But overkill tactics — verbal of chemical — can cause more problems 
than they solve. 

Obviously farmers do not destroy crops, poison workers or pollute the en- 
vironment — intentionally. Growers do need effective pest control. Until now 
chemicals have provided this control, making the American cornucopia possible. 

But at what cost? Have deadly chemicals affected the environment? 
The plant physiology? Wildlife? And, most important, human life? Just 
asking the questions generates heated controversy. 

Despite millions of dollars spent in research, despite a complexity of govern- 
ment regulations, every indicator shows : Farmers, in the San Joaquin Valley 
and elsewhere, are in serious economic, ecological and environment trouble 
with pesticides. 

Agriculture is on a chemical treadmill. To push the soil to maximum yields, 
farmers add ever increasing amounts of chemical fertilizers. And, as old 
bugs develop incredible immunities and once obscure insects turn into voracious 
pests, growers use more and more chemical poisons. 

The US Department - of Agriculture (USDA) reports farm pest controls 
are up to $3 billion a year, and rising. Pesticide production increased 40 
percent in five years, yet USDA reports say insects and plant diseases 
still cut production potentials by 25 to 30 percent. 

In California pesticide treatments have doubled in a decade. Applications 
now total an estimated 50 million pounds a year. Another 3 million tons of 
fertilizer chemicals — primarily nitrates — go into the soil each year. This is 
a 900,000-ton increase in the past decade. 

California growth figures are easy to shrug off, but these are not growth 
figures. They show increased use of chemicals on the same 8 million to 8.5 
million acres of land which has been farmed in this state for the past 10 
or 15 years. 

Chemicals are supposed to increase yields, and profits. For the most part 
they do but not always. While problems vary from place to place, there are 
areas, such as the Imperial Valley, where entire crops are threatened as 
much by the pesticide program as by the bugs. 

The farmer is damned if he does, damned is he doesn't. The pink bollworm 
invaded the Imperial Valley cotton fields, probably coming over the Colorado 
River from Arizona. Growers have controlled the pest somewhat by repeated, 
heavy insecticide attacks. 

But spraying every day with broad spectrum phosphates has caused second- 
ary bug problems. The cotton is now being attacked by other insects, bugs 
which previously had been no serious problem. 

Reason: The insecticides used have killed off all the natural predators 
which once controlled the beet army worm, the looper and the leaf perforator. 
These worms have become resistant to most sprays, and are now moving 
into 120,000 acres of nearby lettuce and sugar beets. 

Of particular concern is the leaf perforater, because of its genetic ingenuity 
to develop immunities rapidly. It is now resistant to all but one of the 14,356 
chemical killers available. And in Latin America even that single, DDT-type 
spray would not kill the perforater. 

Dr. Barry Commoner, Washington University botanist and environmental 
ex:pert, commented, "California is beginning to experience the kind of 
insecticide-induced disaster already common in Latin American experience." 

He pointed to the Canete Valley in Peru, where DDT applications in 1949 



3811 

boosted cotton yields dramatically— ^but temporarily. The number of insects 
attacking cotton grew from seven to 13, several became resistant to pesticides, 
and by 1965 crop yields were down by half, despite heavy spraying. 

Dr. Commoner says, "If the ecologically blind practice of massive insecticide 
treatment is allowed to continue, there is a danger of permanently losing 
the natural protective insects, and agriculture may become hooked on 
insecticides." 

UC TEST BEStTLTS 

Along the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley field tests by the University 
of California show cotton farmers may be using two or three times too much 
pesticide. This runs costs up, creates more bug problems, and, inexplicity, is 
lowering yields in some fields. 

These UC scientists are finding nature controls these crop-eating bugs, often 
before they do economic damage. But they report too many farmers react to 
bugs with angry passion. Bugs are threats, it is better to be safe, they feel, 
and so they kill the bug before any damage is done. 

One major West Side grower, concerned about the rapid increase in pest 
control costs, said, "We know they (UC entomologists) are on the right track. 
We've got to make some changes, possibly cut way back on pesticides, even 
if it means taking a small drop in yield, due to bug damage." 

Right now cotton has the most serious pest control problems but it is by no 
means the only crop faced with some form of this crisis. All fruits and vege- 
tables require pesticide controls. One citrus grower explained, "Until now, 
I've been both now I've got red scale in the trees." 

To wipe out the tree-killing scale the grower must kill all the bugs in 
the grove — friend and foe alike — and this will put him on the pesticide 
treadmill. 

FBEQUENCY INCBEA8E 

"I don't like it, I'm going to be using parathion, and I'll have to spray 
more often. Its going to cost more . . ."he shrugged helplessly. 

Parathion is one of the many deadly, but relatively short-lived, phosphate- 
based poisons which are close relative of the nerve gas which killed Utah 
sheep near an Army chemical warfare proving ground. These organic phos- 
phates are replacing the long lasting, chlorinated hydrocarbons of the DDT 
family. 

In the pesticide controversy, many blame the rapid banishing of DDT for 
the increased use of phosphates. DDT was the super bug killer, it was cheap, 
relatively harmless to man in its immediate, noticeable effects. It saved 
millions of lives around the world. 

But now it appears to have latent, cumulative properties injurious to man 
and beast. The DDT family lingers in the environment, it accumulates in the 
soil, in plants, in fatty tissues of warm-brooded creatures and aquatic life. 

It may, or may not, be responsible for the elimination of bird and animal 
species ; it may, or may not be, beca using cancers or liver problems, but all of 
this is really beside the point. DDT's effectiveness as a bug killer has been 
steadily declining for years. The" extremly toxic phosphates are developed as 
DDT replacements, and the bugs are developing immunities to these too. 

STU3BB0BN NATUBE 

The problem, in a properly sprayed nutshell, is that nature refuses to 
abdicate to man. When the delicate ecological balance is disrupted, nature 
fights back, adapting species to survive the disruption, or bending them 
■^ off on a new evolutionary tack. 

Bugs, plants and wildlife once lived in natural, cause-and-effect balance. 
Man interrupted and unbalanced this ecosystem when he stripped the land, 
turned the soil, built canals and injected fertilizers in the soil to grow food 
and fiber for an increasingly complex society. 

Dr. Robert van den Bosch, UC entomologist, says, "The insect revolution 
occurred too quickly, and with such overwhelming impact, ecological con- 
siderations were almost swept aside as farmers fought back. 

"Literally overnight (20 years) a welter of unbelievably effective pest 
killers have been released into the hands of the people concerned — the 
farmers, salesmen, entomologists and farm advisers. 

"These people were unprepared to utilize the materials, and especially to 
comprehend the genetic and ecological implications of their use." 



3812 

[From the Fresno Bee, Dec. 30, 1969] 

Scientist Sees Interest Conflict In Salesman Acting As Consultant 

(By Ron Taylor) 

This is the second of fite articles dealing with the hazards to animal and 
plant life evolving from the use of agricultural pesticides and what can be 
and is being done to cope with the problem. 

Chemistry and salesmanship dominate the pesticide industry, according to 
a University of California entomologist, who feels environmental pollution 
and pesticide poisoning problems "will not abate until this basic flaw is 
changed." 

The entomologist, Robert van den Bosch, says the emphasis is on bug kill, 
the tendency is to spray first and ask questions later. With the mandatory 
phasing out of DDT — growers in San Joaquin Valley still use 1.3 million 
pounds of DDT tyipe pesticides on 750,000 acres a year — more of the highly 
toxic phosphates will come into use. 

If Van den Bosch is correct, neither the farmers, salesmen, chemical com- 
panies nor farm advisers fully understand the genetic and ecological impli- 
cations of their work with these organic phosphates. 

These are the Yorld War II n^rve gas-type compounds, now used to wipe 
out entire bug populations. They break down rapidly into nontoxic residues, 
leaving fields open to new insect attacks which can build to eipidemic pro- 
portions unless reportedly sprayed. 

As bugs build immunities new chemicals must be developed. It costs a 
private chemical company millions of dollars to synthesize, test and register 
a chemical with the US Department of Agriculture and the State of California. 

In California 1,261 different manufacturers and distributors, using an 
estimated 200 basic chemical compounds, have formulated 14,356 bug-killing, 
disease-destroying pesticides. The major chemical companies supply dis- 
tributors, who develop their own products. These are sold either to farmers 
and applicators, or to other, smaller distributors who send their own salesmen 
out in the field, to sell farmers and applicators. 

The distribution and sales of agricultural chemicals is very competitive. 
Salesmen are employed by the score and the pesticide products are pushed in 
heavy advertising campaigns. 

No one knows how many salesmen work the San Joaquin Valley — a new law 
requires them to register next year. In addition to selling products, they act 
as pesticide advisers, checking fields, and prescribing chemical treatments. 

Van den Bosch opposes this dual role, suggesting it has a built-in confiict of 
interest. He feels the pressure on the salesmen to sell gets in the way of 
ecological values and results in pesticide applications which are excessive, 
costly and inappropriate to good farming. 

Because he is critical of "the system," Van den Bosch is criticized, severely 
at times. Some chemical companies, distributors and salesmen accuse him 
of dealing in theory, and not doUar-and-cents facts. They charge he is a 
one-side advocate of biological (nonchemical) control. 

Van den Bosch, and the other university entomologists working with him 
in the major San Joaquin Valley cotton field tests, coimter by explaining 
they favor "integrated" use of chemicals and biological controls in programs 
scientifically and economically geared to farm needs, not sales promotions. 

A major chemical company's western regional director said, "We do pressure 
for sales, we are in a competitive business. But growers are sophisticated, 
selective buyers and they have the advice of our experts, university research, 
and private entomologists to fall back on. 

"We advocate integrated programs too, but without products like (a broad 
spectrum phosphate) Imperial Valley cotton growers would be out of 
business. We gave them a chance to check the pink bollworm, and to plant 
cotton. 

Dr. J. L. Reed, a Shell entomologist, in a recent speech said, "As a 
representative of an ethical agricultural chemical company, it is my purpose 
to recommend to all growers those chemicals, and the proper use of those 
chemicals, and other practices pertaining to i)est control, which will minimize 
their losses, provide maximum yields and, hopefully, maximize profits to 
the grower." 

Van den Bosch agreed most agriculture chemical companies, distributors and 



3813 

salesmen are ethical. His criticism is aimed broadly, at the entire system, 
and he is not alone. Privately, farm advisers, members of agriculture com- 
missioners' staffs and some grovs^ers admit the sales pressures are fierce. 

PBOTECTED SECRETS 

Lists of customers, the amounts and types of applications, the special 
formulations of combinations of different pesticides, all are legally protected 
"trade secrets." While applicators must register and record their work with 
the public, tax-supported county agriculture commissioner, this information 
is classified as secret. 

A private entomologist who has earned his living as a private crop consultant 
for two decades, gave an example of what Van den Bosch means : "We 
advised a potato grower * * * commercial, bacterial insecticide), but he was 
sold a broad-spectrum phosphate instead. The bacterial pathogen would have 
selectively killed the loopers, but would have left the predators. The phosphate 
wiped everything out." 

The potato grower was on the chemical treadmill, and his second and third 
sledge-hammer treatments compounded the bug problems. A good crop was 
turned into a disaster. 

One of California's largest cotton growers is cooperating with Van den Bosch 
in the West Side field trials. This grower said proper use of pesticides 
means an additional half to three quarters of a bale — $50 to $100 an acre, 
depending on the market. 

FAVORS LOWER COST 

Current pesticide applications cost cotton growers $30 to $60 an acre, on 
the average, and Van den Bosch feels this indicates over-kill. His tests, 
ranging over several thousand acres, show the treatment with an average 
$12 to $15 cost per acre produces the best economic yields. And some fields, 
where no treatment was made, produced the most profit. 

Kern County Farm Adviser Hodge Black said that in field tests the "no 
treatment" plots have consistently wound up in the upper half of the yield 
tabulations. 

"We are finding out bugs don't cause as much economic damage as we had 
thought," he concluded. 

Growers, farm advisers, university and chemical company entomologists 
agree the integrated chemical-biological approach is the besit. They also agree 
heavy pesticide applications are causing other, more complex problems. 

In some fields yields are * * ♦ acre, apparently due to some plant reaction 
to the pesticide chemicals. Black emphasized that while there is an obvious 
relationship between the lower yields and the chemical applications, "We just 
don't know what is happening." 

In the Imperial Valley, where pink boUworm is being attacked every fifth 
day, yields are down, costs are way up and the situation is desperate. Ed 
Swift, state coordinator for the University of California pesticide research 
programs, said "Things are so serious down there growers are talking about 
getting clear out of cotton every other year, in an attempt to disrupt the 
insect life cycle." 

'too little known' 

Swift, while he verbally is more cautious than Van den Bosch, tends to 
agree the i)esticide industry is sales-oriented and that too little is known 
about the economic and environmental "thresholds beyond which more 
pesticide means less profit and more problems." 

Then Swift pointed to another pressure on the farmer: "The housewife 
demands good-looking fruit." Shoppers will reject blemished, but whole- 
some citrus. In citrus, a bug called thrip causes a white ring on the outside, 
but no interior fruit damage. Growers spend $25 to $30 an acre getting rid 
of thrlD because ringed fruit does not sell. 

In the end all of this pesticide pressure and controversy fall back on the 
shoulders of the grower; he has the ultimate in responsibility. He has a 
season's investment tied up, and the busrs threaten his production. The inclina- 
tion is to kill the bugs, to keep ahead of infestations. 

The problem is by no means confined to crop yields and production losses. 



3814 

[From the Fresno Bee, Dec. 31, 1969] 

Poisoning Threatens Hundreds ; Field Hands Most Vulnerable 

(By Ron Taylor) 

This is the third of a series of five articles dealing with hazards to animal 
and plant life evolving from the use of agricultural pesticides and what can be 
and is being done to cope with the problem. 

In the next year 1,400 Californians will be poisoned or injured by pesticides 
or other agricultural chemicals. Nearly half will be disabled for a time, most 
will recover, but nine or 10 will die. 

These predictions are made from oflScial California occupational health 
records which show half the casualties will be farm workers. Of the 151 
pesticide and agricultural chemical-caused deaths reported over a 16-year 
period, 85 of the victims were children. 

These reports label farm work one of the most dangerous jobs around, 
primarily because of accidents with these deadly chemicals. And a current 
public health survey among farm workers indicates these statistics may only 
be the tip of a tragic, ugly iceberg. 

Dr. Thomas Milby, chief of the state occupational health division, said, 
"It is our belief that a major, yet unsolved problem in occut)ational disease, 
has to do with pesticides: We have to (1) find the extent of the problem, (2) 
identify the chemicals involved, and (3) design preventive protections." 

Extent of the problem? California is the only state which keeps farm labor 
occupational disease statistics. And these are skimpy, at best, because of 
the insidious nature of phosphate poisoning symptoms. Victims quite often 
look and feel as if they are coming down with the flu or a severe cold. 

The state pathfinding survey — Dr. Milby emphasized it was exploratory, 
and did not include medical testing — is turning ud hundreds of farm workers 
who seem to accept such symptoms as occupational hazards they neither under- 
stand nor can do anything about. 

Eight-five per cent of the 774 workers in one samole reported suffering 
at least one of the following symotoms : nausea, vomiting, excessive fatigue, 
excessive sweating, headaches, double vision, dizziness, skin irritation, difficult 
breathing, nervousness, insomnia, bleeding nose, diarrhea. 

Twenty percent had five or more of the symptoms. Only lengthy follow-up 
medical testing, and long term observation, can positively identify phostihate 
poisonines. Dr. Milby wants to make such a follow-up, and is seeking federal 
Food and Drug Administration funding. 

nerve signal breakdown 

Phosphate poisons destroy an enzyme called cholinesterase. This enzyme 
is a catalytic agent in the electro-chemical transmission of nerve signals 
from the brain to certain muscles. Phosphates destroy cholinesterase, then 
disappear. However, a certain blood test can measure cholinesterase levels 
and thereby detect phosohate ooisoning. 

Such poisoning can take place over a long period, at low exnosure rates, as 
the worker moves throusrh the field, picking up residues, breathing residue 
dust, or mixing and applying the'ch'emicals.' The slow absorption depresses the 
cholinesterase levels, causing respiratory problems and other symptoms which 
appear to be flu. Remove the exposure and the cholinesterase levels climb 
back to normal. 

The poison, in concentrated form, can take sudden, deadly effect : A 3-year- 
old child, playing in a field while her parents worked, found a bottle of the 
concentrated phosphate poison sitting on a tractor. She dipped her finger 
in, licked it, and was dead within a few minutes. 

The problems usually occur among the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. 
State reports show that of the 156 reports filed by aircraft operators, most 
of the occupational poisonines occurred among the workers who loaded or 
mixed the chemicals or who flaeeed in the field for the pilot. Of the persons 
poisoned, one-third were less than 20 years old. 

EMPHASIS BY UFWOC 

The controversy over pesticide problems among workers was brought into 
sharp focus by Cesar Chavez and his United Farm Workers Organizing Com- 
mittee (UFWOC). 



3815 

"The issue of health and safety of farm workers in California and through- 
out the United States," Chavez said, "is the single most important issue facing 
the UFWOC. Growers consistently use the wrong kinds of economic poisons 
in the wrong amounts in the wrong places." 

In the Imperial Valley, where cotton growers are attacking the pink boll- 
worm every five days with the most toxic pesticides available, a Farm Bureau 
official complained government pesticide safety regulations are "almost over- 
whelming. No known adverse consequences ever have resulted from the proper 
use of pesticides." 

Such statements demonstrate one of the controversial problems. "Proper 
use" should eliminate adverse consequences, but it does not always come 
out that way. The most graphic exception was a 1963 occurrence in Stanislaus 
County peach orchards. 

During the growing season farmers applied parathion, a phosphate, several 
times. Each application was made according to the rules and regulations. The 
applications were halted in plenty of time to let the chemicals break down 
into harmless residues before harvest crews went in. 

MANY AFFLICTED 

Yet 94 workers in six orchards suffered clinical pho.sphate poisoning. Several 
were hospitalized. One died. Follow-up investigation by the state showed 35 to 
85 percent of the entire peach harvest work force in the area — depending 
upon which orchard they were in — suffered "significant" phosphate poison 
problems. 

How? For some as yet unknown reason, the parathion did not break down 
into harmless residue, as it normally does. The workers, as they climbed 
ladders and reached into the foliage, brushed against and breathed in a 
chemical residue — a derivation of parathion — far more deadly than the 
original chemical applied. 

The inexplicable happened in the same area four years later, poisoning 25 
workers. Such poisonings date back to 1949, when DDT was king bug killer, 
but the insects were beginning to develop immunities. 

In 1949 there were six parathion cases reported ; in 1958 public health 
records show 11 phosphate cases involving 70 workers, were singled out for 
examination. In 1959 a series of phosphate incidents involved 275 orange 
pickers, cases quite similar to those of the peach harvests in 1963 and 1967. 

SPRAYED FROM AIR 

Chavez, in testimony to various congressional committees, has presented 
legislators with scores of case histories ; the California Rural Legal Assistance 
(CRLA) in six farm worker-pesticide poison personal injury suits, lists 
many more incidents. They include, for example, 48 strawberry pickers who 
contend they were sprayed by an airplane as they worked. 

Dr. Irma West, for nearly two decades a specialist in the field of occupa- 
tional health for the state public health service, explained, "The rapidly 
advancing technological changes in agriculture left the industry behind in 
dealing with occupational hazards, particularly with agricultural chemicals." 

Dr. West recognizes pesticides are needed and that these chemicals, used 
properly, do provide great benefits. But, she said, "Deaths and serious illness 
from acute pesticide poisoning — which occur regularly — are a tragic and un- 
necessary waste of human health and life." 

Throughout their writings and their talks. Dr. West and Dr. Milby repeatedly 
emphasize the need for more knowledge, more research. 

"We can, and should establish cholinesterase (blood) test studies," Dr. 
Milby said. "We have the ability, but what is lacking is the political decision 
to use this capacity." 

LOW CHOLINESTERASE LEVEL 

Dr. Lee Mizrahi, a private physician working with the Salud Clinic in 
southern Tulare County, had cholinesterase tests run on 58 farm worker 
children. Twenty seven of these young clinic patients showed a low cholin- 
esterase level which, by adult standards, indicated phosphate poisoning. 

All were children of farm workers, their age range from preschool toddlers 
to teen-aeers. Most have worked in the fields since they were old enough to 



3816 

carry a bucket. The great problem to Dr. Mizrahi and other doctors, is that 
there is no knowledge in this field ; no one knows what normal cholinesterase 
levels are in children. 

Dr. Mizrahi said, "This is a tragic, absurd situation, that, in 1969, a study 
by an obscure, rural doctor (himself) should be the first done on children — 
why, it is ridiculous." 

Because there is no knowledge in this field another pediatrician, in an 
urban area, has selected a control group of 60 youngsters who have had no field 
exposure to pesticides. This group is matched, age and sex, to see if some 
"normal" cholinesterase levels can be determined. 

AUSTRALIAN STUDY 

In adult populations, the lack of knowledge is almost as complete. Dr. West 
pointed to a brief study in 1961 in Australia, showing some persons who 
suffer phosphate exposures suflScient to produce symptoms also seem to undergo 
personality changes. The study noted depression, irritability, excessive fatigue, 
forgetfulness, nervousness, but as soon as the exposures were eliminated, 
these symptoms disappeared — within six months. 

In conclusion, she pointed out this may equate in some way with the high 
accident rates in agriculture. 

Tomorrow : A look at agricultural chemicals and pesticides in the environ- 
ment. 

[From the Fresno Bee, Jan. 1, 1970] 

Chemicals Upsbttting Nature's Balance? Authorities Differ 

(By Ron Taylor) 

This is the fourth of five articles dealing with hazards to plant and animal 
life evolving from the use of agricultural pesticides and what can be and is 
being done to cope with the problem. 

Agriculture's chemical technology — while producing an immediate cornu- 
copia — is a primary threat to the environment. The chemistry of pesticides 
and fertilizers cripples the life-sustaining balance between earth, air, plants, 
insects and animals. 

This is the belief of Dr. Barry Commoner, an aggressive environmental 
scientist from Washington University. Contrast his conclusion to the statement 
of Undersecretary of Agriculture J. Phil Campbell : 

"That there is environmental pollution is an undisputed fact. That it stems 
primarily from agricultural use of pesticides and plant nutrients is not a 
fact . . . studies indicate that nitrate found in ground water is not associated 
with fertilizer applied to the land." 

These opposing, divisive views well sum up the troublesome controversy over 
the effect of agricultural chemicals on the environment. Nowhere is this con- 
troversy more strongly debated than in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Campbell blames the press for distorting and exaggerating and falsely 
accusing agriculture. But the undersecretary's reference to "studies" indi- 
cates a variance from what other authorities accept as facts. 

The facts, now being uncovered by joint federal-state studies along the 
West Side of the San Joaquin Valley, show agricultural fertilizers are one 
major sources — ^but not the only source — of nitrates in ground water. These 
studies are designed to find ways to remove the nitrates from waters 
draining north into the San Joaquin Delta-San Francisco Bay. 

To argue the source of the nitrates is a defensive smoke screen. The pollut- 
ants are there, they were not a problem before man arrived, started farm- 
ing, imported water and fertilized the soil. 

But the argument over nitrates — and the other agricultural chemicals — 
demonstrates there is more here than a difference of opinion, and a lack of 
specific knowledge. Agriculture feels itself under attack and it is defen- 
sive. For two decades it has been going through a rapid, snowballing tech- 
nological revolution; it has found, through science, a production capacity 
unequaled anywhere in the world. 

The quick success brought with it an assumed self-righteous sanctity that 
says "don't criticize me, for I give you food." But now, the pellmell rush 



3817 

into modern farming, is proving to have some undesirable side effects. DDT 
and related chlorinated hydrocarbons appear to have harmful medical side 
effects. 

A few weeks ago the Fetleral Food and Drug Administration, (FDA) con- 
demned another large commercial fish catch. This time it was mackerel, caught 
by Los Angeles area commercial fishermen, which had too much DDT residue 
in the fish tissue. 

RHINE FISH TRAGEDY 

In Germany and Holland last svunmer a chlorinated hydrocarbon used 
the world over in orchards and vineyards, was blamed for killing tons of 
fish in the Rhine River. In California and Arizona, a broad-spectrum phosphate 
used extensively in cotton was found to be deadly to pheasant, quail and 
other birds. 

Such chemicals have the approval of the US Department of Agriculture, 
through its pesticide registration division, and the FDA sets residue tolerance 
levels. Each chemical is registerefl only after millions of dollars have been 
spent by the chemical manufacturer in research and testing. The USDA and 
FDA review the company findings and then establish safe use and residue 
tolerance limits. 

Yet, after all of this, such chemicals too often prove to have destructive 
environmental side effects. Dr. Commoner, in a recent talk to the California 
Governor's Conference on Changing Environment, warned, "In the search 
for benefits from science and technology, we have become enticed into a 
nearly fatal illusion, that we have escaped from the dependence of man on the 
rest of nature. 

EXPENSIVE GAINS 

"Much of the good that you have produced in California, through the 
intelligence and hard work of your people, has been won at terrible cost . . . 
that cost is the destruction of your environment . . . California has begun 
to experience environmental disaster from the intensive use of insecticides." 

Dr. Commoner referred to phosphate spraying as is now being conducted 
at five-day intervals in the Imperial "Valley. No bug, good or bad survives, 
but within a few days the pest populations, free of predators, and growing 
resistant to specific chemicals, explode into epidemic proportions. 

Azodrin, one of these highly toxic, broad spectrum phosphates, has become 
a mainstay in the cotton industry, despite the fact that the University of 
California has refused to recommend its use. From a bug-killing standpoint, 
it is one of the best. 

It is also showing unexpected side effects on wildlife. The California Fish 
and Game Department found it kills pheasants, quail and other birds. There 
are no "body counts" to indicate epidemic problems, but there is enough 
evidence to warrant the pesticide's assignment to the "injurious materials" 
restricted use list. 

ACCEPTS RESTRICTIONS 

The manufacturer. Shell Chemical, acknowledges the side effects. It volun- 
tarily agreed to the restrictions on use, and has worked closely with the fish 
and game oflScials in exploring the cause and effects of the problem. The 
company also has aided individual farm counties in preparing maps of 
areas where the product should not be used. 

Shell also warns its Azodrin customers that the product is a sledge hammer 
that kills all bugs including beneficial predators, and therefore it should 
not be used at certain times of the growing season. The company recommends 
other products — ^including those of competitors — ^be used when beneficial 
predators are needed in the cotton. 

No one I talked to questions the ethics or the honesty or the dedication of 
the chemical companies. But many scientists, government officials at all levels, 
and even some comriany ofiScials feel there is a snowballing effect in the use 
of agricultural chemicals because of sales pressures. 

BUILD-UP IN WELLS 

Dr. Commoner is most concerned about the nitrate build-uo in water. The 
US Public Health Service has reported several areas in California, including 



3818 

some in the San Joaquin Valley, have water wells with nitrate counts above 
the tolerance level of 45 parts per million. * ^ , ^. ^ „i,«^ 

High nitrate concentration in babies can result in a fatal disorder called 
methemoglobenemia. Dr. John Goldsmith of the California Department of 
Public Health said at a meeting in Delano in October, however, that no 
cases of the malady existed in California at that time. . ^ ^ 

The problem of nitrates in Delano water has been recognized for some time, 
although its extent in the city supply has been the subject of dispute. In 
1952 tests of Delano wells showed only "trace" nitrate levels. 

In 1966 at the request of the Delano Junior Chamber of Commerce the state 
tested the city wells and found "nitrate concentrations in excess of the (US 
Public Health) limit," 70 to 78 parts per million. r . „ ^v, ^ -.^ 

Last November, however, claims by a "Committee For Safe Water that ill- 
ness had resulted from drinking city water, prompted the Delano City 
Council to order an analysis by a private laboratory. City Manager Gerald 
Minford reported the test showed "the water very good for domestic and drink- 
ing purposes." 

EXTENDED SURVEY 

The state recently began a year long study in the Delano area. One part will 
consist of testing the blood of every baby bom in the Delano area. Another 
part will seek to determine if there is anything the babies eat or drink which 
would cause the nitrates to turn into nitrites within the body, which Dr. 
Goldsmith describes as "the really harmful chemical and the one that causes 
the problems." 

State and federal research teams at Firebaugh, on the West Side of the valley, 
say the denitrification of the San Joaquin Valley waters draining north to 
San Francisco will cost millions of dollars. If these nitrates are not removed, 
they would cause an ecological chain reaction which would seriously affect 
the delta area and San Francisco Bay. 

ALTERING OF SYSTEM 

The build-up of nitrates would create algae problems that in turn would 
"clog" the water and stream channel purification processes. The result would 
be pollution that, again in turn, would trigger changes in aquatic system and 
fish life. 

Dr. Commoner explained the environment is a huge, complex living machine, 
a delicate balance of inter-related causes and effect. 

"Every human activity depends upon the integrity and proper function 
of this living machine," he said. 

Without green plants there would be no oxygen ; without inter-action of 
aquatic plants and animals there would be no pure water ; without the 
biological processes in the soil there would be no food crops, no oil, no coal. 

Dr. Commoner's words often sound like those of a doomsday prophet He 
feels the heavy infusion of nitrates — chemical fertilizers — ^pollutes the under- 
ground waters and rivers which drain the San Joaquin Valley. 

"The agricultural wealth of the Central Valleys" he says, "has been gained 
at a cost that does not appear on the farmer's balance sheets — the general 
pollution of the state's huge underground water re- * * * 

"Most of Lake Erie has been lost to pollution. In Illinois every major 
river has been overburdened with fertilizer drainage and has lost the powers 
of self-purification. Every major city is experiencing worsening air pollution. 
The entire nation is in the grip of an environmental crisis." 

Next: What is being done? What can be done? 



[From the Fresno Bee, Jan. 2, 1970] 
Remedial Steps Confirm Farm Chemical Hazard 

(By Ron Taylor) 

This is the last of five articles dealing with hazards to animal and plant 
life evolving from the the use of agricultural pesticides and what can be and 
is being done to cope with the problem. 



^19 

After all the ambivalent generalities are uttered to mask prejudice in the 
illusion of objectivity, after each bitter argument dies, few can deny that 
agricultural chemicals create environmental problems. 

Pesticides are costing farmers money, productivity and the goodwill of 
urban neighbors; farm labor suffers pesticide poisoning in as yet undeter- 
mined numbers; wildlife is threatened by some poisons, and water is polluted 
by nitrates in some areas. 

While officials at all levels defensively proclaim agriculture's virtues— a 
point not in contention — government's halting steps toward corrective actions 
confirm the problems exist 

DDT and its chlorinated hydrocarbon relatives are being entirely banished 
from California, over a two-year period. New state licensing and registration 
programs, new and more stringent controls on agricultural chemical use are 
now being invoked at the state and federal levels. 

And these first, tentative steps give credence to Rachel Carson's warnings 
in her book "Silent Spring." Before looking at the new measures, examine 
how the system has worked. And remember, California leads the nation in 
the controlled, regulated use of agricultural chemicals and pesticides. 

State Agricultural Department Director Jerry Fielder explains California's 
pesticides registration program establishes an "injurious materials" list, 
requires posted notification of all pesticide use, demands that workers be 
informed on how to safely handle any pesticides they work with. In addition, 
the state conducts its own residue sampling program. 

While there are many regulations and codes, just one will demonstrate 
California's concern : "No injurious materials or restricted materials shall be 
applied under any circumstances or in any location where damage, illness, or 
injury appears likely to result, through direct application, drift or residue, 
to persons, animals, or crops other than the pest, or vegetation which the 
material was intended to destroy." 

In 1966-67 California registered 14,356 agricultural chemical compounds 
synthesized from 200 basic chemicals by 1,261 different manufacturers and 
distributors. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) also supervises 
and regulates these chemicals, and the Federal Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) establishes pesticide residue limits. 

All of this makes agricultural chemical use sound safe. However, the 
system does not always work. A federal General Accounting OflSce investiga- 
tion of the USDA i^esticide registration division revealed not one of the 
2,000 violations of UDSA pesticide regulations found over a two-year i)eriod 
was prosecuted. 

The assistant pesticide division director, Harold Alford, acknowledged there 
had been no prosecutions "for several years," but said some prosecutions are now 
"in the works." He exi>lained his division now has the authority to recall 
or revoke pesticide registrations. 

The USDA pesticide registration division does none of the product testing. 
It only inspects the chemical manufacturers' test records and data. The regis- 
tration is based on the review of the private producer's data. 

CONFISCATIONS 

The FDA, charged with maintaining a watch on products as they are 
sold, does some testing for pesticide residues. When violations are found, 
such as the Los Angeles area mackerel catch which contained too much 
DDT, the FDA confiscates the product. 

However, an internal FDA study group last year found the agency could not 
do the job it was charged with, because it was understaffed. The FDA is 
supposed to police 60,000 firms which produce $130 billion in products, yet it 
has only a^ ^72 million budget. 

In California, Dr. Thomas Milby, director of the occupational health 
division. State Public Heath Service, made a similar observation about Cali- 
fornia's pesticide regulation programs. Testifying before a congressional com- 
mittee recently, he observed the relatively few state and county inspectors 
must police chemical programs on 50,000 commercial firms. 

The system in California works primarily through the individual county 
agriculture commissioner and his staff. The ijesticide user must go to the commis- 
sioner's office and fill out detailed forms. The applications are checked, 



3820 

inspectors go into the field for spot cliecks of the work, and the staff advises 
and counsels farmers and commercial applicators on proper usage. 

EFFECTIVENESS DOUBTED 

Some commission staff people in various counties feel the system may 
look good, but they say the voluminous paper work does not control the 
pesticide treadmill which too often runs out of control. Sales competition, 
prejudice, fear, all contribute. 

One of these staffers put it this way, "There is a tendency on the part of 
the farmer to over-use pesticides. He wants to kill bugs. And there is a 
tendency on the part of the salesman to over-sell, because he wants to make 
money. We need pesticides, but we also need to police their use more strin- 
gently." 

A private entomologist, a professional insect and plant disease expert, 
commented, "The pesticide industry is product-oriented and profit-motivated." 

Starting Jan. 1, new state laws require each distributor to get a license, 
and each must register his sales staff. (For the first time, the total number of 
salesmen will be tallied.) Salesmen can no longer make an oral pesticide 
application recommendation. They must put it in writing. 

After Jan. 1 each application will be reported by chemical content, by 
amount, by specific location. All of this information will be fed into State 
Agriculture Department computers. No commercial applicators will be issued 
pesticide permits. From now on, farmers will have to purchase the pesticide 
and name the applicator on their purchase permits. 

INTEREST CONFLICT 

But even with these steps. University of California entomologist Robert 
van den Bosch feels the chemical pesticide industry and farmers are still on 
a self-destructing path. He feels there is a basic confiict of interest when a 
salesman acts as a pesticide diagnostician, advising the farmer whether or not 
he should treat, and with what chemical. 

"It is hard to conceive of a highly complex technology without a profession 
to implement it, and yet this is true in plant protection." he said. 

Bosch, whose West Side experiments in cotton cover thousands of acres, 
said, "It has been my experience in developing integrated (natural, biological 
and chemical) control programs that only after the grower has been backed 
to the wall by economic disaster does he seek alternatives to the traditional 
use of insecticides. 

"Until he is desperate, the farmer wants only the cheapest, most deadly, 
broadly toxic type of insecticides, and he is under constant pressure from 
the insecticide industry to use such products." 

What is being done to protect the workers? One expert from the agricul- 
ture industry — a man who works closely with growers — commented, "I think 
there is a danger to workers, now, and I believe Cesar Chavez is rieht in 
seeking protection for farm laborers who work in the fields. I think Chavez 
is wrong, however, to make an emotional issue out of it and use this In 
the boycott." 

CONTACT PROVISO 

To protect the farm workers under United Farm Workers Organizing 
Committee contract with the Perelli-Minetti vineyards near Delano, the 
UFWOC and the company have agreed to a "health and safety" clause in the 
contract. The clause establishes a grower-worker pesticide safety committee 
and snells out precautionary regulations. 

UFWOC Vice President Delores Huerta recently told a Congressional 
committee that all of the state and federal rules and regulations do not 
protect farm labor from pesticide poisoning. Chavez contends growers in an 
effort to boost profits consistently use the wrong chemicals in the wrong 
amounts at the wrong time. 

* * * pesticide effects on farm workers. The California public health ofiScials 
are conducting the "pathfinding" surveys for this study in California. This 
door-to-door San Joaquin Valley survey is turning un hundreds of workers and 
their families who report symptoms that could indicate phosphate poisoning. 



3821 

TEST KEQUIBED 

In the field of wildlife, Agriculture Department oflBcials at the state and 
federal level now require the chemical companies to test the effects of 
future pesticides on game birds before the product is registered. And USDA 
is now re-evaluating all those chemicals which have proved injurious to 
wildlife. 

A $3 million joint federal-state study is now under way to find ways to 
pull the nitrates and other pollutants out of San Joaquin Valley waters 
which will drain north into San Francisco Bay. 

All of these steps are, according to environmental experts, headed in the 
right direction. But they are also efforts to shut barn doors after the horses 
have scattered. All agree, too, that the pest pesticide approach is the use 
of natural predators, biological controls. 

Sterilization of male insects — effectively used in the Southeast to wipe out 
screwworm, and now used in the San Joaquin Valley against pink bollworm — 
is one such technique. Others include use of bacteria and virus which attack 
insects and diseases, sex traps, hormone changes. And entomologists are 
searching the world over for natural predators. 

SMALL RATIO 

In the past 80 years scientists have imported 520 predators, but only 20 
of them have done an effective job. Under Secretary of Agriculture J. Phil 
Campbell summed it up : "Most of these developments, however, are years 
away from widespread, practical use. For a considerable time, therefore, 
pesticides will continue to be our main weapon against pests. 

"The outlook is for stricter controls over pesticide production, packaging, 
labeling and fuse." 

These words sound reassuring, but so do the existing codes which 
prohibit the use of pesticides in any way which is injurious. 

Dr. Barry Commoner, Washington University environmental scientist con- 
cludes on a more somber note : "If we are to survive, the environment must be 
maintained as a balanced, harmonious whole. We must all work together to 
preserve it. If we fail, we shall abandon the place where we live — the thin 
skin of air, water, soil and living things on the planet earth — to destruction. 
The obligation which our technological society forces upon us is to discover 
how humanity can survive the new i)ower which science has given it." 



3822 



Behavioral and Electrophysiological 
Effects of Dieldrin in Sheep 




G. A. VanGelder 

C. A. VanGelder, D.V.M.*, B. E. Sandler, Ph.D.^ 
B. Buck, D.V.M.*, J. B. Maland, B.S.^, G. G. Karas, 
Ph.D.^, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 



Alterations in the EEGs of sheep exposed to dieldrin occurred prior to clinical 
toxicity. Behavioral investigations of the effect of dieldrin exposure in sheep have 
produced the following results: Dieldrin had no effect on the extinction of a 
conditioned avoidance response, or on the learning of a detour problem. Dieldrin 
exposure had a deleterious effect on the relearning of a visual discrimination 
problem. Preliminary work has indicated that dieldrin exposure causes a 
decrement in the performance of a vigilance task. 



i^ur laboratory has taken a functional approach to 
^-^ the investigation of the effects of pesticide 
exposure. Valuable insights into the nature of pesti- 
cide toxicity may be gained by studying the intact 
organism in its interactions with its environment. 
This philosophy has resulted in the development of a 
multidisciplinary team approach to the problem. The 
disciplines of toxicology, psychology, physiology, 
biomedical electronics and pathology have been suc- 
cessfully integrated in the development of methods 
for the evaluation of the biological effects of pesti- 
cides. 

Prcsenlc'" at the Sixth Inter-American Conference on Toxi- 
cology and Occupational Medicine, University of Miami, 
Coral Gables, Florida. 

•Toxicology Section, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory 
♦Psychology Department 



The sheep was selected as the experimental animal 
for the following reasons: 1) it is a relatively large 
brained mammal, 2) it is placid and quiet, offering 
little danger or inconvenience to the experimenter, 
and 3) it is particularly suitable for use with the 
telemetric techniques of physiological monitoring as 
it does little scratching, rolling or rubbing. Dieldrin 
was selected as the neurotoxicant to be investigated 
because of its widespread use in agriculture and 
because of its persistence in the animal body. 

Dural electrodes were chronically implanted bilat- 
erally over the frontal, parietal, and occipital cerebral 
cortex. The electrodes terminated in a mass of dental 
acrylic anchored to the skull. The electroencephalo- 
grams of the unrestrained sheep were recorded via 
battery-powered, dual channel, FM radio transmit- 
ters, and were recorded on an ink-writing polygraph. 

INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 1969 



3823 



The animals were continuously observed on closed 
circuit television. Control recordings were made from 
each sheep during the day and evening for a one or 
two week pre-exposure period, after which exposure 
to orally administered dieldrin was begun. 

The EEG changes observed prior to clinical tox- 
icity consisted of bursts or spindles of high amplitude 
(200-300 ^v). slow waves (4-5 Hz) occurring in one 
or more leads (Figure 1). These bursts usually 
occurred simultaneously in all leads and were of one 
to three seconds duration. The occurrence of these 
slow waves was related to dosage. As exposure 
continued the slow wave activity occurred more 
frequently and was of greater duration. With suffi- 
cient exposure convulsive seizures occurred and the 
EEG consisted of high amplitude fast waves with 
some spike-wave complexes similar to those seen in 
petit mal epileptic seizures. The post convulsive EEG 
was irregular with high amplitude, slow frequency 
components present. 

The presentation of high intensity, variable fre- 
quency strobe has precipitated convulsive seizures in 
exposed sheep prior to the occurrence of clinical 
toxicity. Further investigation with the use of repeti- 
tive auditory stimulation is under way. 

Before discussing the behavioral work done in our 
laboratory a comment on the necessity of utilizing 
behaviorial techniques in the investigation of the 
effects of neurotoxicants is appropriate. It must be 
remembered that it is the ability to behave in an 
appropriate manner in a particular situation which 
determines in large measure the survival of the 
animal, and to an extent that of the species. There- 
fore, if neurotoxicants are capable of affecting beha- 
vior it is important that we be aware of this. Subjects 
must be studied with a variety of behavioral mea- 
sures which test both their learning and performance 



\ 



capabilities. It is only when this is done that the 
behavioral effects of neurotoxicants may be evalu- 
ated. 

In an avoidance experiment 20 sheep were trained 
to a 90% criterion to make a conditioned avoidance 
response (CAR) following the presentation of a 
conditioned stimulus (CS) in order to avoid an 
unconditioned stimulus (UCS). The CAR consisted 
of jumping a 12-inch barrier, the CS was a light and 
the UCS was a mild electric shock. Ten of the sheep 
were then exposed to dieldrin, and extinction trials 
were conducted. Dieldrin had no effect on the num- 
ber of trials to extinction, response latency, or the 
number of spontaneous barrier crossings. 

The effect of dieldrin on detour behavior has also 
been investigated. In a detour problem the animal 
encounters a barrier along the most direct route to a 
goal object, in this case a food reward. Dieldrin had 
no effect on the time it took the sheep to circumvent 
the barrier and reach the food reward. 

The effect of dieldrin on visual discrimination 
learning in sheep was investigated through the use of 
a Y maze (Figure 2). Six adult female sheep were 
used in this study. In this situation the animal was 
placed in the start box and when the guillotine door 
was opened had to approach one of two geometric 
symbols, presented simultaneously in the ends of the 
arms of the maze, in order to avoid a mild electric 
shock. One symbol was arbitrarily designated as 
correct. The animals were given 20 trials per day and 
training was continued until a criterion of 70% cor- 
rect responses for three successive days was reached. 
The sheep were trained to criterion on two problems, 
matched for performance, and one member of each 
pair was exposed daily to an oral dose of 10 mg 
dieldrin kg B.W. The sheep were then trained on a 
third problem. If criterion was reached on this prob- 




GUILLOTIN 
DOOR 



FicuRF 1. Simultaneous high amplitude 9.\ov. w;ue FEG 
activity in a sheep exposed to 25 mg dieldrin per kg B W. 



FiouRF 2. Diagram of Y maze used in visual discrimination 
study. 



3824 



Table 1. Analysig of Variance of Mean Trials 
to Criterion in the ¥ Maze Stuth 



Source 



MS 



Dieldrin 

error (a) 

Conditions 

Dieldrin X Conditions 

error (b) 



83.37 
27 70 
14.36 
144.29 
8.72 



1.65 
16.55* 



'•p < .01 

lem in less than 30 days a fourth problem was 
presented. Only one sheep met criterion on problem 
three and received training on problem four. The 
other five sheep failed to master problem three in the 
30 days. All sheep were then tested for recall of 
problem one. 

An analysis of variance (Table 1 ) performed on 
the number of trials required to learn, and then to 
relearn, problem one indicated that there was a 
highly significant (p<.01) interaction between diel- 
drin exposure and relearning (Figure 3). This means 
that the number of trials necessary to relearn problem 
one was dependent upon whether or not the animals 
were exposed to dieldrin. It should be noted that the 
number of sheep used in this experiment was small, 
three in each group, and for that reason it is being 
replicated. Thus, the present data must be viewed as 
preliminary, and care must be taken in generalizing 
from these findings. 

Operant conditioning has proved to be a useful 
and flexible tool in psychopharmacological research. 
An operant conditioning apparatus suitable for use 
with sheep has been developed and is being used to 
study several types of behavior. It should be empha- 
sized that the experiments reported here represent 
pilot work. This work was undertaken to study the 



feasibility and effectiveness of operant conditioning 
in the investigation of the toxic effects of dieldrin. 
These studies provide an indication of the techniques 
used and the results found. It must be emphasized 
that the results, while intriguing, are not definitive. 
More work is necessary and is being conducted. 

The sheep were tested individually in the test 
chamber as shown in Figure 4. The apparatus was 
under programmed control. Prior to being brought 
into this situation the sheep were reduced to 85% of 
their free feeding body weights. They were .then 
trained to eat from the food hopper, and were 
habituated to the presentation and retraction of the 
hopper. Behavior compatible with the pedal-pressing 
response was selectively reinforced by the use of 
shaping techniques. Pressure on the pedal closed a 
switch which caused the food hopper to be presented 
to the animal for a predetermined period of time. In 
a short time the animal began to press the pedal. 

One animal was trained to respond on a fixed ratio 
schedule of 40: 1. That is, the pedal had to be pressed 
40 times before the food hopper was presented. After 
establishing a baseline of stable responding on this 
schedule the animal was exposed daily to an oral 
dose of 1 5 mg dieldrin/kg B.W. This study is in 
progress and no results are available. 

It has been mentioned that hypersynchronous slow 
waves occur in the EEG of sheep exposed to dieldrin. 
Mirsky and Rosvold^ have reported that this type of 
EEG activity is associated with impaired attentive- 
ness on a vigilance task. Because of the similarity of 
the EEG activity reported by Mirsky and Rosvold 
and that observed in our laboratory an attempt was 
made to determine whether this type of EEG activity 
observed in dieldrin toxicity was also associated with 
impaired attentiveness. 




Figure 3. Interaction between dieldrin exposure and re- 
learning found in Y maze study. 



FicuRt 4. OperaiU test 
food hopper. 



chamber with subject eating from 



3825 



Through the use of successive approximation tech- 
niques two sheep were trained to bar press for food. 
The animals were then trained to bar press only in 
the presence of a 5 KHz tone of 6 db intensity. As 
training progressed the duration of the tone was 
gradually reduced to 0.1 second. If the animals bar 
pressed within five seconds after the presentation of 
the tone there was an automatic presentation of food 
(corn) for 3.5 seconds. The electronic control cir- 
cuitry was programmed so that a period of 30 
seconds had to elapse between bar presses before the 
tone was presented. If the sheep bar pressed during 
this interval, the control circuitry automatically reset 
the 30 second interval. When the sheep reached a 
stable response level to tone presentations, bilateral 
dural recording electrodes were surgically implanted 
over the frontal, parietal, and occipital cortex. After a 
two-week postoperatfve recovery period, three days 
of control EEC and vigilance performance data were 
collected. Then the animals were exposed to a daily 
oral dose of 20 mg dieldrin/kg body weight for three 
and four days, respectively. The sheep were given a 
minimum of 100 tone presentations per day and their 
EEGs were recorded continually throughout the ex- 
posure period. Upon termination of exposure the 
animals were given 50 tone presentations per day 
until they responded at their pre-exposure rates. 



During the pre-exposure period the sheep re- 
sponded to an average of 82% of the tone presenta- 
tions. By the second day of exposure, response 
decrements of 63% and 58% were noted. 

The following points should be emphasized : ( 1 ) the 
animals showed no signs of clinical toxicity, (2) when 
food was presented in the operant chamber they ate 
eagerly indicating that the performance decrement was 
not due to loss of appetite and, (3) the animals mani- 
fested a definite orienting response (head and ear 
movements) when the tone was presented, indicating 
that although the bar press was not made the tone was 
heard. By the eighth day after termination of exposure 
the sheep were again responding at their pre-exposure 
rates. 

References 

1 MiRSKY, A. F., and Rosvold, H. E. Behavioral and Phys- 
iological Studies in Impaired Attention Psychopharmaco- 
lofiical Methods. Z. Votava, editor. 302-315, New York: 
The Macmillan Company. 1963. 

2 CoNLEY, B. E. Occupational Dieldrin Poisoning. J.A.M.A. 
172:2077-2080, 1960. 

3 Spiotta, E. J., and Winfield. D. L. Case Report of Aldrin 
Poisoning with Special Reference to EEG and Central 
Nervous System Findings. Electroencepb. Clin. Neurophys- 
iol. 4: 215-217. 1952. 



Reprint requests: Industrial Medicine and Surgery, P.O. 
Bex 546. Miami, Fla. - 33156 



Ce sefiala la importancia que tiene determinar funciones 
tales como la memoria, y sentido de descriminacion des- 
pues de la administracion de dieldrin y otros insecticidas. Se 
observan en animales de experimento alteraciones en el encef- 
alograma siete horas despues de la accion de los insecticidas. 



Estas manifestaciones son previas al cuadro clinico. El uso 
de la radiotelemetria y la television en circuito cerrado es de 
importancia en la observacion de animales que continuaron 
en su vida normal. 



36-513 O - 70 - Pt.6C - 10 



3826 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

30 

31 

32 



SELECTED BRIEFS 



JAMES D. LORENZ, JR. 

1212 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94102 

Telephone: (415) 863-4911 

BURTON D. FRETZ 

126 West Mill Street 

Santa Maria, California 93454 

Telephone: (805) 922-4563 

RALPH ABASCAL 
1212 "F" Street 
Marysville, California 95901 
Telephone: (916) 742-5191 

MICHAEL BRENNAN 
335 Perkins Street 
McFarland, California 93250 
Telephone: (805) 529-8452 

Attorneys for Petitioners 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 



In re ARTURO GONZALES, TEOFILO 
GARCIA, ADELINA GURROLA, 
MAGDELENA HERNANDEZ, ANA 
BUITRON, JOSE SANCHEZ, 
FLAZIANO NANO and MIGUEL 
PADILLA 

Petitioners 



NO. 

PETITION FOR THE DECLARATION 
OF PESTICIDE EMERGENCY IN THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 
PESTICIDE SAFETY PROGRAM 



TO: The Honorable Clifford Hardin, Secretary of the 
United States Department of Agriculture and The 
Honorable Robert Finch, Secretary of the United 
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare 

This petition is filed on behalf of ARTURO GONZALES, 
TEOFILO GARCIA, ADELINA GURROLA, MAGDELENA HERNANDEZ, ANA BUITRON, 
JOSE SANCHEZ, FLAZIANO NANO and MIGUEL PADILLA pursuant to 
Sections 135, 135d and 135k of 7 U.S.C, and Section 346a of 21 
U.S.C. and 21 C.F.R. §120. 32(a). All of the petitioi^ars are farm 
workers and all have been injured by pesticides registered and 
regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture, and 
regulated by the United States Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare. All of the petitioners are indigent. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 



3827 



THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM IS AS FOLLOWS: 

I 
Since World War II, the use of toxic chemicals to control 
pests has been expanded enormously. Each year over one billion 
pounds of pesticides are now manufactured for use in the United 
States, including more than 200,000,000 pounds for use in 
California, Sixty-thousand different trade names are regis- 
tered for use in the United States, including some 14,3 56 in 
California, covering over 200 various basic chemicals. The 
enormous growth of the use of economic poisons in the last 25 
years is similar in magnitude to the growth of the use of motor 
vehicles in this country after World War I. Economic poisons can 
be and are far more dangerous than motor vehicles, though they are 
much less carefully regulated, 

II 

Largely because of its high use of economic poisons, 
California agriculture has consistently had the highest rate of 
occupational illness, injury and death of any industry in the Stat^ 
Up until December, 1969, the California State Department of Public 
Health reported the occupational disease rate to be 11.9 for 
every 1,000 agricultural workers, or more than 2-1/2 times the 
average for all industrial divisions in the State, which was 4.5 
per thousand. From 1951 to 1967, 151 persons in California were 
reported to have suffered accidental deaths as a result of contact 
with economic poisons. Thirty-four of these fatalities occurred 
while persons were working in agriculture. 

Ill 
Large though these estimates of injury may seen, the 
State Department of Public Health has continually issued warnings 
that ilG cstiri;:tcr. have been understated. As Lhe State Dcpnrt- 
^>nt of i'^bl'tc'-'';fV^^^/Fn£'&S^^iiP?'S«^ 

-2- 



3828 



released (up until December 10, 1969) have been based only upon 
The Doctors First Report of Worker Injury , which are sent to the 



Department only when an injured worker reports to a doctor, 
receives medical treatment, misses a day of work and applies for 
workmen's compensation. Until December 10, 1969, the State's 
statistics were not based upon any consideration of injuries which 
involved less than a day of work, or which were not reported to 
doctors, or which did not involve a workmen's compensation claim. 
The State's figures also failed to include occupational injuries 
incurred by self-employed farmers and unpaid family labor, who 
make up 28% of the California agricultural work force, and did not 
include injuries suffered by self-employed one-man operations in 
structural and agricultural pest control work. As the State 
Department of Public Health stated in its 1965 report, "The 
Doctors First Report of Worker Injury usually describes only 
acute illness caused by agricultural chemicals. Information is 
needed about possible long term effects; of continuous exposure to 
agricutlur.al chemicals and about sequel ie resulting from acute 
episodes." ( Occupational Disease in California Attributed to 
Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals - 1965 , p. 21.) 



VI 

On December 10, 1969, the State Department of Public 

Health released a report indicating the extent to which previous 

figures on the pesticide injury rate had been badly underestimated 

and announced more realistic estimates of the actual number of 

injuries caused by pesticides in California agriculture. The 

report stated: 

"The evidence for this has evolved from a recent 
pilot study conducted by a federally funded pro- 
ject administered by be Department which suggests 
that only a fraction of pesticide poisonings come 
to the attention of official agencies, under pre- 
sent circumstances. Between January, 1968, and 
September, 1969, forty cnses of sy£;tcmic effects 
(nausea, dizziness, etc.) attributed to organo- 
phosphatf! insecticides, sucli as parathion, were 

-3- 



3829 



reported by physicians f under California Work- 
men's Compensation program, among Tulare County 
agricultural laborers. Since there are a minimum 
of 18,000 field laborers employed in the County 
at all times, this translates into an incidence 
rate of less than 1.3 cases per 1,000 workers 
per year. 

"During the same period of time, nearly 200 
persons in a house-to-house survey of 1,120 Tulare 
County farm laborers reported the same types of 
systemic effects, and went to a physician for 
treatment — but paid the fee themselves, or had 
it paid by the Medi-Cal program, and thus do not 
appear in VJorkmen ' s Compensation data. This 
translates into a rate of about 150 cases per 
1,000 workers per year. And it leaves out of 
account a large number of farm laborers who said 
that they experienced the same types of symptoms 
but did not seek medical care, and hence could 
not appear in any of the official statistics," 
(State Department of Public Health, A Report to 
the 1970 Legislature on the Effects of the Use of 
DDT land] similar Pesticides on Human Health and 
the Environment , Part III, p. 1.). 

Thus, according to statistics released in the last three months, 

by the State Department of Public Health, the acutal pesticide 

injury rate among farm workers in California is 150 per 1,000 

workers, or almost 14 times the rate previously supposed, and 33 

times the average injury-illness rate for all industries in the 

State. 

V 

Since the statistics contained in the State Department 
of Public Health's December 10th report were based solely on those 
injuries which were treated by doctors, they still failed to 
report those injuries which did not occasion a visit to the 
doctor's office. If the latter kinds of injuries are also 
considered, the pesticide injury rate among farm workers turns 
out to be still higher than the already astronomically high figure 
reported by the State Department of Public Health in its 
December 10th report. One of the interviewers involved in the 
State's field investigation reported in August, 1969, that of the 
774 workers who filled out questionnaires which~are now in tbe 
possession of the State, 548, or 71?;,- reported "tHat they ha'd ■ 

-4- 



3830 



suffered eye irritation as a consequence of contacts with pesti- 
cides; 309, or 40% reported headaches; 249, or 32%, skin irrita- 
tion, 188, or 25%, difficulty in breathing; 145, or 18%, unusual 
fatigue; 141, or 18%, nausea or vomiting; 122, or 16%, nervous- 
ness and insomnia; 115, or 15%, dizziness; 52, or 7%, pain in 
the fingernails; 51, or 7%, burning and sore throats; and 26, or 
3%, nosebleeds. (Statement of Cesar Chavez, Director of the 
United Farmworkers Organizing Committee, before the Senate 
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, as reported in the Congressional 
Record, Vol. 115, No. 161, October 3, 1969.) Over 80% of 
the farm workers injured suffered some injury or illness, which 
means that during the current year, for every 1,000 farm workers, 
800 are likely to suffer some kind of injury from pesticides. 

This is an injury-illness rate of 800 per thousand, or 
160 times the tabulated injury-illness rate for all industries in 
the State. Since there are approximately 200,000 farm workers 
in California, it can be estimated that the number of workers who 
will suffer some illness or injury from pesticides this year is in 
the neighborhood of 160,000. Even if this number, which is 
astronomical, were to be divided by four, 40,000 workers would be 
injured this year, based upon present estimates. 

But this only begins to describe the problem. 

VI 
Not only are pesticides responsible for the highest 
frequency of injuries in the State, they also cause injury which 
is much more serious than that suffered in other situations. As 
the State Department of Public Health reported in 1966: "The 
severity of illness caused by agricultural chemicals is indicated 
by the greater frequency with which workers were expected to lose 
tiiiio from wor): with such illness, as well as hy the greater fre- 
quency with wliich they are hospitalized, . compared with occupa-— 
tional i]lnc-.c.ii irom all rous.es ... .Forty perceni/of >vorkers with 

-5- 



3831 



occupational disease attributed to agricultural chemicals were 
expected to lose some time from work, nearly twice the proporatior. 
as for all Inon-pesticide] agents. Ten percent of such workers 
were hospitalized, almost three times the proportion of those 
hospitalized for illness from all causal agents." ( Occupational 
Disease in California Atributed to Pesticides and Other Agri- 



cultural Chemicals - 1966. ) 



VII 
Of all the pesticides that are now used in the United 
States, the most toxic is the organic phosphate family, which 
includes Tepp, parathion, thimet, phosdrin, demeton, EPN , and 
methyl-parathion. Originally developed by the Germans during 
World War II as the central ingredient in nerve gas, organic 
phosphate chemicals were converted for agricultural use after 
1945. As the Technical Bulletin for Physicians points out, 
"it is the phosphate ester lorganic phosphate] pesticides with 
which the physician should be most familiar. Among them are the 
most hazardous of all pesticides,..." (State Department of Public 
Health, Diagnosis and Treatment of Phosphate Ester Pesticide 
Poisoning, Technical Bulletin for Physicians , p. 2.) A single 



drop of Tepp on the skin can prove fatal. Parathion, the most 
widely used of the organic phosphates, is at least 120 times more 
toxic to the human skin than is DDT. An oxygen analog of para- 
thion, paraoxon, which can form as a residue on foodstuffs sprayed 
with parathion, is 10 times more toxic than is parathion. Thimet 
and Phosdrin are also more powerful than parathion, and are 
approximately 130 times more toxic than DDT, 

VIII 
At least 55 million pounds of highly toxic organic 
phosphates were used in the United States in 1967, approximately, 
a quarter of v;hicli were used in Calii^ornia. 1, 152 , 819 _pounds 
alone were applied in Imperial County, Calif orni.-i .. in 1967, as 

-6- 



3832 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 



opposed to only 369,691 pounds of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesti- 
cides (including DDT) — or three times the quantity of less 
toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons applied. (State Department of 
Public Health, Occupational Disease in California Attributed to 
Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals - 1967 , p. 3.) 



IX 

Given their high toxicity and frequency of use, it is 
not surprising that the organic phosphates are today the main 
killers and cripplers of agricultural workers in California. In 
1966, the organic phosphates were deemed to be responsible in 
74% of the serious pesticide injuries reported to the State's 
doctors.— Of the less serious occupational disease reported to 
doctors in 1967, organic phosphates were implicated in 22% of the 
cases, or twice as many cases as involved in the next most 
injurious category of compounds. In 1966, organic phosphates were 
involved in 19% of the reported cases of less serious occupational 
injury. (State Department of Public Health, Occupational 
Disease in California Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agri- 



cultural Chemicals - 1967 , p. 12.) Forty-four percent of all the 
persons who have been killed by pesticides while they have been 
working have been killed by organic phosphates. (State Depart- 
ment of Public Health, supra , p. 8.) 

X 

Despite efforts by the State Department of Public Health, 
to warn farm workers, and the public generally about the dangers 
of organic phosphate pesticides, farm workers have repeatedly 
been struck by epidemics of organic phosphate illness. In July, 
1949, in Marysville, California, at least 56 men became seriously 
ill while picking pears covered with parathion residue, despite 



1/ 

Serious injuries are usually referred to as "systemic poison- 
ings" or those general! r.cd illncnscs caused by toxic substances 
in which signs and systcii\s are present in more -than one system of 
the body. 

-7- 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



3833 



the fact that a residue analysis, done two days before the picking 
started, had indicated that the parathion residues were not high 
on the fruit. At least 20 to 25 of the men were hospitalized. 
(Quinby and Lemmon, Parathion Residues As a Cause of ■' Poisoning 
in Crop Workers , Journal of the American Medical Association, 



Vol. 166, No. 7, February 15, 1958, pp. 740, 741-42.) In May, 
1951, near Delano, California, 16 men were hospitalized after 
having picked grapes sprayed with parathion. (Quinby and Lemmon, 
supra , p. 741.) In August, 1952, in Riverside, California, 10 men 



were hospitalized after picking oranges sprayed with parathion. 
In July, 19 53, in Riverside, California, 7 orange pickers became 
ill; and within the same month, 2 more outbreaks occurred in the 
same county. (Quinby and Lemmon, supra , p. 742.) In 1959, more 
than 275 orange pickers were poisoned ina series of outbreaks, 
despite the fact that the organic phospherous pesticide residue 
level on the crop was well below the legal tolerance (1 ppm of 
parathion) set by the State Department of Agriculture (West, 
Occupational Disease of Farm Workers , Archives of Environmental 



Health, Vol. 9, July, 1964, pp. 92, 95.) In 1963, in Stanislaus 
County, 95 peach pickers became clinically ill as a result of 
contact with parathion residues, and over one-third of the group 
(which was working in three orchards) was hospitalized. (Millbe, 
et al., Parathion Residue Poisoning Among Orchard V?orkers , Journal 
of the American Medical Association, Vol. 189, No. 5, August 3, 
1964, pp. 351, 352.) Although after the 1963 epidemic, the State 
Department of Agriculture passed more stringent restrictions on the 
use of parathion on peaches, another outbreak of organic phosphate 
poisoning among peach pickers occurred in Stanislaus County in 
1967, this time seriously afflicting at least 25 workers. (State 
Department of Public Health, Occupational Disease, in California 
Attri buted to Pesticides and Othor Aariculturg ] • ClVcmicnlG - 1907 , 
rT 13.) .JLi.:-^:^.. ..^.^.C/Si^-'iA , , .-.-.'rp ;m-UiS-«;i»;-'r?. r t«!»K;:.'-^!»^:■^T' •.■ *J*!?i,'e*W.-.'t-W'o ;s--'-t.'v"-.>' ^Kc: 

-8- 



3834 



issued any further reports indicating whether any, subsequent 
pesticide epidemics have occurred. 

,XI 

Not only are the organic phosphate pesticides responsible 

for more frequent injuries to farm workers, they also cause more 

serious injuries. Almost half of the occupational fatalities 

resulting from pesticides involve the organic phosphate chemicals. 

Reported the State Department of Public Health in 1966: 

"For illness attributed to organic phosphate 
pesticides, physicians advise their patients to 
take time off from work even more frequently than 
for all agricultural chemicals, and found it neces- 
sary to hospitalize more than one in four of these 
patients." (State Department of Public Health, 
Occupational Disease in California Attributed to 
Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals - 
1966 , p. 8.) 

Once back on the job, the farm worker who has been injured by 

organic phosphates must refrain from any further contact with 

organic phosphate chemicals or with their residues, if he wishes 

to avoid subsequent injury. 

XII 
Children are the age-group most likely to be seriously 
afflicted by toxic pesticides. Not aware of the dangers and 
unable to read highly technical language on pesticide containers, 
children, not surprisingly, have accounted for 60% of the 
accidental deaths attributable to pesticides. (State Department 
of Public Health, Occupational Disease in California Attributed 
to Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals - 1966 , p. 2.) 



The children of farm workers, who accompany their parents to the 
fields, are the most vulnerable of all to injury. Injury may 
come to them in a variety of ways, such as contact with discarded 
pesticide containers. Illustrative is a case reported to the 
Stato Department of Public Healtli in 1965. While a group of 
Mcxicun-American farm workers were picking berries on a" large 
ranch, a three-^c-ir old girl and laa- ^^nnr- yeaj r o i " l ii'otiior " . ^ Gre 

-9- 






3835 



' I playing around an unattended spraying next to where their mother 
2 1 was working. The four-year old took the cap of a gallon can of 
' I Tepp left on the rig. The three-year old put her finger in it and 
^■sucked it. She vomited immediately, became unconscious, and was 
5 D dead on arrival at the hospital. The child weighed 30 pounds; she 
^ I had taken a dose lethal enough to have killed a 200-pound man 
7 
8 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 



XIII 

The occupational group in the agricultural industry 
which is most afflicted by pesticide injuries and diseases are 
farm workers. Forty-nine percent of all pesticide injuries report*: 
in 1967, for example, involved farm workers. (The next most 
affected occupational groups, "other laborers," and "semi-skilled 
operators," each accounted for 15% of the injury reports.) (State 
Department of Public Health, Occupational Disease in California 
Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals - 1967 , 
p. 19.) 

Farm workers employed in the San Joaquin Valley account 
for the majority of all pesticide injury reports filed for 
agriculture. In 1965, for example, farm workers in the San 
jJoaquin Valley were involved in 53.9% of the injury reports filed, 
(State Department of Pubic Health, supra , p. 14.) 

A pesticide accident described by the State Department 
of Public Health in 1964 is indicative of the kind of danger 
which these farm workers face. 



"Twenty-five farm workers in the San Joaquin 
Valley became suddenly ill with the nausea, 
headaches, giddiness, blurred vision, sweating, 
and other symptoms typical of phosphate ester 
poisoning. They had been unloading bags of 
Thimet-treated cotton seeds from trucks, loading 
the planters, and piling and burning the empty 
bags. No washing facilities or protective 
clothing were available to these workers." 
(West, Occupational Disease of Farm Workers , 
Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 9, 
31 U July, 1964, pp. 92-96.) 



32 IfFurthermore , they had not been tolc) what pesticirde they were^ 

-10- 



3836 



dealing with or the extent of danger posed to them or what pre- 
cautions to take to avoid injury. 

XIV 
Not only are pesticide injuries in agriculture numerous 
and serious, but they are increasing. From 1964 to 1965, the 
State Department of Public Health reported that the pesticide 
injury rate in agriculture increased 6%, (State Department of 
Public Health, 1965 Report, p. 8.) From 1965 to 1966, the injury 
rate increased 8%. (State Department of Public Health, 1966 
Report, p. 5.) From 1966 to 1967, the last year in which surveys 
were made by the State, the injury rate increased 33-1/3%, (State 
Department of Public Health, 1967 Report, p. 7.) 

XV 

This injury rate is likely to climb even higher in the 

future. The growth of pesticide injuries in California has been 

paralleled by an increase of the use of pesticides in agriculture, 

particularly of organic phosphate compounds. From 1960 to 1966, 

the use of organic phosphates increased by at least 160%, as oppose 

to a growth of 25% for all other pesticides. With the prohibition 

of the use of DDT in California and in other parts of the United 

States, organic phosphates will be used even more frequently 

in the future, and, unless adequate steps are taken, the pesticide 

injury rate will increase correspondingly. As the State Department 

of Public Health concluded in its December 10th report: 

"It has been predicted by pest control specialists 
that as the usage of DDT and other persistent 
organochlorine compounds is eliminated, increasingly 
great amounts of organophosphate pesticides will be 
used both on the farm and in the home. Since the 
members of this latter family of chemicals are 
generally more toxic to humans than are the organo- 
chlorines it is possible, or even likely that 
we will witness an increase in the incidence of 
both occupatiJcnal and home pesticide morbidity." 
(State Department of Public Health, A Report to 
the 1970 Leqislal-uro on the Effects of the Use of 
DDT [and] Similar Pesticides on Human Hea-H:h and 
the Environment , Part III, p. 2v) 



3837 



1 XVII 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 



Since the growing season begins in March in most parts 
of California, and in many other parts of the United States, and 
the use of pesticides increases markedly in the growing season, and 
because organic phosphate pesticides are likely to be used even 
more frequently this year than they have been in past years, a 
pesticide emergency now exists in the State of California and in 
the United States. This period of extreme danger will continue 
throughout the primary growing and harvesting season, from March 
through October, when over 75% of the year's pesticide injuries 
normally occur. 



2/ 



XVI 

The dangers posed by pesticides, particularly by organic 

I 
phosphate chemicals, are not restricted to the State of California, 

but exist throughout the United States where organic phosphates j 

are used. Petitioners are informed and believe and on the basis ' 

of such information and belief allege that four-fifths of the i 

I 

organic phosphate pesticides manufactured in the United States are 
used in States othecthan California. Petitioners further allege 
that the regulation of pesticides by the State of California, 
while inadequate, is nonetheless more thorough than is the 
regulation by many other States and that, consequently, the danger; 
posed by pesticides is even greater in these other States. 

WHEREFORE, Given The Nature Of The Problem Described 
Above, Petitioners Seek The Following Reief : 

(1) An official pesticide emergency should be 
immediately declared by the Secretary of Agriculture, acting in 
conjunction with the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 



2/ 

— State Department of Public Health, Occupational Disease in 

California Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agricultura l 



Chemicals - 1965 , Table 9, p. 35. 

1"2- 



3838 



pursuant to the powers vested in them by 7 U.S.C. §§135 and 135d, 

which gives to the Secretary of Agriculture the power to regulate 
the registration and sale of economic poisons, and by 21 U.S.C. 
§346a, which gives the Secretary of Health, Education and VJelfare 
the power to promulgate tolerances so as to protect the public 
health. 

(2) Pursuant to the duty imposed by 7 U.S.C. §§135, 135d 
and 135k, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting in cooperation with 
the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, should establish a 
safety program to protect farm workers, as well as the public 
generally, from the dangers of organic phosphate pesticides. 

(3) The Secretary of Agriculture should, within thirty 
days, call a public hearing in Washington, D. C. to give to all 
interested parties the opportunity to testify as to what should be 
contained in the pesticide safety plan, and as to what further 
conditions should be attached to registration permits issued for 
organic phosphate pesticides. 

(4) Before said hearing is held, the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare 
should undertake to determine the extent to which laws relating 
to the safe use of pesticides are being strictly enforced by 
various States. The findings which the Secretaries make as to 
the present adequacy of law enforcement should be presented at 
the hearing which is held. 

(5) To the extent that the Secretaries find, or the 
hearing reveals, that safety laws pertaining to the use of pesti- 
cides are not being enforced, the Secretaries should take 
immediate steps to insure that the law is being fully enforced, 
pursuant to the duty incumbent upon them, as set forth in 7 
U.S.C. §§135, 135d and 135k, and 21 U.S.C. §346a, 

(6). Since petitioners are informed and believe, and on 
such information and belief allegf;^ that many organic phosphate 

-13- 



3839 



pesticides have been registered by the Secretary of Agriculture 
without a showing having been made as to whether such pesticides 
were necessary, given the existence of alternative pesticides 
and given the public health dangers involved, petitioners request 
the Secretary of Agriculture, acting pursuant to §135d, to review 
all registration permits issued for organic phosphates. Pursuant 
to the power vested in him by §§135 and 135d, the Secretary of 
Agriculture should issue regulations restricting the registration 
and use of all toxic organic phosphate pesticides. By way of 
such regulation, the Secretary should allow the use of organic 
phosphate pesticides only when a clear showing is made that non- 
organic phosphate pesticides are unavailable or inadequate for 
use. The Secretary should also set for each State the maximum 
number of pounds of organic phosphate pesticides which can be 
registered for application in said State in any single year. In 
no case should the maximum number of pounds permitted for all 
of the States in the county be more than that amount which the 
Secretary formally finds to be absolutely necessary. 

Dated: March U , 1970. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ARTURO GONZALES, TEOFILO GARCIA, 
ADELINA GURROLA, MAGDELENA 
HERNANDEZ, ANA BUITRON, JOSE 
SANCHEZ, FLAZIANO NANO and 
MIGUEL PADILLA 



By_ 



jc^yvv^ \> nr^J^-^^ y\ 



^es D. Lorenz, Jr. 




/Ralph Abascal 
Attorneys for Petitioners 



~\^■ 



3840 



APPENDIX B 

Page 1 of 13 pages 



JAMES W. MOORMAN 

1752 Swann Street, N. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20009 



RALPH S. ABASCAL 

J. V. HENRY 

EDGAR A. KERRY 

PETER HABERFELD 

P. 0. Box 1127 

116-7th Street 

Marysville, California 95901 

Telephone: (916) 742-5191 

JAMES D. LORENZ, JR. 

1212 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94102 

EDWARD BERLIN 

Berlin, Roisman and Kessler 
1910 "N" Street, N.W. 
V7ashington, D.C. 20036 
Telephone: (202) 293-5764 

Attorneys for Petitioners 



PETITIONS CONTROL BRANCH 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20204 



IRENE LOPEZ, ELVIRA GARDUNO, 
KATHY RADKE, MARILYN VITTOR, 
LEIGH ROYCROFT, JUAN ZAMORA, 
and THE ENVIRONr-lENTAL DEFENSE 
FUND, INC. 

Petitioners . 



NO. 

PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF 
A PROPOSED REGULATION 
REPEALING A TOLERANCE 
FOR A PESTICIDE ON RAW 
AGRICULTURAL C0MI40DITIES 
(21 C.F.R. §120.32) 



The undersigned, IRENE LOPEZ, ELVIPJ^ GARDUNO, KATHY 
RADKE, MARILYN VITTOR, LEIGH ROYCROFT, JUAN ZAMOPJ^., and THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, submit this petition pursuant to 
Section 408 (m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 
United States Code §346a(m), with respect to the pesticide chemi- 
cal DDT. 

Attached hereto, in duplicate, and constituting a part 
of this petition are the following: 

A. The name, chemical identity, and composition of the 
pesticide chemical. 

B. The amount, frequency, and time of application of 
the pesticide chemical. 

C. Full reports of investigations made with respect to 
the safety of the pesticide chemical. 

D. The results of tests on the amount of residue 
remaining, including a description of the analytical method used. 



3841 



APPENDIX B 

Page 2 of 13 pages 

E. Reasonable grounds in support of the petition. 

Enclosed is a petition submitted to the Commissioner 
of Food and Drugs requesting waiver of fees, on behalf of all the 
above petitioners, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. §120.33(1) and (m) , in 
lieu of the fees required by 21 C.F.R. §120.33. 



IRENE LOPEZ 
ELVIRA GARDUNO 
KATHY RADKE 
MARILYN VITTOR 
LEIGH ROYCROFT 
JUAN ZAMORA 

WIRONHENTAL DEFENSE FU/DJ 




LPH S. ABASCAL 




JAMES D. LORENZ,, 
Attorneys for Petitioners 
Dated: October ^ , 1969 



-2- 



3842 



APPENDIX B 

Page 3 of 13 pages 

1 A. DDT (a mixture of 1 , 1 ,l-trlchloro-2 ,2-bls (p- 

2 chlorophenyl) ethane and 1,1 ,l-trlchloro-2- (o-chloro- 

3 phenyl) -2- (p-chlorophenyl ) ethane), as defined by 21 

4 C.F.R. §120. 1^17. 

5 B. The amount of DDT used In the United States is con- 

6 siderable. In I965, I'^O million pounds were produced. 

7 Rohrman, "The Lav; of Pesticides: Present and Future," 

8 17 JOUR. OF PUBLIC LAW 351, 355, n. 11 (1968). Also, 

9 see Hearings on S. Res. 27 Before tjhe Subcomm. on 

10 Reorg. and Inter. Orgs, of the Senate Comm. on Govern - 

11 mental Ops . , 88th Cong., ls_t Sess . , pt . 1, at 8-32 

12 . (1963); Howard, Production and Distribution of Pesti - 

13 cides , in OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ASPECTS OF PESTICIDES 

14 1-9 (1964). Petitioners are unable to specify the 

15 exact extent to which the poison, DDT, is used on food 

16 owing to the failure of state and federal governments 

17 i to collect such data. It is estimated that DDT represents 
! 

18 15% of the total agricultural poisons used in the United 

19 States. MacDougall , "Summation of The Session on 

20 General Aspects of Pesticide Use", I60 ANNALS OF THE 

21 NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 69 (1969) proceedings of 

22 j the Conference on Biological Effects of Pesticides in 

23 Mammalian Systems, May 2-5, 1967, New York, New York. 

24 The data as to frequency and time of application of 

25 I DDT, for various crops, is, upon information and belief, 
2° j available from registration files in the U. S. Depart- 
27 I ment of Agriculture. 

C. Reports of investigations made with respect to the 
safety of DDT are fully set forth In the appendix, and 
incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein. 



31 They include: 



32 



1. Innes , et al . , "Bioassay of Pesticides 



3843 



APPENDIX B 

Page 4 of 13 pages 



and Industrial Chemicals For Tumor igenicity 
in Nice: A Preliminary Note," 42 JOUR. OF 
THE NAT. CANCER INSTITUTE 1101 (June, 1969), 
marked as "Exhibit A." 

2. Kemeny and Tarian, "Investigations on 
the Effects of Chronically Administered 
Small Amounts of DDT in Mice," 22 EXPERI- 
ENTIA 748 (1966), marked as "Exhibit B." 

3. Radomski, Deichmann and Clizer, "Pes- 
ticide Concentrations in the Liver, Brain 
and Adipose Tissue of Terminal Hospital 
Patients," 6 FOOD AND COSMETIC TOXICOLOGY 
209 (1968), marked as "Exhibit C." 

4. Lofroth, "Man and DDT Compounds," 
[Paper delivered to the Deutsch-schwedi- 
sches Symposium auf dem Gebiet der Umwel- 
thygiene, June 12-13, 1969, Baden-Baden], 
marked as "Exhibit D." 

The results of tests on the amount of residue re- 
main, including a description of the analytical method 
used, is available from the U. S. Department of Agri- 
culture. Also, such information is available from the 
Food and Drug Administration. See C.F.R. §120.114, n.l. 
Such information is not available to petitioners. How- 
ever, DDT residues cannot be removed from raw or 
processed agricultural products. Petitioners submit 
the following studies in support of this allegation: 
1. Lamb, Farrow, Elkins, Kim.ball and Cook, 
"Removal of DDT, Parathion, and Carbaryl 
From Spinach by Commercial and Home Pre-" 
parative Methods," 16 JOUR. OF AGR. FOOD 
CHEM. 967 (1968), marked as "Exhibit E." 



-2- 



3844 



APPENDIX B 

Page 5 of 13 pages 



1 2. Elkins, Lamb, Farrow, Cook, Kawai and 

2 Kimball, "Removal of DDT, Malathion, and 
8 Carbaryl from Green Beans by Commercial 

4 and Home Preparative Procedures," 16 JOUR. 

g OF AGR. FOOD CHEM. 962 (1968) , marked as 

6 "Exhibit F." 

7 In addition, petitioners are aware of the existence 

8 of DDT residues on fresh table grapes from reports that 

9 the Food and Drug Administration has conducted tests 

10 which prove the existence of such residues. Petitioners 

11 hereby request that such data be made available to them 

12 in its entirety. 

13 E. 

14 1. Petitioners Are Interested Persons 

15 Petitioners first wish to establish that they are 

16 "interested persons," as defined by 21 C.F.R. §120.32, 

17 such that they may petition for relief. 

18 Petitioners GARDUNO, LOPEZ, RADKE , VITTOR, ROYCROFT 

19 and ZAMORA are all consumers of food products. They are 

20 not aware of the extent to which DDT is used on food 

21 crops. However, they are aware that DDT is used on 

22 fresh table grapes. This has become public knowledge 

23 owing to the labor controversy between farmworkers and 

24 their employers in the California grape industry. 

25 Petitioners GARDUNO, RADKE, VITTOR, ROYCROFT and 

26 ZAMORA are all parents of minor children (Petitioner 

27 LOPEZ is a prospective parent, expecting her first 

28 child at any moment) . They have a deep concern for the 

29 welfare of their children, whose welfare appears to 

30 be seriously threatened by the omnipresent health 

31 hazard posed by the continued contamination of the 
82 American food supply by DDT. 



3845 



APPENDIX B 

Page 6 of 13 pages 

Petitioners GARDUNO, LOPEZ, RADKE, VITTOR and ROYCROFT 
are nursing mothers or are expecting to give birth in the very 
near future. They have recently heard of reports (e.g., 
Lofroth, Exhibit D) which indicate that breastfed children 
are subjected thereby to excessive consumption of DDT, esti- 
mated to be twice the maximum average daily intake recommended 
by the World Health Organization of the United Nations. At 
the same time, they are moved by a very natural, deep and 
intense desire to breast-feed their children so as to estab- 
lish the strong emotional bond and to provide the, otherwise, 
most nutritious food available to their infants. It is a 
gross understatement to say that petitioners have deliberated 
at length over the obvious dilemma. Petitioners wish to 
have additional children, breast-feed them and free them- 
selves from this dilemma. 

Petitioners GARDUNO, LOPEZ, RADKE, VITTOR, ROYCROFT 
and ZAMORA are all poor persons. [See declarations attached 
to the accompanying petition for Waiver of Filing Fees.] 
The diet of poor persons is notoriously low in protein rich 
foods. The consequence. of the two conditions, protein de- 
pletion and the storage of DDT in the body, "is associated 
with decreases in microsome enzyme levels and would, therefore, 
be expected to cause increased" DDT toxicity. Street, "Organo- 
chlorine Insecticides and the Stimulation of Liver Microsome 
Enzymes," 160 ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 274, 
288 (1969) , proceedings of the Conference on Biological 
Effects of Pesticides in Mammalian Systems, May 2-5, 1967, New 
York, New York. 

Petitioner ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. is also 
particularly "interested" in this petition, but the in- 
terest is somewhat different from that of the above- 



■4- 



3846 



APPENDIX B 

Page 7 of 13 pages 

1 named petitioners. The ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. 

2 is a non-profit corporation and composed of biologists, 
8 ecologists, and other persons who are especially con- 

4 cerned about the pollution of the environment by various 

6 chemicals, including agricultural poisons, who have 

6 devoted long study to such problems and who regularly 

7 act on behalf of the public interest to protect the 

8 public from the circulation and proliferation of dangerous 

9 chemicals. In undertaking such activities, the 

10 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. is also an "interested 

11 person," as described in 21 C.F.R. §120.32. 

12 For these reasons, petitioners submit, if they are 

13 not "substantially interested persons'," then such "in- 

14 terested persons" do not exist in the United States. 

15 2. Reasonable Grounds Exist For The Issuance of a Proposed 
Regulation To Repeal The Tolerance For DDT On Raw Agri - 



16 



17 cultural Commodities 

1° a. Scientific Evidence. 

19 Heretofore having been constrained by 

the required form of a petition, petitioners 
now get to the heart of the matter. Their 
basic contention ^s that recent scientific 
investigations have produced clear evidence 
that DDT causes cancer in animals and pro- 
vides very strong indications that it 
produces cancer in man. The research of 
Innes, et al.. Exhibit A, is clear proof that 
DDT causes cancer in animals. This study, 
authored by 13 eminent scientists, and 
sponsored by the National Institutes of 
Health, U.S. Public Health Service, Dept. 
of Health, Education and Welfare, is a 

-5- 



20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
82 



3847 



APPENDIX B 

Page 8 of 13 pages 



1 condensed version of a five volume report. 

2 It constitutes the initial phase of a study 

3 which seeks to determine the carcinogenic 

4 (cancer-producing) , teratogenic (monster- 

5 producing) and mutagenic (mutation-producing) 

6 properties of 130 agricultural poisons and 

7 related chemicals. 
The study by Innes, et al . , confirmed the 

earlier study by Kemeny and Tarian, Exhibit 
B, which showed the carcinogenic properties 
of DDT. The primary and compelling signi- 
ficance of the work of Kemeny and Tarian is 
found in the fact that the accumulated DDT 
content in the tissue of the experimental 
animals, 7-11 mg/kg , is approximately 
equal to that of the content of DDT in the 
general human population. iSee, also, 
liOfroth, Exhibit D, at 3-4] . 

The question of the cancerous potential 
of DDT to man was considered by P.adomski, 
Deichmann and Clizer, Exhibit C. Autopsies 
were conducted on 271 persons who had died 
from liver and brain disease. The authors' 
major conclusion was that "highly significant 
elevations of pesticide concentration were 
present in cases of carcinoma [cancer] of 
various tissues," including DDT and DDE, 
a metabolite of DDT. 

b. Legal Grounds. 

Congress has expressed its absolute and 

/// /// 

-6- 



3848 



APPENDIX B 

Page 9 of 13 pages 



1 clear intention to prohibit the adultera- 

2 tlon of food supplies by carcinogenic 

i 

3 (cancer-producing) chemicals. The Food 

4 Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, 

5 ■ Drug and Cosmetic Act §109 ( c) ( 3 ) ( A) , 

6 21 U.S.C. §3'<8(c)(3)(A) provides, in 
^ pertinent part : 

8 [N]o additive shall be deemed 
to be safe if It is found to Induce 

9 cancer when ingested by man or animal', 
or it is found, after tests which are 

10 appropriate for the evaluation of 
safety of food additives, to induce 

11 cancer in man or animal.... 

12 The Senate Report on the Food Additives 

13 Amendment clearly, and with considerable 

14 force of language, stated the Congressional 

15 intention behind the bill: 



[T]he bill is aimed at preventing 
the addition to the food our people 
eat of any substances the Ingestion 
of which reasonable people would ex- 
18 pect to produce not Just cancer but 

any disease or disability .***This Is 
also the view of the Food and Drug 
Administration. Sen. Rpt. No. 2422, 
Aug. 18, 1958, in 3 U. S. CODE, CONG, 
& ADMIN. NEWS, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
5300, 5310 (1958). 



30 



32 



During 1959, shortly after the anti- 



23 . cancer legislation became effective, the 

24 Food and Drug Administration seized a 

25 large quantity of cranberries sprayed with 

26 the agricultural poison, aminotrlazole, 

27 based on scientific evidence that it 

28 caused cancer. HEW Secretary Fleming 
29 



stated that 



The Food Additives Amendment of 
_, 1958 [Act, §409(c)(3)(A), 21 U.S.C. 

31 348(c)(3)(A] specifically prohibited 

the establishment of any tolerance 
for a chemical found to induce cancer 



-7- 



3849 



APPENDIX B 

Page 10 of 13 pages 



In man or animal, and the Administra- 
tion applies this same principle 
under the 1954 Pesticide Amendment 
[the law providing for the establish- 
ment of tolerances for pesticides on 
raw agricultural commodities], too, 
although It did not contain a similar 
specific prohibition. Statement by HEV/ 
Secretary Fleming, November 9j 1959; 
see also, FDA Release, November 17, 
1969 relating to the same matter, 
both of which are reported in CCH 
FOOD, DRUG, COSMETIC LAW RPTR. 
159, 109-03. 



In i960. Congress passed the Color 
Additive Amendments with a similar 
anti-cancer clause in §706(b ) ( 5) (B) of the 
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 
U.S.C. §376 (b)(5)(B). Several proposed 
changes to the anti-cancer clause were 
introduced. The Congressional Report 
stated that "any of the proposals, if 
adopted, would weaken the present anti- 
cancer clause in the reported bill. For 
this, reason all of the proposed changes 
were rejected by the committee." 
House Report No. I76I, June 7, I960, 
In 2 U. S. CODE, CONG. & ADMIN. NEWS, 
86th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2887, 2895 (I960) 
(Emphasis added) . 

The Secretary of Health, Education 
and Welfare, Arthur S. Fleming, testi- 
fied at length before Congress. The 
Committee report summarized, and adopted, 
his testimony. It must be set out here: 

The preponderance of scientific 
evidence clearly dictates our posi- 
tion: Our advocacy of the anticancer 
proviso in the proposed color additives 
amendment is based on the simple fact 



-8- 



3850 



21 



APPENDIX B 

Page 11 of 13 pages 



1 I that no one knows how to set a safe 
tolerance for substances in human 

2 1 foods when those substances are known 
to cause cancer when added to the 

3 diet of animals. I should like to 
underline . again one statement In 

4 j particular which I read earlier from 
the summary of' Dr. [G. Burroughs] 

5 Mider's review of the role of certain 
chemical and physical agents in 

6 relation to cancer. It is this: 

7 "No one at this time can tell 
how much or how little of a car- 

8 clnogen would be required to pro- 
duce cancer in any human being, or 

9 how long it would take the cancer 
to develop. 

10 

This is why we have no hesitancy 
'11 in advocating the inclusion of the 

anticancer clause 
12 

Unless and until there is a 

13 sound scientific basis for the 
establishment of tolerances for 

14 carcinogens, I believe the Govern- 
ment has a duty to make clear--ln 

15 law as well as in administrative 
policy — that it will do everything 
possible to put persons in a posi- 
tion where they will not unneces- 
sarily be adding residues of carcino- 
gens to their diet . 



The population is inadvertently 
exposed to certain carcinogens. 
Ultraviolet light occurs in sun- 
20 light. The burning of most fuels 

produces some minute quantities of 
chemical compounds that elicit can- 
cer in experimental animals, and 

22 some of the same agents can be identi- 
fied in soot, tars, dusts, and similar 

23 residues — even from the atmosphere 
In view of these facts, it becomes 

" all the more Imperative to protect the 

public from deliberate introduction of 

25 additional carcinogenic materials into 

the human environment. 

26 

Whenever a sound scientific basis 
27 Is developed for the establishment 

of tolerances for carcinogens, we will 
request the Congress to give us that 
authority. We believe, however, that 
the issue is so important that the 
elected representatives of the people 
should have the opportunity of exami-" 
ning the evidence and determining 
whether or not the authority should 
be granted. 



3851 



APPENDIX B 

Page 12 of 13 pages 

Many have oftentimes expressed the 
fond hope that the day Is not far 
distant when we shall be able to con- 
trol cancer. A dramatic breakthrough 
In this sense may never come. Rather, 
the progress — looked at from the 
standpoint of reducing the number of 
cases of cancer — may come only as we 
are willing to give heed to the kind 
of leads that are incorporated in the 
document prepared by Dr. Mider. It 
is clear that if we Include in our 
diet substances that induce cancer 
when Included in- the diet of test 
animals, we are taking a risk. In 
the light of the rising number of 
cases of cancer, why should we take 
that risk? Why shouldn't the Govern- 
ment do everything possible to see 
to it that we do not involuntarily 
take that risk? 

This, I believe, is as far as our 
discretion should go In the light of 
present scientific knowledge. We 
have no basis for asking Congress to 
give us discretion to establish a 
safe tolerance for a substance which 
definitely has been shown to produce 
cancer when added to the diet of test 
animals. We simply have no basis 
on which such discretion could be 
exercised because no one can tell us 
with any assurance at all how to 
establish a safe dose of any cancer- 
producing substance. 

Unless and until cancer research 
makes a breakthrough at this point, 
the principle in the anticancer 
clause is sound. (Statement by Hon. 
Arthur S. Flemming, Secretary of 
Health, Education and Welfare, before 
the House Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce, January 26, 
i960). 

In summary, the statement of the U. S. Court of 
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterates petitioners' 
position : 

The Delany Clause, 21 U.S.C. 
SS'iSCc) (3) (A) , provides that no 
additive 'shall be deemed to be safe 
if it is found to induce cancer when 



-10- 



3852 



APPENDIX B 

Page 13 of 13 pages 



ingested by man or animal," and is 
generally intended to prohibit the 
use of any additives which under any 
conditions induce cancer in any strain 
of test animal. Bell v. Goddard , 
366 F.2d 177, 181 (7th Cir. 1966). 
Petitioners respectfully request that the Commissioner 
propose the issuance of a regulation repealing the 
tolerance for DDT on raw agricultural commodities. 

rED: October 3, 1969. 




i^xr^h 



D. LORENZ,/JR. 



JAMES 
Attorneys for Petitioners 



-11- 



3853 



APPENDIX C 

Page 1 of 7 pages 



RALPH S. ABASCAL EDWARD BERLIN 

J. V. HENRY 1910 N Street, N. VJ. 

EDGAR A. KERRY Washington, D. C. 20036 

PETER HABERFELD Telephone: 202/293-5764 

P. 0. Box 1127 

116 7th Street JAMES W. MOORMAN 

Marysville, California 95901 1752 Swann Street, N. W. 

Telephone: 916/742-5191 Washington, D. C. 20009 



Telephone: 202/232-1414 



JAMES D. LORENZ, JR. 

1212 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94102 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

In re: IRENE LOPEZ, ELVIRA GARDUNO, ) 

KATHY RADKE , MARILYN VITTOR, ) NO. 

LEIGH ROYCROFT, JUAN ZAMORA ) 

and THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ) REQUEST FOR THE II-^vEDIATE 

FUND, INC. ) REPEAL OF ALL TOLERANCES 

} FOR DDT ON RAW AGRICULTURAI 

Petitioners) COMMODITIES 



On October 7, 1969, petitioners filed a formal 
request calling for the issuance of a regulation repealing 
the tolerances for DDT on raw agricultural commodities. The 
petition was premised on the fact that DDT has been demonstrated 
to be cancer-producing in test animals with circumstantial 
evidence suggestive of possible carcinogenic effect in humans 
as well. From the informal response which we have received 
from the Department it seems apparent that the decision has 
been made to defer consideration of the serious allegations that 
were made. Any such deferral would be entirely inconsistent 
with the policies recently announced in connection with the 
cyclamates as well as with the plain thrust of the Departmei). 
responsibilities under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Accord- 
ingly, we request that, in view of the prima facie showing of 
carcinogenicity, the tolerances for DDT residues on raw 
agricultural commodities immediately be repealed and set .at 
zero. 



3854 



APPENDIX C 

Page 2 of 7 pages 



A petition is being filed today with the Secretary 
of Agriculture requesting the immediate suspension and 
cancellation of the registration of DDT as an imminent 
hazard to human health and the environment. A copy of 
the petition is attached (without all Exhibits) for your 
information. 

I 

On October 18, 1969, Secretary Finch announced that 

"the use of cyclamate in the production of general purpose 

foods and beverages [will] be discontinued forthwith." in 

explanation of his action the Secretary stated: 

Recent experiments conducted on laboratory 
animals disclosed the presence of malignant 
bladder tumors after these animals had been 
subjected to strong dose levels of cyclamates 
for long periods. 

The findings of these experiments form the 
basis for my action. 

The fact that cyclamates have induced cancer 
in animals was confirmed by a panel of the 
National Academy of Science, which unanimously 
reported its findings to me late yesterday. 
The academy met in special session at my re- 
quest to review the results of various re- 
search projects involving cyclamates. 

iJuJ.uro i ijo any LurLhc'i*, Iv.L iiic (Miipha^izo 111 
the strongest possible terms that we have no 
evidence at this point that cyclamates have 
indeed caused cancer in humans . 

Thus, my decision to remove cyclamates from 
the list of approved substances in no sense 
should be interpreted as a "life-saving" or 
emergency measure. I have acted under the 
provisions of law because it is imperative 
to follow a prudent course in all matters 
concerning public health. 

Dr. Jesse L. Steinfeld reinforced, and expanded, on 

Secretary Finch's statement. By way of clarifying the 

scientific findings which provided the basis for the 

Secretary's decision to prohibit the general use of the 



3855 



APPENDIX C 

Page 3 of 7 pages 



-3- 



cyclamates he said: 

There is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate 
in any way that the use of cyclamates has caused 
cancer in man. 

There is no evidence that the use of cyclamates 
has caused malformation in children or any other 
abnormality in humans, other than a rare skin 
hypersensitivity . 

The decisions being announced here today are 
based on bladder tumors obtained from feeding 
massive doses of cyclamates throughout the life 
span of rats. The dosage thus shown to cause 
these tumors in rats is 50 times the maximum 
amount previously proposed for adult human 
ingestion by the National Academy of Sciences 
and by the World Health Organization 

We can in no way at this time extrapolate the 
new data from rat experiments to human beings . 
Nevertheless, we in this Department — whether 
from a legal or from a scientific point of view — 
cannot afford to ignore any possibility of the 
rat data being applicable to the human population. 
As long as this possibility exists, a prudent 
concern for the health of the public dictates 
that precautionary action be taken. 

It is not without significance that Secretary Finch's 
action was taken five days after he was advised of the fact 
■ that the cyclamates are carinogenic. The clear thrust of the 
action is that where there is any indication of carcinogeni- 
city in test animals, the substance or compound responsible 
for that effect is to be treated as "guilty until proven 
innocent." In the words of Secretary Finch, considerations 
of the public health make it "imperative to follow a prudent 
course. " 

This sense of urgency in the face of scientific evi- 
dence suggestive of dangers to human health from the continued 
use of chemicals was emphasized, this week, by the actions of 



3856 



APPENDIX C 

Page 4 of 7 pages 



•4- 



Dr. Lee A. DuBridge restricting the use of the weed-killer, 

2,4,5-T. Dr. DuBridge announced that: 

The actions to control the use of the chemical 
were taken as a result of findings from a 
laboratory study conducted by Bionetics Research 
Laboratories which indicated that off-spring of 
mice and rats given relatively large oral doses 
of the herbicide during early stages of pregnancy 
showed a higher than expected nuraber of deformities. 

Although it seems improbable that any person 
could receive harmful amounts of this chemical 
from any of the existing uses of 2,4,5-T, and 
while the relationships of these effects in 
laboratory animals to effects in man are not 
entirely clear at this time, the actions taken 
will assure safety of the public while further 
evidence is being sought. 

The study involved relatively small numbers of 
laboratory rats and mice. More extensive studies 
are needed and will be undertaken. At best it is 
difficult to extrapolate results obtained with 
laboratory animals to man--sensitivity to a given 
compound may be different in roan than in animal 
species; metabolic pathways may be different. 

II 
There is nothing revolutionary about the "guilty until 
proven innocent" premise. It is the unmistakable thrust of 
the Delaney Amendment, 21 U.S.C. 348(c) (3) (A) . (Also see 
21 U.S.C. 376(b) (5) (B) .) And while that Amendment was 
specifically to the food additives section it has been 
established since November 17, 1959, that it is no less appli- 
cable to pesticides. (See CCH Food, Drug and Cos)\ietic Law 
Reporter 1154, 109.03, discussed in our Petition, pp. 7-8.) 
That Amendment requires the absolute prohibition of any 
additive which under any conditions induce cancer in any 
strain of test animal ( Bell v. Goddard , 366 F.2d 177 
(CA7, 1966)). 



3857 



APPENDIX C 

Page 5 of 7 pages 



The decision to prohibit the continued use of the 
cyclamates was based on the Delaney Amendment. The dispatch 
in which the Secretary acted once having been apprised of the 
possible carcinogenic consequences emphasizes that in the face 
of any such a showing considerations of the public health and 
welfare preclude deferral of action. 

Even the regulations promulgated in implementation 
of the Act emphasize the special responsibility that applies 
where carcinogenic effects in animals are suspected. In 
defining the authority of the Secretary to establish zero 
tolerances where necessary, the regulation cites as an 
example the situation where "the chemical is carcinogenic 
to or has other alarming physiological effects upon one or ... 
more of the species of the test animal used, when fed in the 
diet of such animals." (21 CFR 120.6.) 

As with regard to the cyclamates, a study conducted 
under the sponsorship and direction of the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare has established the cancer- 
producing characteristics of DDT. (See Innes , et. al."Bioassay 
of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals for Tumorigenicity in 
Mice: A Preliminary Note" , 42 Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute 1101-1114 (1969).) 

But the need to act without delay is even more critical 
in the case of DDT. First, while the Secretary was able to 
report, with respect to the cyclamates, "that we have no evi- 
dence at this point that cyclamates have indeed caused cancer 
in humans," the studies of Radomski , et. al. submitted by . 
petitioners is at least probative circumstantial evidence that 



36-513 O - 70 - Pt.6C - 12 



3858 



APPENDIX C 

Page 6 of 7 pages 



the same conclusion cannot comfortably be reached with 
regard to DDT. Second, the chemical stability of DDT, 
with a probable "half-life" of 10 to 15 years, makes it 
imperative that its usage be prohibited as soon as possi- 
ble. Lastly, each member of the public, having been warned 
of the potential danger of the cyclamates, can voluntarily stop 
the further ingestion of those compounds. But because of 
the movement of DDT through the ecosystem no element of free 
choice exists. Like it or not each of us are forced to ingest 
DDT residues regularly. 

It follows therefore that the Secretary's responsibility 
to protect the public health and well-being from cancer-pro- 
ducing agents can be realized only by the immediate prohibition 
of any further application of DDT. We recognize that because 
of the great mobility, persistence, and solubility character- 
istics of DDT, it is not possible to achieve a zero tolerance 
by administrative fiat. But these difficulties, rather than 
excusing immediate action, make the necessity for such action 
so much more imperative. At a minimum, the Secretary should 
establish a zero tolerance for DDT and its residues on all 
raw agricultural commodities with the possible exemption from 
seizure of any commodities in which it can be established that 
any residues are the consequence of applications of DDT that 
were made prior to the announcement by the Secretary of the 
zero tolerance. 

Accordingly, petitioners respectfully request the 
immediate establishment of a zero tolerance for DDT on raw" 
agricultural commodities. In addition, we request that 



3859 



APPENDIX C 

Page 7 of 7 pages 



-7- 



you use your full authority as Secretary of the Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare to ban the use of DDT and 
obtain its removal from the market. 




A 



James W. Moorman 



r- 



Ralpi} S. Abascal 



October 31, 1969 



3860 

[Cite: 160 ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 418 (Proceedings of a conference, "Biological 
Effects of Pesticides in Mammalian Systems," May 2-5, 1967, New York City, June 23, 1969)] 

SUMMARY OF THE CONFERENCE 

ON 

BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES IN MAMMALL\N SYSTEMS 

Michael B. Shimkin 

Health Sciences Center 
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Just five years ago a gracious lady, dying of breast cancer, published a book 
called Silent Spring. Rachel Carson struck a responsive chord among the public, 
not only about pesticides, but about man's place in his world. Should man, reach- 
ing for the stars and holding in his hands the tools of his own complete destruction, 
strive for total victories, or seek balance with nature through compromises and 
partial controls? 

The book aroused considerable reaction, especially from agricultural and 
chemical industries and their spokesmen. Miss Carson was not a toxicologist. 
Undoubtedly, the case was overdrawn, and errors of fact and interpretation could 
be identified. Nevertheless, her book does belong in that list of provocative pub- 
lications that touch man's conscience, such as Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle 
Tom's Cabin of 1852, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle of 1906, and, more contempo- 
raneously, Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed and Morton Mintz's The Thera- 
peutic Nightmare, both of 1965. This meeting, as do many others, represents 
to a great extent the continued wave of reaction to Rachel Carson's pleas. 

It is obvious that modern technology in pesticides, especially Muller's dis- 
covery of the antiarthropod activity of DDT, for which he was awarded a Nobel 
prize in 1948, has provided man with another tremendous power to control his 
environment. Just as in the case of atomic fission and fusion, this power can 
be used for purposes to which the human evaluative words of "good" or "evil" are 
applicable. These attributes are not contained either in atoms or in pesticides; 
they arise from how man uses them. 

World War II, I am told, was the first major war in which casualties caused by 
military actions exceeded those attributable to disease. DDT was an important, 
although certainly not the only, reason for this achievement. I know that we 
became rather contemptuous of typhus fever as we doused whole populations with 
DDT powder. I also know how much personal comfort was derived from its use 
in movie houses in San Francisco, which once used to rank among the flea centers 
of the world. 

The obverse side of the coin, even in only the baldest of human terms, is an 
estimate by the Public Health Service that the average annual death rate in the 
United States from pesticides in one per million and that nonfatal poisoning is 
one per 10,000 population. That totals 200 recognized deaths and 20,000 recog- 
, nized poisonings per year. Although these figures alone define this as a national 
health problem, the chronic effects on man are yet to be defined. Add to this the 
many consequences to other species. Add also the fact that this is but one source 
of continued, mounting contamination of our air, water, food, and every other 
environmental feature. The problem then acquires the elements for what may 
well become a catastrophic situation. 

Several views, therefore, can be discarded at once as untenable. One is that 
there is no problem. Two, that things will straighten out if they are ignored, 
especially by the government. Three, that we really know noth ig about the 
dangers and need a decade of research to determine whether there is i. problem. 



3861 
Shimkin: Summary of the Conference 

I wish to call your attention to the fact that these are precisely the stated 
opinions of the representatives of the tobacco industry in regard to the health 
hazards of tobacco smoking. I might, for once, put in a good word for them: 
at least smoking is an individual habit, with the primary decision of to smoke or 
not to smoke made by the individual. With pesticides and other contaminants, 
however, Texas meat becomes a New Hampshire problem, Ohio river water be- 
comes a Mississippi problem, and New Jersey air is a New York problem, over 
which the individual exercises no control, and, for that matter, of which he has 
little knowledge. 

When we deal with human affairs, we cannot avoid, although in our culture we 
do our utmost, the important question of who owns, distributes, and profits from 
commodities that are simultaneously our pride of progress and the cause of our 
concerns. The answers to these questions neither deny the value of the products 
or their contribution nor impugn the honesty of those with vested economic stakes 
in the process. They do, however, identify those who, in our traditions of law, 
should be in the role of witnesses rather than in those of jurors. 

I am impressed by the thoughtful program that has already been devised on 
pesticides, some aspects of which have been reported at this conference. My role, 
I believe, is not limited to extending well-deserved congratulations. It is, rather, 
to point out possible needs and improvements, as I see them. They should be 
considered only as suggestions for further deliberation, for I speak only for 
myself. 

My suggestions will be guided by several principles, or, if that sounds too 
impressive, by several personal viewpoints. The first is that there is no such thing 
as absolute safety, and determinations that seek this end-point, in toxicity, 
carcinogenicity, or any other reaction, are not only impracticable, but impossible 
to attain. The second is that the idea of studying "all" factors, or the "total", 
environment and its consequences, is neither desirable nor possible. The aim of 
the scientific method is to find the key reaction, or the specific circumstance, that 
allows one to understand and, hopefully, to manipulate to our purposes a com- 
plex that we encounter. The third viewpoint is that the most important first step 
in the resolution of any problem is the exactitude with which one poses the 
question. 

Let us start with the third. Obviously, the questions one asks of different 
pesticides must in themselves be somewhat different. Such differences are further 
introduced by the circumstances under which the materials are used. All pesti- 
cides, I assume, are used in one of three circumstances: (1 ) in enclosed spaces, by 
especially trained personnel, (2) by individuals for individual or family purposes, 
and (3) over wide areas that involve many individuals who may not even be 
aware of the procedure. 

In my opinion, quite different safety considerations are needed in these three 
situations. I would like to relate them to some resolutions that have been accepted 
as applicable to drugs. Thus, pesticides to be used only by trained personnel in 
circumscribed spaces would be equivalent to drugs released only to experts for 
experimental purposes. This would apply, not only to new agents, but to such old 
products as hydrocyanic acid, which is still useful for the fumigation of ship 
holds as long as rigorous control measures are practiced. 

For the release of pesticides for individual use, I would think that the same 
standards as for the sale of drugs over the counter are applicable: tests for safety 
and for utility. It is a wonder to me that rather specific procedures accepted to 
demonstrate these features in pharmaceuticals do not seem to apply with equal 



3862 

force to commodities that are in even wider use, such as insecticide sprays, unless 
they are designated as cosmetics. 

These considerations become increasingly complex when pesticides are used 
over wide areas. Again, this applies, not only to new products but to old, time- 
honored ones such as the arsenicals. In fact, it sometimes seems forgotten that, 
for the control of rats, the best approach is still to improve housing, which not 
only inhibits rats, but has some other obvious benefits to the human population. 

Insofar as tests for toxicity and utility are concerned, I see no basic distinction 
between drugs and pesticides, except that in the case of the former the adverse 
effect is sought against an endoparasitic target, such as a microorganism or a 
neoplasm, whereas the target of the pesticide is an exoparasite in a pest-man 
relationship. The aim is to control the endoparasitic or exoparasitic agent witboiu 
harm to man or other species. In the latter case, of course, the host is usually 
healthy, so that the measure could be conceived to be one of preventive medicine, 
whereas in the former case, the goal is most often therapeutic. 

As to research preceding the use of the agent, a very similar continuum of 
procedures and regulations seems applicable. It is in this area that I detect a 
relative paucity of research on pesticides, as reported at this conference or as I 
glean from the literature. The paucity is in preclinical toxicology and pharma- 
cology. Where are the "bread and butter" studies on animals, such as required 
for drugs? This includes acute toxicity, general and local, and chronic toxicity, 
including carcinogenic, teratogenic, and genetic effects. This involves, by regula- 
tion, the use of several species of animals, specifying rats, beagles, and rhesus 
monkeys. 

I am not impressed with the assumptions that human reactions are not pre- 
dictable from animal studies. This includes the so-called higher integrative func- 
tions of the central nervous system, which have not been adequately examined in 
animal systems. Of course, some effects are not predictable, but the exceptions 
are far exceeded by the valid information that is derived. Such studies still provide 
the leads that are accepted as basic in any pharmacologic investigation and'can 
be circumvented at much greater risk than is taken in face of the infor.riation 
being available. 

I would like to suggest three areas of research that should be considered before 
pesiicides, as a species of drugs, are released for general use. The first is to conduct 
investigations in the field, as well as in the laboratory. I nave often wondered, 
for example, why in addition to complicated expensive laboratory models of air 
pollution, from which many unrecognized factors may be omitted, some animals 
such as inbred mice are not actually placed in "natural" conditions of air pollution. 
such as near a highway crossing. Why should not animal toxicology of pesticides 
be extended to the actual orchard in which the fruit, the insects, and the workers 
exist, in addition to simulated laboratory models? 

Second, we all accept the fact that a vexing situation exists in multiple-agent 
exposures, with many of the agents being in subliminal concentrations. I know 
of no adequate study, even with known carcinogens, in which combinations of 
more than two chemicals have been tested over a wide range of doses. This could 
be a fertile field for research, although any adequate design implies rather frighten- 
ing numbers of animals. Further, our experiences with fluoride and selenium 
should prepare us for possible beneficial as well as adverse effects at trace con- 
centrations of presumably noxious chemicals in our environment. 

Third, as for drugs, should we not consider that, at some point and 
at some dosage, human beings must be involved as test objects? The "poison 



3863 

s<Juads" of the early days of the Pure Food and Drug Act served a par- 
pose. I assume that, in these days of stringent regulations regarding human 
experimentation, this may be considered as an unthinkable thought. Perhaps ws 
should start thinking a lot of unthinkable thoughts about the world, about our- 
selves, and even about pesticides! 

In this connection, human repellents added to noxious agents may yield a 
margin of safety, if we employ the skunk principle. Sugar-coated medicines for 
children are now considered a hazard. We add identifying smells to heating gas. 
A bit of mercaptan added to widely used pesticides may well be desirable to 
limit their use indoors and their concentration levels elsewhere. 

I shall not deal with research in biochemistry, molecular biology, and other 
areas at present considered to be basic and sophisticated. Of course, they are 
worthwhile, but the consequences of their findings are harder to predict. Bio- 
chemical and physiological studies on insects and their behavior may well yield 
vulnerable, exploitable targets. However, insect control by sterilization of the 
males, by x-rays or by chemicals, somehow eludes me as being a practical 
approach, despite its intriguing Freudian undertones. However, it seems desirable 
to explore physical energy, such as ultrasound, or the spectrum in the range in- 
visible to the human eye, or radar or laser beams, for the control of spaces from 
insects and other animals. 

I detect considerable emphasis on the epidemiologic approach to the problem. 
Having a vested interest in this field, I am naturally in favor of this, yet I cannot 
be impressed by the potential of prospective studies on undefined heterologous 
populations, without quantitative determinations of exposure, without well- 
defined controls, and really without clear indication of what we seek. Through 
animal studies, and then through more precisely designed case-control studies, 
the derivation of some hypotheses would make the approaches more rewarding. 
The anticipation that, by gathering sufficient data, much of it quite "dirty," 
something will turn up is remote, even if we use computers. The background 
noise in such approaches usually defeats even this hope. Science is a rapier, not a 
blunderbuss. 

Careful, detailed studies on high-exposure groups, industrial and otherwise* 
along with some parallel controls, are very much worthwhile. Case-control, 6t 
retrospective search for associations of exposure (if it can be measured) and 
disease occurrence, also seem worthy. Surveillance data on evidence of exposure, 
at least to agents that are retained by the body, certainly require attention, with 
careful selection of sample populations rather than an attempt to make such 
determinations all-inclusive. In this connection, I wonder whether the use of the 
most readily available fresh human tissue, the placenta, has had adequate cent 
sideration. 

I would urge a thoughtful reassessment of "population laboratories" or general 
prospective population studies, not only for the predictable value of the data thus 
obtained, but also as to its priority at this stage of our knowledge. 

I wish to return to the pivotal thought that pesticides and their many relatives 
are but one aspect of pollution of our environment, man-made and natural. The 
latter is most appropriate to include at this point, for we have again become 
acutely aware that powerful hepatotoxins and carcinogens are manufactured by 
certain fungi, as well as by man. For the control of this situation, dry, cool 
storage of high-protein foods seems more attractive than fungicides. 

We are here to consider pesticides, of course, but we would fulfill our role 
neither as scientists nor as citizens were we to neglect their relationship to the 



3864 

totality of our environmental problem. And for this, we must return to Rachel 
Carson and to Ralph Nader — and Uncle Tom's Cabin is still with us, also. 

At what point do we translate our research conclusions into action that might 
resolve some of our questions and not only rephrase them? What mechanisms and 
resources do we need to make such actions possible? 

I would submit that three elements are essential for this grave national problem 
of environmental pollution. First, an aroused, informed public. Second, a na- 
tional policy at our highCvSt level, with teeth in it. Third, technological personnel 
and resources to carry out the policies, at regional and at national levels. These 
three elements must develop in tandem, iii a meaningful and dynamic equilibrium. 

For the first, perhaps some of our national voluntary agencies concerned with 
rare diseases could be persuaded to realign their interests. Where are the citizen 
groups for a clean environment? Second, our gathering here is representative 
of the lack of political policy power we have, but which must be involved. It is 
true that we now have a Division of Environmental Health Sciences in the Na- 
tional Institutes of Health of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 
However, water resources are now again under the Department of the Interior. 
The air pollution program is fractionated. Housing is a concern of a new depart- 
ment; transportation, industry, and agriculture of still others. The Food and Drug 
Administration, with its new dentures, has circumscribed authority. Further 
fractionation of responsibility, with low-level interdepartmental committees, 
certainly cannot serve as an adequate mechanism. Instead, has not the time come, 
if it is not overdue, to establish an equivalent of the National Security Council, a 
National Environmental Council at the cabinet level? Concurrently, we would 
need a Joint Congressional Committee on Environment. 

We are met under the threat of mushroom clouds; under the tragic pall of Viet 
Nam; under the pressure of explosion of world populations; and under the 
millennial issues of man*s relations with man. Yet with all this, our environment 
also may become as grave a danger. We must do something about it. Let us 
remember, too, so that some day we may join David in his psalm, "Lord, I have 
loved the habitation of Thy house, and the place where Thine honor dwelleth." 



I 



3865 

[Cite: 6 Fd. & Cosmet Toxicol 209 (1968)] 

Pesticide Concentrations in the Liver, Brain and Adipose Tissue of Terminal 

Hospital Patients* 

(J. L. Radomski, W. B. Duchmann and E. E. Clizer, with the assistance of 

A. Rey) 

Department of Pharmacology, the Research and Teaching Center of Toxicology/ 
Department of Pathology, University of Miami, School of Medicine, Coral 
Gables, Florida 33134 

(Received 26 January 1968) 

Abstract — Organochlorine pesticide concentrations have been 
determined at autopsy in the fat and liver of 271 patients previously 
exhibiting various pathological states of the liver, brain and other 
tissues of the body. These levels were compared with pesticide con- 
centrations observed during an earlier study in random autopsy 
cases. Comparisons were also made with a general group designated 
"Infectious diseases", containing a variety of conditions of proven 
aetiology. There was a striking lack of correlation between pesticide 
concentrations in the liver and in the fat of all autopsy cases, but 
there was a significant correlation between pesticide levels in the 
brain and in the fat. No elevation of pesticide concentrations was ob- 
served in the presence of brain tumours, but a significant increase of 
the mean p,p'-DDE concentration was foimd in encephalomalacia and 
cerebral haemorrhage. Significantly elevated fat concentrations of 
p,p'-DDE and dieldrin were found in portal cirrhosis, but not in the 
presence of fatty metamorphosis. Highly significant elevations of 
pesticide concentration were present in cases of carcinoma of vari- 
ous tissues. Fat concentrations of p,P''-DDT, p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDD 
and dieldrin were consistently and significantly elevated in cases of 
hypertension. An investigation of the home usage of pesticides by 
these individuals led to the highly significant observation that in- 
dividuals using pesticides extensively in the home had levels of 
p,p'-DDT and its metabolite p,p '-DDE three to four times higher 
than had those who used minimal quantities. No correlation was 
found between pesticide levels in the fat and length of hospitaliza- 
tion or loss of body weight. 

introduction 

Extensive animal experimentation has shown that chronic exposure to the chlor- 
inated hydrocarbon pesticides produces liver damage. In addition, acute and 
chronic exposure to these substances, particularly aldrin and dieldrin, have been 
shown to affect the central nervous system. If humans are developing liver or 
neurological disease due to excessive exposure to pesticides, then it would seem 
reasonable to assume that those so affected would bear higher concentrations of 
pesticides than normal. We therefore set out to compare the pesticide concen- 
trations present in the tissues taken at autopsy following deaths from liver and 
brain disease at Jackson Memorial Hospital with the samples obtained previously 
from the general population ( Fiserova-Bergerova, Radomski, Davies & Davis, 
1967). 

While we have found that certain disease conditions appear to be associated 
with elevated pesticide levels, we were more impressed by the great individual 
variability of pesticide levels found in this experiment, regardless of the disease 
category. This has confirmed the impression of marked variability which we 
observed before in the general population. Now, it is widely held that the diet 
or the food ingested is the major source of p,p'-DDT and presumably other 
chlorinated hydrocarbons found in the tissues of the general population. Since 
the presence of pesticides in the food supply of this nation is ubiquitous, it would 
seem that if food were the primary source of the pesticide body burden, there 



•This investigation wag supported by Public Health Service Contract No. PH 86-615-60 
and Grant No. 2-POI — ES00052-3. 



S866 

would be relatively little variability. The existence for no apparent reason, of 
widely divergent concentrations of pesticides in individuals, therefore, has 
caused us to question this premise. 

While pesticide concentrations in food and water and the effects of environ- 
mental exposure to pesticides have been widely investigated, little attenltion has 
been paid to the possible hazardous effects of the home usage of pesticides 
(other than the danger of accidental poisoning) and to the contribution such 
usage might make to the pesticide body burden. In order to determine whether 
this unknown factor could be responsible for the very high levels of pesticides 
observed in certain individuals, a field investigation of the usage habits of as 
many cases as possible was conducted. These usage habits were then compared 
with the pesticide body burden. 

experime:ntal 

Selection of Cases. — From January 1964 to June 1967, inclusive, all autopsies 
at Jackson Memorial Hospital with a history of Ifver disease or brain or neuro- 
logical disease were selected for this study. In addition, a group selected at ran- 
dom with normal livers and brains was collected. Samples (1-2 g) of liver, 
adipose tissue and brain were collected for chemical analysis. In addition, sections 
of all organs showing gross changes were subjected to histo-pathological examina- 
tion. Each ease was evaluated by consideration of the cause of death and the 
gross and histopathological tissue changes detected. All cases were classified 
according to the type of liver or neurological disease present without knowledge 
of the pesticide levels. In a few instances, cases were listed in more than one 
category because of the presence of significant multiple pathological changes. 

Chemical analysis 

Tissue analyses for pesticides were performed by modifications of the method 
of Radomski & Fiserova-Bergerova ( 1965 ) . 

Extraction procedures. — Interior portions of tissue specimens were used to 
eliminate the possible contamination of the outer surface. These were weighed 
on aluminum foil to an accuracy of ±5 mg and placed in a glass tissue-grinder 
(Duall Size C). Petroleum ether (Burdick and Jackson Laboratories, Muskegon, 
Michigan) was added, and the samples were homogenized. The homogenate was 
transferred to a calibrated, glass-stoppered, centrifuge tube. The honiogenizier 
was rinsed, with grinding, with small amounts of petroleum ether which were 
used to adjust the final volume. 

Adipose tissue. — Adipose tissue (200 mg) was ground and extracted with 10 
ml petroleum ether, and 2 fil of extract was usually injected into the gas chromato- 
graph. As the concentration of p,p'-DDE was generally much higher than the 
concentration of other pesticides, it was usually necessary to make a 1 : 10 dilu- 
tion to determine this metabolite. 

Liver. — A portion of tissue (250 mg) was ground with 3-0 ml i)etroileuim ether. 
During the grinding, approximately 2 g sodium sulphate was added. The pe- 
troleum ether extract was transferred quantitatively to a graduated centrifuge 
tube using small quantities of petroleum ether. The final volume was adjusted to 
5 ml, and 2 fil of extract was usually injected (occasionally 5 /A, when no ex- 
cessive interferences were present) . 

Brain. — Brain tissue (^250 mg) was dried in a desiccator over silica gel for a 
minimum of 2 days before grinding with a total of 5 ml petroleum ether. The 
samples were then centrifuged, and 2 fil of extract was injected. 

Column preparation.— QF-1 (fluorosilicone fiuid-Dow Coming FS-12e5, 1-25 g) 
or Dow 200 (Dow Coming silicone fiuid 200-12500 CSP, 2-5 g) was dissolve^d 
in 150 ml ethyl acetate and added to 25 g Chromosorb W, DMCS-treated, acid- 
washed, high performance, 80-100 mesh ( Johns-Manville) in a fluted round- 
bottom 1-1 flask. After the su«pensiion had been shaken for 20 min, the ethyl 
acetate was evaporated in a flash evaporator. The columns were packed in -25 
in. glass tubing, 3 ft long for Dow 200 and 6 ft long for QF-1. After packing the 
columns were conditioned for 48 hr at 215°C with a low carrier-gas flow rate 
(pre-purified nitrogen, Matheson, Coleman and Bell) . 

Gas chromatography.— The Micro Tek G.C. 2000MF with a tritium electron 
capture detector was used for all experiments. Conditions were as follows: — 
Temperatures: inlet 210°C, column 185°C, detector 195°C ; nitrogen pressure: 



I 



3867 

input 70 psig ; flow rate of nitrogen : 60-70 ml/min ; polarizing voltage : 15 V d.c. 
On-column injections wltli BOamilton 10-|ul syringes were utilized. Dilutions were 
made, however, when the peaks were too high for recording. 

Field studies 

A former medical student questioned the next of kin, whenever possible, re- 
garding (1) age, sex and race of the deceased, (2) length of sickness and loss of 
weight before hospitalization, (3) duration of stay in the hospital, (4) loss of 
weight in the hospital before death, (5) nutrition, (6) occupation, (7) employer, 
(8) hobbies, and (9) general usage of chemicals, sprays, pesticides or insecticides. 
On the basis of information secured, each case was classified with regard to ex- 
tend of pesticide exposure, as a heavy pesticide user (Group I), one who used 
pesticides very little or not at all (Group III) or one whose pesticide usage was 
considered normal, moderate or average (Group II). The patients were also 
categorized according to their loss of body weight. These judgements were made 
without knowledge of the tissue pesticide levels. 

Statistical analyses 

Several procedures were applied to these data. The medians of all experimental 
groups were computed as well as the percentages of cases above the median of 
control groups. The siignificance of the percentage of eases above the control 
median was computed. In addition, rank tests were done to assess the existence 
of significant differences between the various experimental groups and the con- 
trol groups, and correlation studies were conducted of the relationship between 
pesticide levels in the various tissues analysed. Means and standard deviations 
of the means were also computed. 



Originally, it was our intention to collect tissues from three types of case namely 
those with liver disease, those with brain or neurological disease and a third 
group of cases made up of a random selection of patients not believed to have 
suffered from either brain or liver disease. During the examination of these cases 
prior to final classification, it was discovered that many individuals believed to 
have had liver disease before autopsy, showed only, for instance, chronic passive 
congestion secondary to myocardial infarction. A large group of cases in the 
random group was also found to have diseases such as atherosclerosis and 
hyi)ertension as well as various maUgnant diseases. All cases were therefore re- 
classiified taking into account the postmortem findings. When it was discovered 
that there were groups of cases with atherosclerosis, malignancies, hypertension 
and leukaemia, it was decided that perhaps additional information could be 
gleaned from this investigation if these cases were evaluated as individual ex- 
perimental groups. 

Liver diseases 

Pesticide concentrations in fat and liver tissue from patients dying with liver 
disease are listed in Table 1. 

Portal cirrhosis. — All of the cases in this group had typical alcoholic (nutri- 
tional or Laennec's) cirrhosis of the liver. Mean levels of p,p'-DDE and dieldrin 
in the body fat were significantly higher than those of the normal population 
(0.01>P 0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Mean p,p'-DDT levels were also ap- 
proximately double those of the normal population, but because of a high degree 
of variability, the observation was not significant (P=0.18). Levels of p,p'-DDE, 
p.p'-DDT, and dieldrin were all significantly elevated in the liver tissue itself, 
but p,p'-DDD levels in the liver were lower Oian normal. p.p'-DDD is a metabolite 
of p,p'-DDT which originates in the liver. Impaired function would presumably 
lower the rate of this metabolic conversion. 

Fatty metamorphosis. — Included in the group were cases in which fatty meta- 
morphosis (or infiltration) of the liver was present without necrosis or cirrhosis. 
Pesticide levels in both fat and liver tissue were essentially normal. 

Metastatic liver disease. — ^The most striking elevations in pesticide concentra- 
tion were observed in the rather large series of c'ases of metastatic malignancy of 
the liver. The mean p,p'-DDB concentration in the fat was three times as high 
as normal (P=0.005) , and seven times as high as normal in the liver tissue itself 
(P=0.001). pp'-DDT concentrations were also elevated in the fat but, sur- 
prisingly, not in the liver tissue. Dieldrin and p,p'-DDD concentrations, on the 
other hand, were essentially normal. These would appear to be fairly specific 



3868 

alterations which probably have some real, but at the moment, obscure mean- 
ing. It does not seem likely that these altered concentrations were related to 
increased fat content of the liver, for in this case, consistent increases should 
have been observed. 

Primary malignancy {hepatoma). — One of our initial primary interests in 
carrying out this study was a possible relationship between chlorinated hydro- 
carbon pesticides and tumours of the liver. Unfortunately, only a small number 
of primary liver-tumour cases were obtained. Three of the four cases had rather 
normal p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDD, p,p'-jyTf£ and dieldrin concentrations. The fourth 
case had 35.04 ppm of p,p'-DDE in the fat and 1.25 ppm in the liver. All four 
cases had abnoramlly high levels of jS-BIIC in liver and adipose tissue, however, 
when compared to the infectious disease control group. 

Post-necroUc cirrhosis. — This pathological entity was characterized, in contrast 
to portal cirrhosis, by the occurence of essentially normal pesticide concentra- 
tions, frequently lower than normal. 

Other pathologial states of the liver. — Most noteworthy was one case of 
ideopathic amyloidosis which had markedly elevated levels of all the pesticides 
measured. A concentration of 50.8 ppm of p,p'-DDE in the fat was observed. This 
was one of the highest levels of p,p'-DDE observed in this study. 

Brain and neurological diseases f 

Pesticide concentrations in fat and brain tissue from patients dying from 
disease of the brain or nervous system are listed in Table 2. 



3869 



to ^-< o» •* oi ■«* ^ 



Oif-^ 



csioi— lo-^r^ 
oo^o^oo oo 

-H•t^•n-n-H-H^^ -h-h 

C\l rr) O CNI O CSJ O CSI O CD O (D O CO .^ .CslO 

oooooooooooooois^iLoo 



ro ^ 00 r*- oo oo o oo^ 

CSJ trt ^^ en "^ ^ CM ^ rH 

ooooo^o oo 

-H-H-tt-H-H-H-tt -H-H 

tDSDcsj^^Ocyotfip-oouitorg"— •r^.-^Hinca 
tor^^in'^oO"-;;*oounooo^co^|°r-«r-*o 

O^OOOOOf^OOOOOOO-^OOo 



in e 



> tool in o^ r 



*r*. ir> ^s-^H 



CO 



I ^-" •— • ^ fO o ,_ CM^i— » 
OOOCDOOOOOO ooo o 

-H■t^4^•+^4^-H-H-H-t^4^ -m^-H -n 
" ^2KSr- 



1— t CO oo C) O L 



CNJ CD C 



-cocotocntopOf— <ro 



00C)0^CD0^^C)0CS00000 



ieM^r-^<cfo"^csjf 



1^ r^^rs. 



oo cr> »^CNJ ^ « 

] ^^^^'-H^^4l"-H^+i°4i ^^?^^ 4^ 

V ' r^ o c\i o^ ^ m ^ r^ oo ^ csj ^^ in ^s- ^:r oo cs 
*3j I r-» •— • o^ •— ' ^ irt C) oo o r^ ^ oo fo <^ ^- CD cz> 
Pi cCjocoLoo oSoinorCoi^o «3-o foo 



00 CO r-* cj "^ oi oo ^ r^ mo 

m o csj ^ cvi ,— 1 "-^ up fo '^^ 

ooocdOoooo oo 

-n-H-t^-t^^^-t^-t^-H4^ -h-h 

ootDcsj^^Or-s.tnr*.csiO>(OLOO^-<^oj« 

CsJf0^r0C\lcsj--tC0<sl^»--«UD^CSJ^00«-H^F^OC> 
OOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOO^OOO 



hr^oo 



r». f— ' r-N. tD ^ f-H in in to »* r«*.oo^ 



csi csj "J^ 



^^+l-H-H^^-t^-H■n-H-n -h-h-h -h -h 4^ 

a^^aio>o^csi<T)r^^roo^'~*o^t^inininc~iai^ai 
cocooo^-7.-H;ocg^Ln<DU7C7rotD^cooof^0^csj 
c6oo6i-^^^r^ocncsifocD^»-t^oooo*3"tDO 



0) I I 0) 



OS • a> • <u 



CM OCO <cf 

^r csjco ,— ( 



O CM csi — « ^ 



.S2 ^ >^ 
o i2 ™ 



09.^ 



s g ^ ^ -S i I 

t S o o S S fcj 

75- .b:e I i i " ^ I 

E u " ^ .2f .2f *J .<£ = 

5 cO TO 5 ™ 3 o -o 

Z — Q. u. S S < I— < 



3.— 



3870 



<0 to o a>^H(0 

*-^ »-^ CO CNJO «-4 

o o o poo 

-H -H -H ll-H-H 

0000Oir)O«-*O^i— 'OlOOOCsJOvOO 
CNICSJOCOO^OCOOCSIO^O^O-HO 

ooooooooooooooooo 



-H -H J 41 -H„ 

(ocsjom^ocnoooioo oo^r^ 
*omor*.^'^^'«^oi'iG>^ .oo^co 
ooooo^oooooo^ooo^ 



irt*-«mo^ CO »^ 00 CM ir> CM r»* ^ 

^H O CM <0 COO^OCM^<-<0 

oooo ooooooo^ 

-H-H-H-H -H-H-H-H-H-H-ti-H 

^^^oor^CMO*-^ o»— <CMCM^Sy ^ ^^ oo 
cmo en too mo lo oco^co Oo .^ .<^ , 
oooooooooo^o^o-^o^oj: 



^ O O <*^ ^ ^ 0|) o to » 
^OloCM op CM COO^C) 

-H■H^^4^ -« -h •+^4J4^-H 

r^^cMOOOOocMO^-^^ornj^^^ooo 
r-.OCT»cMO^ocr>oa>^o^^^^-»oooo 
cniOcocmouSocoocoocsjOoocCiocmo 



r** o> oo r^coo 

CM -^ «7 ^or^ 

o o o ooo 

-H -H -H -H-H-H 

fM^^r^^ooor«*^^oo^^^ 



t^o>r^t-^ CO 00 (o ^^ f^ <p ""s^ ^ ^ 
^ ^H (O CO ^ •-* po ^-t •-* o to ^"^ to to 
^cDi<uS "-^ c5 1< o o6 o pC CD rC ri 



41-H-H-H -H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H , 

ocMcncsj^fo^o^f'^oo^toor-^^^ uj 

tp^OOCM'7tOCMCM'-:**^0»*»-^00^^_,^^ 



■H -H 

. . - - '»o--<u5 

)csiocgor^oooo0 45opo! 



ra «irf n ^^ n ^^ <v ^^ co ^^ re ^^ re ^^ re 

cQiZmiZm£m£aai£ffii2mi£ffi 



re P "o 

»> b i2 

.!2 a> re 

•DC E 

v> u o 

Si 5 



E J 






E o B> 
t: a>x: 

z IS 



l: -s « 



re re 



3871 

Encephalomalacia. — Significant elevations of the p,p'-DDE concentration in the 
fat (0.01>P>0-001) as well as the brain tissue (0-05>P>0-01) were observed. 
Strangely, while there was a highly significant elevation of the dieldrin concen- 
tration in the fat (P<0-01), brain concentrations were, if anything, lower than 
normal. p,p'-DDT levels were elevated, but not significantly (P=0-1), in the 
fat, but were lower than normal in the brain tissue. 

In this category were included all cases of definite encephalomalacia, either old 
or recent. Patients in this category were, of course, invariably aged, and athero- 
sclerosis and myocardial infarcts were also commonly present. 

Cerebrul haemorrhage. — Cases where there was distinct evidence of haemorr- 
hage, either old or recent, were included in this group. p,p'-DDE and dieldrin levels 
were significantly elevated in the fat (0-015>P>0-01, respectively), but were 
essentially normal in the brain tissue. 

Cerebral degeneration. — Pesticide concentrations in fat and brain were essen- 
tially normal. A small elevation of the mean p,p'-DDE level in the fat was 
observed (0-3>P>0-2). 

Included in this group were all cases of degeneration of the central nervous 
system cells, where strokes or haemorrhage had not occurred. Degeneration was 
frequently of the diffuse or Alzheimer type. 

Brain tumour. — One of the initial major interests of this investigation was the 
possibility that chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides might produce tumours of 
the brain. Primary brain tumours are rare and only four cases were found in 
this study. It is, of course, hard to justify the drawing of a conclusion ooi the 
basis of four cases, but the fact that normal pesticide levels were observed in 
both fat and brain tissue would seeem to suggest that chlorinated hydrocarbon 
pesticides are not involved in the development of brain tumours. 

Other neurological diseases. — Pesticide levels in other neurological diseases 
observed in the study were not remarkable. In three case of ischaemic necrosis, 
pesticide levels were normal with the exception of elevated levels of dieldrin in 
thefat (P=0-33). 

Miscellaneous diseases 

Results of pesticide analyses carried out on the adipose tissue of patients with 
various other terminal conditions are given in Table 3. 

TABLE 3.— PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FAT TISSUE OF PATIENTS WITH VARIOUS TERMINAL 

CONDITIONS 





Number 




Level of pesticide (ppn(id=SD) 


















Heptaclilor 


Diagnosis 


of cases 


p.p'-DDE 


p,p'-DDD 


p,p'-DDT 


Dieldrin 


/3-BHC 


epoxide 




42 


6-69± 407 


0-28±0.38 


2.77±1.42 


0-21±0.15 






Infectious diseases 


20 


8-89± 7-67 


0.12±0.27 


394±5.01 


0.38±0-23 


0-66 ±0-23 


0-28±0.16 


Atlierosclerosis. 


54 


1201± 2-53 


0-27±0-75 


5.10±7.57 


0-37±0-23 


0-76±0-52 


0.33±0.17 


Hypertension 


8 


17-91± 6-28 


0-40±0-42 


6.54±3.64 


0-73±0-59 


0-95±0.56 


0-48±0-37 


Carcinoma 


40 


15-97± 3-78 


0.34±0-51 


5.65±5-61 


0.55±0-34 


0.78±0-43 


0-34±0-24 


Leul<emia 


5 


16-10± 5-53 


0.58±0-45 


4-69±4-28 


0.47±0-22 


0-77±0-58 


0.32±0-23 


Chronic renal disease... 


8 


8.11± 4-25 


0-21±0-25 


2-ll±M0 


0.23±0.16 


0.42±0-63 


0.21±0-11 


Pancreatitis. 


3 


11.57±10.81 


009 


1.29±1.05 


0-40±0-35 


0-56 


0-32 


Hodgl<in's disease 


5 


10.06± 4-43 


0.38±0-27 


3-22±l-20 


0-51±018 


0.57±0-22 


0.30±0.06 



Atherosclerosis. — In addition to atherosclerosis, most of these cases had ar- 
teriosclerosis ; myocardial infarcts were also commonly present and were fre- 
quently the cause of termination. Chronic passive congestion of the liver secondary 
to the cardiovascular failure following myocardial infarction was frequently pres- 
ent, causing many of these to be classified originally in the liver-disease category. 
Moderately elevated levels of p,p'DDE, p,p'-DDT and dieldrin were observed in 
the fat of many of these cases. However, mean pesticide concentrations were not 
significantly different from those of the normal population. 

Hypertension. — Although only eight cases of essential hypertension were con- 
tained in this study, more consistent elevations of pesticide concentrations in the 
fat were observed in this group than in any other disease category. Concentra- 
tions ranging from two to four times the normal of p,p'-DDE, dieldrin, p,jo'DDD 
and p,p'-DDT were observed in all eight cases. This seems to be one of the most 
significant observations of the exi)eriment since it is diflScult to postulate de- 
pressed liver function as a possible explanation. 



3872 

Carcinoma. — Included in this group were carcinomas of the lungs, stomach, 
rectum, pancreas, prostate and bladder. Concentrations of all the pesticides were 
remarkably high, averaging two or three times the normal concentration. Before 
grouping all of these various types of carcinoma together, each type was analysed 
individulally in an attempt to discover whether the elevated levels were associated 
with a particular neoplastic disease. However, no such association could be 
discerned. 

Chronic renal disease. — Eight cases of chronic renal disease were studied. The 
usual pathological diagnosis was chronic glomerular nephritis. It is noteworthy 
that pesticide levels were, if anything, somewhat lower than normal in this group, 
suggesting (1) that chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides are probably not involved 
in the production of this disease condition, and (2) that chronically impaired 
renal function does not lead to elevated levels of pesticides in the fat. 

Correlation of pesticide concentrations in adipose tissue tvitli those of liver tissue 
and 'brain tissue 

As part of our statistical analysis of the data of this experiment, the correla- 
tion of pesticide concentrations in fat with those in liver tissue and with those in 
brain tissue was studied. Contrary to our expectations, virtually no correlation 
was observed between the fat and liver concentrations of any of the pesticides 
measured. On the other hand, fat concentrations of pesticides are correlated with 
pesticide concentrations in the brain. 

When similar correlation studies were performed on our data from the general 
population, correlation was observed between liver and fat concentrations of 
p,p'-DDT and its metabolite. It would therefore appear that the lack of correla- 
tion between pesticide concentrations in liver and fat was associated with the 
presence of disease. 

The relationship of pesticide levels to the home usage of pesticides 

In the examination of these data, the most striking observation is the widely 
varying difference that exists in pesticide levels in individuals, some having 
very high and others very low pesticide levels. Hospital records indicated no 
occupational exposure to pesticides in this study. Therefore, it was considerd 
that perhaps these remarkable discrepancies could be related to the home usage 
of pesticides. 

The data obtained by interviewing the next-of-kin of these cases revealed that 
there was indeed a relationship. This was most striking with the insecticide 
p,p'DDT and its principal metabolite, p,ip'-DDE. The mean p,p'-DDT concentra- 
tion in the high exxwsure group is over four times the mean p,p'-DDT concentra- 
tion in the low exposure group (P 0-001) . while the mean p,p'-DDE concentration 
is almost three times greater in the high exposure group than in the low 
exposure group. In the case of dieldrin and heptachlor epoxide, there were no 
significant differences in mean pesticide levels between the three exposure groups, 
p'-BHC showed a significant increase (P 0-01) from Exposure Group I to Group 
II but not between Groups II and III. These striking results clearly indicate 
that the home usage of ijesticides is one, if not the major, factor in the occurrence 
of elevated pesticide body levels of p,p'-DDT and its metalolites. Similar results 
with dieldrin and hepachlor epoxide would not be expected since these pesticides 
are not normally present in pesticide mixtures intended for home usage. 

It also occurred to us that all the cases in this study were patients with termi- 
nal disease and terminal patients frequently become extremely emaciated. Pos- 
sibly the high pesticide levels observed were related to loss of fat in the adipose 
tissue, resulting in a higher concentration of i)esticides in the remaining fat. 
However, when the loss of body weight was compared to pesticide concentrations, 
no such relationship was observed. 

DISCUSSION 

It is generally recognized that the present attempt to discover whether the cur- 
rent, long-term, low-level exposure to pesticides experienced by the general pop- 
ulation in this country is producing harmful effects is beset with monumental 
diflBculties. The ubiquitous distribution of large numbers of compounds and the 
lack of adequate controls are serious handicaps. Many possible approaches have 
been suggested and some have been tried ; all have serious deficiencies. Certainly, 



3873 

new approaches are needed. One such approach is the evaluation of pesticide 
levels in the presence of diseases possibly caused by pesticides. The present experi- 
ment was conceived as a pilot study designed to test the value of this approach. It 
was recognized at the outset that the interpretation of the results obtained would 
be diflScult. When a correlation is established between a given disease and a par- 
ticular pesticide body burden, three possibilities need to be considered. Either 
the disease is responsibl for the pesticide body burden or vice versa, or both 
result from some other factor. There is no evidence in the litrtature that a 
diseased liver may cause an levation in pesticide levl in th adipose tissue. How- 
ever, such a possibility distinctly exists. Although experiments can readily be 
edsigned in animals to determine whether liver damage may result in elevated 
pesticide levels, it is doubtful whther this possibility has yt been investigated. 

The most convincing relationship between pesticide concentration and disease 
revealed in this study was found in the consistently high concentrations present 
in patients with cirrhosis of the liver, carcinoma, and hypertension. Before any 
conclusions can be drawn on the role of excessive pesticide exposure in the pro- 
duction of any of these diseased states, confirmation of these preliminary ob- 
servations is essential. The following step would consist of experiments designed 
to determine whether the disease caused the elevated pesticide level or vice versa. 

The question was raised as to whether factors associated with the hospitaliza- 
tion were responsible for these elevated levels. No correlation was found between 
the elevated pesticide levels and the length of stay in hospital or with inanition. 

The statement is commonly made that the major source of pesticide body 
burden of individuals in the general population is the food intake, quantities 
taken in via water and air being considered negligible. While it has been repeat- 
edly demonstrated that occupational exposure to pesticides is capable of pro- 
ducing elevated body levels, the role of the nonoccupational home usage of pes- 
ticides in the production of pesticide storage in the body has not been considered 
significant. Minute quantities of pesticides are present in all types of foods, 
however, and it is diflScult to imagine one individual ingesting much more pes- 
ticide than another. Of course, individual differences do exist in the ability to 
metabolize and excrete pesticides. However, with regard to the degree of indi- 
vidual use of pesticides, it has been our observation that there seem to be two 
types of individuals, those who abhor insects and are ignorant and contemptuous 
of the hazards of chemical intoxication, and those with an instinctive, exag- 
gerated fear of chemical exposure. It is conceivable that there could be a hun- 
dred-fold difference in the exposure of these two types of people. 

This experiment suggests that the household use of pesticides may be respon- 
sible for the accumulation of elevated body levels of these compounds. Actually, 
this experiment — complicated by the presence of disease and death of the pa- 
tient — did not provide the optimum conditions for the evaluation of this factor. 
A similar study of the correlation between home usage of pesticides and body 
burden in random cases of accidental death would be more suitable. A second 
approach, perhaps even more valuable, would be the determination of blood 
levels in individuals who use pesticides in house and garden. 

Exposure of rats to p,p' -DDT is known to produce elevation of liver micro- 
somal-enzyme activity. Schwabe (1964) and Gerboth & Schwabe (1964) have 
shown that phenobarbitone-induced sleeping time was reduced by approximately 
50% by the feeding of a level of p,p'-DDT which produced concentrations of 
10-15 ppm total DDT (including metabolite) in the fat. These data applied to 
this investigation would mean that a high percentage of the patients in this 
study probably exhibited enhancement of microsomal-enzyme activity which 
may have modified their response to drugs. Of course, there is as yet no evidence 
that these rat data are quantitatively applicable to man, nor that significant 
microsomal stimulation by pesticides occurs in man. 

No attempt has been made to correct the concentrations of pesticides in the 
liver for the fat content of this organ. Many of the diseases encountered are 
characterized by fatty infiltration or degeneration of the liver. The possibility 
exists that elevated pesticide concentrations in the liver were wholly or partially 
a refiection of an increased fat content of this organ. One observation should be 
emphasized, namely, that elevated pesticide levels were not observed in the 
presence of fatty metamorphosis of the liver. It should also be noted that the 
major conclusions of this investigation are based on the concentration of pes- 
ticides in adipose tissue : not on the concentrations in liver or brain. 



36-513 O— 70— pt 6C 13 



3874 

BGIXBENCES 

Fiserova-Bergerova, V., Radomski, J. L., Davies, J. E. & Davis, J. H. (1967). 

Levels of chlorinated liydrocartxm pesticides in human tissnes. Ind. Med. Surg. 

36,65. 
Gerboth, G., u. Schwabe, U. (1964). Einfluss von gewebsgespeichertem DDT auf 

die Wirkung von Pharmaka. Naunyn-Schmiedehergs Arch. exp. Path. Pharmak, 

246 469. 
Radomski, J. L. & Fiserova-Bergerova, Vera (1965). The determination of pes- 
ticides in tissues with the electron capture detector without prior clean-up. 

Ind. Med. Surg. 34, 934. 
Schwabe, U. (1964). DDT-Speicheruog bei der Haltung von Versuchstieren als 

mogliche Fehlerquelle bei Arsmetunittelpriifuingen, Arzneimitie1rFor»ch, 14, 

1266. 



3875 



[Excel^t from THE JOURNAL OP THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, June 1969] 

Bioassay mi PestlcUi«s and Industrial Chemi- 
cals for Tumortgenicity in Mice: A Prelim- 
inary Note > ' ' 

J. R. M. JHNES, B. M. ULLAND, MARION G. VALERIO, 
L PETRUCELLI, * L. FtSHBEIN, ' E. R. HART, and A. J. 

PALLOn A, Bioiittiti ^estarch Laboratories, Inc., Litton 
Industries, 7300 Ptarl Stritt, Befhesda, Maryland 20014 

and 
R. R. BATES, H. L. fALK, • J. J. GART, M. KLEIN, I. 
MITCHELL, and J. PETERS, ' National Cancer Institute, ' 
Bethesda, MmryitHtd 20014 



SUMMARY — ^Th« tumorisenicity of iel«ct«d p«ttkides and industrial 
compoundi was t«st«d by continuous Oftj) adminlitratlon to botH sexes o( 
two hybrid strains of mice, started at ffie afe of 7 days. Maximal tolerated 
doses were given. Adminisftdtion of 11 of A« 1 20 test compounds induced 
o significantly elevated incidence of funlors, mosfiy bepatomos; this inci- 
dence was comparable to the mean tumor incideace of a groyp of positive 
control compounds. The 11 compound* ipclvde 5 inaeeticidcs: p,p'DDT, 
Mkex, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, Chlorobenulot*, and Strob«ae; the 5 
fungicides PCNB, Avadex, Ethyl sclenac, ethylene thiourea, and bis(S- 
hydroxyethyl)dithiocarbamic acid potoswum sail/ and the herbicide 
N-(hydroxethyl)hydrazinc. Eighty-nine compounds gave no significant 
indication of tumorigenicity after oral administration. The results with the 
remaining 20 compounds require furltier evaluation. The possible relevance 
of these experiments to human expotvre K discussed. — J Nat Cancer Inst 
42: 1101-1114,1969. 



THE ENVIRONMENT of man contains an 
increasing number of synthetic chemicals which 
may be hazardous and which require testing for 
toxicity and tumorigenicity. This is 4 preliminary 
report of a large-scale study designed to screen 
selected pesticides and industrial compounds for 
tumorigenicity in mice. The results were considered 
to be of sufficient interest to warrant publication 
o£ certain pwrtions of the study at this time. The 
complete experiment included bioassays on 130 
compwunds in two hybrid strains of mice by single 
subcutaneous injection or by continuous oral 
administration. Three of these comp>ounds were 



Received April 29, 1969; accepted April 30, 1969. 



« This study was performed at Bionetics Research Labora 
tones of Litton Industries under contract numbers PH43- 
64-57 and PH43-67-735 from the National Institutes of 
Health. 

' Reprint requests and inquiries should be made to Dr. 
Richard R. Bates, Biology Branch, National Cancer 
Institute. 

* Present address: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 
Penna. 15213. 

5 Present address: National Institute of Environmental 
Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research 
Triangle Park, N.C. 27709. 

« We thank A. M. Smith and D. G. Thomas for the 
computer programming of statistics and Drs. P. Kotin, 
C. G. Bakev, U. Saffiotti, M. Schneiderman, and N. Mantel 
for helpful suggestions. 

'JVational Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, 
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 

1101 



3876 



1102 



INNES ET AL. 



tested only by subcutaneous injection; all others 
were tested by both routes. Among the compounds 
were 7 carcinogens included as positive controls 
(i), 104 pesticides, and 19 industrial chemicals. 
The compounds were selected for inclusion in the 
study on the basis of three criteria : a) evidence of 
toxicity described in the literature suggesting po- 
tential hazards to man, b) widespread use of the 
chemicals, or c) chemical structure suggesting 
possible carcinogenicity. Even though nearly 20,000 
mice were used in these studies, the several investi- 
gations were done as preliminary, probing experi- 
ments and were not expected to provide final 
definitive information on every compound. 

This initial report is motivated by extensive 
exposure of man to some of the compounds tested 
and is focused on the data of greatest public health 
significance. Thus, only the results of oral administration 
are considered here. Evaluation of these data revealed 
that 1 1 compounds are clearly tumorigenic for the 
strains of mice used at the high dose levels admin- 
istered. The results for another group of 20 com- 
pounds are still inconclusive and require further 
evaluation. Eighty-nine compounds did not give 
significant indication of tumorigenicity. A full 
account of the study will be published later. 

MATERULS AND METHODS 

Animals and housing. — "Specific pathogen-free" 
mice were obtained from Cumberland View Farms, 
Clinton, Tennessee, to establish a breeding colony. 
Females of the C57BL/6 strain were mated with 
C3H/Anf or AKR males to obtain the two Fi 
hybrid stocks used. The (C57BL/6 X C3H/Anf)Fi 
mice are herein designated as "strain X" and the 
(C57BL/6 X AKR)Fi as "strain Y." Mice were 
kept in facilities having separate clean and dirty 
corridors with unidirectional airflow from the clean 
to the dirty corridor. Animal attendants wore 
sterile gowns, masks, gloves, and shoe covers. 

Chemicals, dose determination, and administration. — 
Chemicals were obtained from commercial sources. 
Their composition was confirmed by infrared 
spectroscopy, gas chromatography, or thin-layer 
chromatography. The chemicals were administered 
to the mice without further purification. Three 
chemicals were tested in the form of two different 



commercial products (compounds 69 and 126, 93 
and 128, 27 and 92). 

The maximal tolerated doses were given. These 
levels were selected following a sequence of studies, 
during which the maximal levels resulting in 
zero mortality were determined for a single dose, 
then for 6 daily doses, and finally for 19 daily doses. 

The maximal tolerated dose of each compound 
in mg/kg of body weight is shown in tables 1 to 4. 
For the tumorigenicity testing, this dose was given 
by stomach tube, beginning when the mice were 
7 days of age, in a suspension of the vehicle indicated 
in these tables. The same absolute amount of each 
compound was given each day until the mice were 
4 weeks old ; the dose was not readjusted according 
to weight gain during this period. After the mice 
were weaned at 4 weeks of age, the chemicals were 
mixed directiy with the diet, which was provided 
ad libitum; no vehicle was used. The concentration 
in the diet, listed as ppm in tables 1 to 4, was 
calculated according to the weight and food con- 
sumption of the 4-week-old mice so that once 
again they would receive approximately the maxi- 
mal tolerated dose, which had been calculated 
according to mg/kg body weight. The same con- 
centration was maintained throughout the observa- 
tion period of approximately 1 8 months. 

Distribution of animals. — At weaning, 18 mice of 
each sex of each strain were retained for study. 
Thus, 72 animals were given each compound 
orally. One exception to this was the positive 
control compound ethyl carbamate given to 24 
mice of each sex of each strain. Six animals were 
kept in each cage. The animals on test with each 
compound were placed in one of four rooms. 
Each room contained an untreated control group, 
and one room contained an additional group given 
gelatin suspension during the period when com- 
pounds were administered by stomach tube. Each 
room also housed at least one positive control group. 

Necropsy and diagnosis. — The experimental design 
called for necropsy at 18 months of age. The 
logistics of performing necropsies in a study involv- 
ing almost 20,000 mice were complex, however, 
and the actual time of necropsy varied somewhat 
among the groups. These times are shown as the 
"Weeks at term" in tables 5 through 7. This range 
of termination times existed among the negative 



JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE 



3877 



BIOASSAY OF PESTICIDES AND INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS FOR TUMORIGENICITY 



1103 



and positive control groups as well as among the 
experimental groups. 

The postmortem procedure included an external 
examination and a thorough examination of 
thoracic and abdominal cavities, with histologic 
examination of major organs and of all grossly 
visible lesions. The cranium was not dissected. 
Thyroid glands were examined and sectioned in 

I mice treated with Amitrol and in one negative 
control group, but not in other groups. The entire 

I carcass and all internal organs were fixed and have 
been saved. Blood smears were made on all mice 
before they were killed, and then examined only in 

I cases showing splenomegaly or lymphadenopathy. 
Statistical analysis. — Since several negative control 
groups differed with respect to their location within 
the four rooms, time of entry into the experiment, 
and length of time until necropsy, the variance 
among these groups was analyzed according to the 
incidence of hepatomas, pulmonary tumors, lym- 
phomas, and total mice with tumors. The first test 
performed was the "chi-square test for heterogene- 
ity of proportions after adjustment of stratification," 
as described by Armitage (2). The stratification in 
this application was the sex-strain combination. 
This test was not significant at the 5% level with 
any of the four categories of tumors. Similar 
ordinary chi-square tests were done on each sex- 
strain category, and no significant differences were 
found. As a final analysis of the negative control 
groups, the proportions of the various tumors 
among mice were regressed on the average time 
until death (3). This was done with each sex- 
strain combination for each type of tumor. In only 
1 of the 16 such analyses was a significant positive 
relationship noted: the liver tumors among strain 
Y males. Among the males of strain Y, 3 of the 5 
hepatomas seen were in the one group OD; this 



group also had the greatest age at death, 89 weeks 
(table 5). However, for liver tumors of strain X, 
there was a negative correlation between the inci- 
dence of hepatomas and the age at term. In both 
these cases, the figures are based on a very small 
number of hepatomas. Thus, the conclusion was 
reached from the several analyses performed that 
there was no significant evidence of differences 
among the negative control groups. In subsequent 
comparisons with positive controls and experi- 
mental compounds, the 5 negative control groups 
were lumped together. 

The individual positive controls and experi- 
mental groups were compared with the grouped 
negative controls. The analysis presents the cor- 
rected relative risk (4) for each comparison. The 
relative risk is a measure of the tumor incidence 
among the treated mice as compared to the con- 
trols. The analysis was performed with four tumor 
groupings: hepatomas, pulmonary tumors, lym- 
phomas, and total mice with tumors. The signifi- 
cance test of each sex-strain subgroup and their 
various combinations are by the Mantel-Haenszel 
procedure (5), and the combined relative risk uses 
the weighted geometric mean (6) with the 1/2 
corrections used throughout (7, 8). 

As an additional test to compare the tumor 
incidence of mice treated with experimental com- 
pounds with those treated with positive control 
compounds, the 7 positive controls were lumped 
together and the corrected relative risk was calcu- 
lated for each experimental group compared to 
this baseline. This was done to give an approximate 
figure with which the tumorigenicity of experi- 
mental compounds could be compared. This type 
of calculation should not be used as a rigid line of 
demarcation between tumorigenic and nontumori- 
genic compounds. 



KJ2 



3878 



INNES ET AL. 



\ablk 10. — Relative risk for development of tumors among mice treated with experimental compounds when 
compared with total positive controls 



Compounds 


Com- 
pound 

No. 


Strain* 


Mice 


with hepatomas 


Total mice with tumors 


M 


F 


Sum 


M 


F 


Sum 


PCNB - 


60 


X 

Y 

Sum 


. Ill 
1.871 
.705 


.331 
. 163 
.268 


.215 
1.005 
.466 


. 198 

1.281 

.519 


. 179 
.097 
. 142 


.188 
.515 




.297 


p,p'-DDT - --- 


65 


X 

Y 
Sum 


1. 126 
.872 
.991 


.331 
.154 
.264 


.658 
.566 
.617 


.744 
.586 
.658 


.179 
.391 
.272 


.383 
.481 




.431 




96 


X 
Y 

Sum 


.382 
.700 
.506 


1.067 
2.900 
1.730 


.638 
1.465 
.945 


.316 
.379 
.344 


.439 
.969 
.646 


.371 
.618 




.472 




98 


X 

Y 

Sum 


2.832 
1. 651 
2.032 


.277 
.186 
.242 


.885 
.975 
.930 


2.813 
1.393 

1.775 


.210 
. Ill 
.165 


.5«0 
.585 




.573 




109 


X 
Y 

Sum 


4.259 
1.494 
2. 127 


.331 

.256 


.902 
1.029 
.958 


Inf.t 
1.014 
1.376 


.136 
.051 
.101 


.260 
.473 




.371 




129 


Sum 


1.412 
.323 
.773 


.258 

.200 


.705 
.242 
.498 


3.201 
.319 
.752 


.248 
.200 
.225 


.622 
.256 




.387 


ETU 


1.53 


X 

Y 

Sum 


4.259 

Inf.t 

6.851 


Inf.t 
2.274 
3. 174 


6.559 
3.259 
4.239 


2.813 

Inf.t 

4.366 


Inf.t 
1.667 
2.289 


3.957 
2.457 




2.997 


iV-(2-Hydrox}'ethyl) hydrazine 


154 


X 
Y 

Sum 


.6.57 
1.651 
1. 051 


.092 

.079 


.399 
1.147 
.652 


.679 
.895 
.784 


.067 
.145 
. 103 


.303 
.443 
.371 




168 


X 

Y 

Sum 


.821 
.955 

.884 







.569 
.686 
.624 


.858 
.648 
.741 


.067 
.136 
.099 


.344 

.348 




.346 


Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)dithiocarbamic 
acid, potassium salt. 


170 


X 

Y 

Sum 


2.832 
4.009 
3.422 


2.052 
.433 
1.094 


2.338 
1.453 
1.869 


2.813 
2.172 
2.406 


1.077 
.429 
.663 


1.533 

.884 
1.127 




171 


X 

Y 

Sum 


.136 

2.049 

.831 







.100 

1.368 

.540 


.550 

1. 110 

.799 


.099 

.075 


.265 
.704 




.,401 



•Strain X => (C57BL/6 X CSH/AnOF,: strain Y = {C57BX/6 X AKR)Fi. 
1 1 tif. —relative risk calculated as infinite. 



RESULTS 

The tumors were principally of the liver, lung, 
and lymphoid organs. Tumors of other orgjins were 
rare except in the case of two positive control 
compounds: Amitrol, which induced thyroid carci- 
nomas in practically all the animals, and ethyl 
carbamate, which induced a substantial number of 
adenomas of the Harderian gland. Because of the 



rarity of other types of tumors, only those of the 
three principal organs aflfected are considered here. 
Other tumors are coimted, however, in the column 
"Total mice vnth tumors" of the tables. 

The diagnostic criteria for liver tumors were 
those described by Lemon (9). According to her 
criteria, liver tumors are diagnosed as "hepatomas" 
unless metastases are found; then they are desig- 
nated as carcinomas. This distinction is npt made 



JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE 



3879 



BIOASSAY OF PESTICIDES AND INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS FOR TUMORIGENICITY 



1113 



to indicate that those which do not metastasize are 
benign, but rather because the histologic appear- 
ance of tumors of the liver of the mouse is not a 
good guide to their behavior. Metastasizing hepatic 
cell tumors were rare in the present study. Thus, 
the tables in this manuscript and the statistical 
calculations include the two subclassifications 
groufjed together as "hepatomas." 

Pulmonary tumors consisted principally of ade- 
nomas, according to the criteria of Stewart (JO). 
A few adenocarcinomas of the lung were noted, but 
because of their relative scarcity both types are 
considered together as "pulmonary tumors." 

Tumors of the lymphoid organs were originally 
classified by the criteria of Dunn (JJ). Most were 
Type B reticulum-cell sarcomas. A smaller number 
of animals had malignant lymphomas associated 
with leukemia, while other types of lymphoma were 
rare. In a study designed to investigate the tumori- 
genicity of chemicals rather than the pathogenesis 
of tumor types, we believed it more meaningful to 
combine all these tumors into a single category, 
"lymphomas." 

As indicated in tables 6 and 8, the tumorigenicity 
of the positive control compounds was manifest 
primarily through the induction of hepatomas. 
Isosafrole was only weakly tumorigenic. All other 
positive controls had an elevation of hepatomas 
significant at the 0.01 level in one or more of the 
sex-strain subgroups. Dihydrosafrole induced liver 
tumors only in male mice, and Aramite led to a 
significant increase in hepatomas only in the males 
of strain X. Only 3 of the 7 positive controls had 
a significant increase in pulmonary tumors, and 
only ethyl carbamate induced a significant yield 
of lymphomas. 

The pattern of tumor types among experimental 
compounds was similar to that with positive con- 
trol compounds. Thus, the major evidence for 
tumorigenicity by experimental compounds lies in 
the increased incidence of hepatomas (tables 7 and 
9). For each of the II experimental compounds 
listed in table 9, the increased incidence of hepa- 
tomas was significant at the 0.01 level for the sum 
of both sexes and both strains, the sum of males of 
both strains, and for the males of at least one 
strain considered separately. Females were gen- 
erally less affected than males, but several com- 
pounds induced hepatomas in them also. When the 



relative risk for hepatoma development among 
these 1 1 experimental compounds was compared 
with the overall risk in the positive controls (table 
10), in 10 of them at least one sex-strain subgroup 
had a greater risk than the corresponding sex-strain 
subgroup of the combined positive controls. The 
remaining compound, Chlorobenzilate, had a 
relative risk approaching that of positive controls 
for males of both strains. 

The incidence of tumors of the lung and lym- 
phoid organs showed a less striking elevation than 
hepatomas. The incidence of lymphomas in some 
suhrgrouf>s of mice treated with p,p'-DT)T, Ethyl 
selenac, ETU, and Strobane and the incidence of 
pulmonary tumors among mice treated with 
Avadex were significantly increased over the nega- 
tive controls. No tumors of the lung or lymphoid 
organs were seen in mice treated with Mirex — 
possibly because none of these mice lived 18 months. 
However, if Mirex were strongly carcinogenic to 
these organs, an effect would probably have been 
seen during the time the animals survived. 

Mice treated with compounds listed in table 3 
did not have a significant elevation of tumor 
incidence at the 0.01 level of any type of tumor in 
any sex-strain subgroup or combination of groups 
after oral administration. Mice treated with com- 
pounds listed in table 4 had an elevation of tumor 
incidence in an uncertain range; with these com- 
pounds, additional statistical evaluation and/or 
experimentation will be required before an 
interpretation can be made. 

DISCUSSION 

The interpretation of these data requires con- 
sideration of two questions: "What is the biologic 
behavior of mouse hepatomas?" and "What rele- 
vance do studies with a single, high dose level in 
one species have for evaluating the hazard of other 
dose levels in other species?" 

Confusion arises firom the fact that classical 
terminology of neoplastic disease suggests the term 
"hepatoma" refers to benign tumors, whereas a 
malignant tumor of the liver should be referred to 
as a "carcinoma." The opinion of Lemon (9) has 
already been quoted on the impossibility of making 
this distinction between benign and malignant 
liver tumors in the mouse. Andervont and Dunn 



VOL. 42, NO. 6, JUNE 1969 



3880 



1114 



INNES ET AL. 



(12) reported the transplantability of mouse liver 
tumors. They found no correlation between trans- 
plantability and morphologic characteristics. Many 
transplantable tumors had cytologic characteristics 
so similar to normal liver that the distinction vv'as 
difficult to make on microscopic observation. Gross 
observation appeared to be a more reliable 
criterion. Thus, the term "hepatoma" as used in 
this manuscript should not be considered as imply- 
ing that these tumors are benign. Indeed, it seems 
more reasonable to conclude that the great 
majority had malignant potentiality. 

The problem of species specificity for chemical 
carcinogens has been discussed by several investi- 
gators {13-15) and will not be detailed here. There 
are differences among species: Some may be 
susceptible to tumorigenesis by a given chemical 
and others may show relative or absolute resistance. 
At present, there is no way to predict whether man 
may be more or less susceptible than the mouse to 
the induction of tumors by the compounds reported 
here. An estimation of the extent of the hazard 
posed by these compounds should take into con- 
sideration other experiments performed in other 
laboratories. It should be stressed that the dose 
received by the mice was far in excess of that likely 
to be consumed by humans. 

Another problem in interpretation lies in the fact 
that laboratory experiments are designed to test a 
single chemical and to prevent exposures to other 
chemicals as much as possible. The environment of 
man, on the other hand, contains a complex 
mixture of chemicals. The way in which these 
interact to either enhance or inhibit carcinogenicity 
is a complex, difficult problem that has not been 
sufficiently investigated. 



REFERENCES 

(/) Falk, H. L.,Thompson, S.J., andKoTiN, p. : Carcino- 
genic potential of pesticides. Arch Environ Health 
(Chicago) 10: 847-858, 1965. 

(?) Armitage, p.: The chi-square test for heterogeneity 
of proportions after adjustment for stratification. 
J Royal Stat Soc (B) 28: 150-163, 1966. 

(J) Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G.: Statistical 
Methods, 6th ed. Ames, The Iowa State Press, 
1967, pp 246-248. 

(4) LiLiENFELD, A. M., Pedersen, E., and Dowd, J. E.: 

Cancer Epidemiology: Methods of Study. Baltimore, 
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967, pp 131-134. 

(5) Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G.: op cit, 

pp 253-256. 

(6) Gart, J. J.: On the combination of relative risks. 

Biometrics 18; 601-610, 1962. 

(7) Gart, J. J., and Zweifel, J.: On the bias of various 

estimators of the logit and its variance with applica- 
tion to quanta! bioassay. Biometrika 54: 181-187, 
1967. 
(ff) Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G.: op cit, p 497. 
(9) Lemon, P. G.: Hepatic neoplasms of rats and mice. In 
Pathology of Laboratory Rats and Mice (Cotchin, 
E., and Roe, F. J. C, eds.). PhUadelphia, F. A. 
Davis Co., 1967, pp 25-56. 

{10) Stewart, H. L. : Pulmonary tumors in mice. In Patho- 
physiology of Cancer, 2d ed. (Homburger, F., ed.). 
New York, Hoeber-Harper, 1959, pp 18-37. 

(11) Dunn, T. B. : Normal and pathologic anatomy of the 
reticular tissue in laboratory mice, with a classifica- 
tion and discussion of neoplasms. J Nat Cancer 
Inst 14: 1281-1433, 1954. 

{12) Andervont, H. B., and Dunn, T. B.: Transplantation 
of spontaneous and induced hepatomas in inbred 
mice. J Nat Cancer Inst 13: 455-503, 1952. 

(13) Clayson, D. B.: Chemical Carcinogenesis. Boston, 

Little, Brown & Co., 1962, pp 56-61, 97-98. 

(14) HuEPER, W. C, and Conway, W. D.: Chemical 

Carcinogenesis and Cancers. Springfield, Charles 
C Thomas, 1964, p 468. 

(15) Arcos, J. C, Argus, M. F., and Wolf, G.: Chemical 

Induction of Cancer, vol. I. New York, Academic 
Press Inc., 1968, pp 340-347. 



I 



3881 

Man and DDT-Compounds * 

(By Goran Lofroth)** 

Radiobiology Department of the Biochemistry Institute, University of Stock- 
holm,** and Working Group on Environmental Toxicology of the Ecological 
Research Committee, Swedish Natural Science Research Council. 

ENVIBONMENTAL INTRODUCTION 

Hundreds of thousands metric tons of DDT are used annually in the whole 
world. Accurate statistics from all countries is not available. In 1966, 
64,000 metric tons of DDT were manufactured alone in the United States, 
one third of which was used within the country. The average annual United 
States production during 1949-66 has been 58,000 metric tons. The overall 
trend during these years seems to have been an increasing production and a 
relative as well as absolute decreasing use within the United States (cf. 
Table 1 given in Stickel (1968) for the U.S. data). 

The persistence of the DDT-compounds (DDT+DDE+DDD) is well 
recognized ; however there have been no realistic appraisals of the global 
persistence. It might well be possible that the background contamination of 
DDT-compounds is increasing. 

By codestillation with water (Acree et al. 1963, Bowman et al. 1964) and 
volatilization from soil (Harris and Lichtenstein 1961) organochlorine pesti- 
cides leave the originally assaulted area ; the eventual result being world-wide 
distribution. DDT-compounds have been found to be transported by air 
over the Atlantic (Riseb rough et al 1968 a) ; they have appeared in the 
Antarctic (Sladen et al. 1966, Tatton and Ruzicka 1967) ; and they are 
common constituents of rain (Tarrant and Tatton 1968). 

From the data given by Tarrant and Tatton (1968) it can be estimated that 
about 35 metric tons organochlorine pesticides are precipitated annually on the 
British Isles, about half of which is DDT-compounds. 

Long-term detrimental effects on wild birds are well documented (e.g. 
Ratcliffe 1967, Hickey and Anderson 1968, Wurster and Wingate 1968) and 
recently Stickel (1969) reported on laboratory studies which confirm that 
low levels of organochlorine compounds cause decreased reproduction. Rise- 
brough et al. (1968 b) have shown that p,p'-DDE is as pharmacodynamically 
active as pp'-DDT in birds; hence it is not justified to suppose that DDE is 
less toxic that DDT unless one refers to acute lethal toxicity. 

Similarly, DDT causes decreased reproduction in fish (see e.g. Burdick et al 
1964) ; such an effect may directly decrease food availability for man. 

EXPOSXJEE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION (EXCEPT^ NURSED INFANTS) 

The dietary intake of pesticides is continuously surveyed in the United 
States. From data given by Duggan and Weatherwax (1967) it can be 
calculated that the average daily intake of DDT-compounds with food was about 
0.06 mg per person in 1964/65 and 0.09 in 1965/66 ; i.e. about 0.0011 mg DDT- 
compounds/day and kg body-weight An English survey in 1965 estimates 
the average daily intake of DDT-compounds to 0.06 mg per person (Robinson 
and McGill 1966). 

The WHO and FAO of the United Nations have recommended a maximum 
acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.01 mg DDT-compounds/day and kg body- 
weight (WHO 1968). Maier-Bode (1968) has reviewed the dietary intake of 
several pesticides in relation to the recommended ADIs, of which the intake 
of aldrin-f-dieldrin equals the ADI of 0.0001 mg/day and kg body-weight 
(WHO 1968). 

It has for a long time been hypothesized that the diet is the major origin 
of pesticide exposure for the general population. Recently, Deichman and 
Radomski (1968, 1969) and Radomski (1968) presented evidence that house- 
hold use of spray pesticides may appreciably contribute to the body burden of 
DDT-compounds. The total exposure of the general population may thus be 
considerably more than that evaluated by analyses of food and total diet 
samples. 



* Contribution to : Deutsch-schwedlsches Symposium auf dem Goblet der Umwelthy- 
glene am 12. and 13 juni 1969 In Baden-Baden. 

*♦ Mailing address : Box 6409, S-113.82 Stockholm, Sweden. 



3882 






The, concentration of DDT-compounds in the adipose tissue of the genera 
population in the United States is in average about 10-11 ppm (parts per 
million=mg per lig material) (see below). An estimation of the world-wide 
average yields about 10-15 ppm (see below), hence it might be assumed that 
the average exposure of the world population is of the same magnitude as that 
of the US general population. It must, however, be acknowledged that the 
individual exposure may vary considerably depending on many factors; 
place of residence, food habits, use of pesticides within the country and area 
of residence, use of household pesticide formulations, etc. 

man's body bukden 

Man's body burden of DDT-compounds is generally estimated by analyses 
of adipose tissue following sampling by either biopsy or necropsy. Recently, 
analyses of blood have been introduced ; however, these data are yet scarce 
and cannot be used for a general review. 

Engst et al. (1967) have tabulated and reviewed most of the pai)ers pub- 
lished on the concentration of several organochlorine pesticides in human 
adipose tissue. Several new reports have been published during the last years, 
many of which concern the situation in the United States as has also been 
the case earlier. Hoffman et al. 1967 (USA), Fiserova-Bergerova et al. 1967 
(USA), Casarett et al 1968 (USA), Rappolt and Hale 1968 (USA), Davies et 
al. 1968 (USA), Radomski et al 1968 (USA), Bick 1967 (Australia), Wasser- 
man et al. 1968 a (Australia) 1967 (Israel), Brown, 1967 (Canada), Abbott el 
al 1968 (Great Britain), Llinares and Wassermann 1968 (Spain), de Vlieger et 
al. 1968 (Holland), Wassermann et al. 1968 b (Argentina) 1968 c (Nigera). 

The recent studies (Rappolt and Hale 1968, Davies et al. 1968, Hoffman 
et al. 1967) from three different regions of mainland United States indicate 
that the average concentration of DDT-compounds in the adipose tissue of 
the general population is about 10-11 ppm. Further, the data now available 
from about 20 countries indicate that the world-wide average is about 10-15 
ppm. 

The distribution of the individual values around the arithmetic average 
of the sample is often askew and some authors prefer to express their 
results in a logarithmic distribution. It has been pointed out that as much 
as 7% of the general population may have body burdens more than twice 
the arithmetic average^ (Lofroth 1969). 

Several investigators point out that there is a significant difference between 
sexes, races, ethnic groups, and age-classes within the same general population ; 
e.g. women having less than men, and white US citizens less than non-white 
ones. 

Though, also finding such differences, Hoffman et al. (1967) evaluated with a 
simple t-test, without proper separation of the different sub-groups in sexes 
and races, that there was no difference between the concentrations of DDT- 
compounds in persons with normal and abnormal pathological changes. 

HUMAN MELK 

In 1945 Woodard et al. reported that dogs fed DDT excreted it in the milk. 

Six years later Laug, et al. (1951) reported for the first time that lactating 
women of the general population excrete DDT in milk. Since then several 
reports have appeared, from the United States (West 1965, Quiniby et al. 1965, 
Curley and Kimbrough 1969), Great Britain (Egan et al. 1965), Sovjet 
(Damaskin 1965), Himgary (Denes 1964), Italy (Kanitz and Castello 1966), 
Sweden (Westoo and Noren 1968), and Poland (Cwiertniewska 1969). 

From these available data it can be estimated that the average concentra- 
tion of DDT-compounds in human milk presently is about 0.1-0.2 ppm. 

A breast-fed baby consumes about 150 g milk per day and kg body -weight! 
and consequently the average baby ingests daily in average about 0.02 mg DDT- 
compounds per kg body-weight. This is twice the maximmn ADI recommended 1 
by WHO and FAO of the United Nations. 

Comment: It is generally acknowledged that human milk is superior tO) 
formula milk for parameters measured during infancy (see e.g. Haire and! 
Haire 1968), and that human milk is the main available nutritious food forr 
infants in large parts of the world (Jelliffe 1968) ; hence the human milkf 
should not be abandoned. 

There seems to be a striking difference between women and cows ; lactating \ 



3883 

women excrete in the milk more than 100% of the daily ingested DDT 
(Quinby et al. 1965) while cows excrete only 2-10% (Laben 1968). 

PHABMACODYNAMICAX ACTION 

Already 1950 Tauber and Hughes reported that female rats ingesting DDT 
had decreased ovarian cholesterol levels, a discovery indicating that DDT 
might have other effects on the mammalian system beside the neurotoxic ones. 

This indication has now become well substantiated, mostly by pilot studies 
using rather high dose levels (see e.g. review by Kupfer 1967). 

There are now also available a number of studies which show that low level 
exposure to DDT result in changed metabolism of both endogenous and 
xenobiotic compounds in the mammalian system, especially the liver (Kinoshita 
et al, 1966, Schwabe and Wendling 1967, Naistain 1968, Datta and Nelson 
1968, Gilett 1968, Yakoshko 1969). The dose levels used are of the same order 
of magnitude as those to which Man is presently exposed. 

Similar pharmocodynamical effects have been found in adult humans exposed 
under occupational conditions (Krasnyuk and Makovskaya 1966, Paramonchik 

1968, Kolmodin 1969). 

No studies seem to have been performed in order to evaluate possible 
pharmacodynamical effects in babies fed human milk ; it might be impossible to 
perform a strict scientific evaluation as probably as all human milk contains 
DDT -compounds — no proper control group is available. The detoxification 
systems of the new-born is not fully developed — the eventual long-term, life- 
time effects of a possible exogenous manipulation of these systems cannot be 
predicted, (cf. e.g. Brodie 1964) 

The pharmacodynamical effects as well as other recognized effects, e.g. 
depression of electromyography potentials caused by DDT (Kailin and Hastings 
1966 a and b), have constantly been disregarded by the proponents (Hayes 

1969, Laws et al. 1967) of the safety of DDT in their studies limited to 
healthv adult men. 

CAKCINOGENITY 

The tests for possible carcinogenity of several organochlorine pesticides 
have been reviewed by Terracini (1967). There is yet no conclusive scientific 
agreement as to the carcinogenic action of DDT. Terracini points out that 
the several positive results may have been caused by a synergistic action 
of the pesticide and other factors. 

Kemeny and Tarjan (1966) found, in a multigenerational mice study, a 
tumor frequency of 8.9% in the treated group fed fodder containing about 3 
ppm DDT and 1.2% in the control group fed fodder containing an unavoidable 
0.2-0.4 ppm DDT. The DDT added to the diet of the treated group was 
recrystallized, purified p,p'-DDT, the melting point of which coincided with 
that of p,p'-DDT (Tarjan 1969). 

Oral, continuous, administration of high doses of p,p'-DDT resulted in an 
increased tumor frequency in both sexes of two tested mice strains (Innes 
etal. 1969). 

BEFEEENCES 

Abbott, D. C. et al. 1968 : Brit. Med. J. 3, 146. 

Acree, F. Jr. et al. 1963 : J. Agr. Food Chem. 11, 278. 

Bick, M. 1967 : Med. J. Australia 1, 1127. 

Bowman, M. C. F. et al. 1964 : Science H6, 1480. 

Brodie, B. B. 1964 : Pharmacologist 6, 12. 

Brown, J. R. 1967 : Can. Med. Assoc. J. 57, 367. 

Burdick, G. F. et al. 1964 : Trans. Am. Fisher Soc. 93, 127. 

Casarett, L. J. et al. 1968 : Arch. Environ. Health 17, 306. 

Curley, A. and Kimbrough, R. 1969 : Arch. Environ. Health 18, 156. 

Owiertniewska, E. 1969: Communication given at "Conference on Chlorinated 

Hydrocarbon Pesticides" March 25-27, Stockholm 
Damaskin, V. I. 1965 : Gig. Sanit. 30, 109. 

Datta, P. R. and Nelson, M. J. 1968 : Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 13, 346. 
Davies, J. E. et al. 1968 : Pesticides Monitoring J. 2, 80. 
Deichman, Wm. B. and Radomski, J. L. 1968 : Ind. Med. Surg. 37, 218. 
Deichman, Wm. B. and Radomski, J. L. 1969: Paper Given at "Conference on 

Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides" March 25-27, Stockholm. 
Denes, A, 1964: Year-Book of the Institute of Nutrition, 1963 (Budapest) 

1864, p. 46. 



3884 

Duggan, R. E. and Weatherwax, J. R. 1967 : Science 157, 1006. 

Egan, H. et al. 1965 : Brit. Med. J. 2, 66. 

Engst, R. et al. 1967 : Pharmazie 22, 654. 

Fiserova-Bergerova, V. et al. 1967 : Ind. Med. Surg. 36, 65. 

Gilett, J. W. 1968 : Arg. Food Chem. 16, 295. 

Haire, D- and Haire, J. 1968: Implementing family-centered maternity care 
with ' a central nursery. Publ. : Childbirth Education Association of New 
Jersey, Hillside, N..T. 1968, Chapter V, part II. 

Harris, C. R. and E. P. Lichtenstein 1961 : Econ. Entomol. 5^, 1038. 

Hayes, W. J., Jr. 1969: Paper given at "Conference on Chlorinated Hydro- 
carbon Pesticides" March 25-27, Stockholm. 

Hickey, J. J. and Anderson, D. W. 1968 : Science 162, 271. 

Hoffman, W. S. et al. 1967 : Arch. Environ. Health 15, 758. 

Innes, J. R. M. et al. 1969: J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (June 1969) 

Jelliffe, D. B. 1968: Infant Nutrition in the Subtropics and Tropics. Second 
edition World Health Organisation, Geneva. 

Kailin, E. W. and Hastings, A. 1966 a : Medical Annals 35, 237. 

Kailin, E. W. and Hastings, A. 1966 b : Medical Annals 35, 519. 

Kanitz, S. and Castello, G. 1966 : G. Ig. Med. Prev. 7, 1. 

Kemeny, T. and Tarjan, R. 1966: Experientia 22, 748. 

Kinoshita, F. K. et al. 1966 : Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 9, 505. 

Kolmodin, B. 1969: Paper given at "Conference on Chlorinated Hydrocarbon 
Pesticides" March 25-27, Stockholm. 

Krasnyuk, E. P. and Makovskaya, E. I. 1966 : Sovjet Med. 29, 92. 

Kupfer, D. 1967 : Residue Reviews 19, 11. 

Laben, R. C. 1968 : J. Animal Sci. 27, 1643. 

Laug, E. P. et al. 1951 : Arch. Industr. Hyg. 3, 245. 

Laws, E. R. Jr. 1967 : Arch. Environ. Health. 15, 766. 

Llinares, U. M. and Wasserman, M. 1968 : reprint without identification, 29. 

Lofroth, G. 1969: Paper given at "Conference on Chlorinated Hydrocarbon 
Pesticides" March 25-27, Stockholm. 

Maier-Bode, H. 1968 : Naturwissenschaften 55, 470. 

Naistain, S. Ya. 1968 : Gig. Sanit. 33, 42. 

Paramonchik, V. M. 1968 : Sovjet Med. 31, 62. 

Quinby, G. E. et al. 1965 : Nature 207, 726. 

Radomski, J. L. 1968 : Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 6, 209. 

Rappolt, R. T. Sr. and Hale, W. E. 1968 : Clin. Toxicol. 1, 57. 

Ratcliffe, D. A. 1967 : Nature 215, 208. 

Risebrough, R. W. et al. 1968 a : Science 159, 1234. 

Risebrough, R. W. et al. 1968 b : Nature 220, 1968. 

Robinson, J. and McGill, A. E. J. 1966 : Nature 212, 1037. 

Schwabe, U. and Wendling, I. 1967 : Arzneimittelforschung 17, 614. 

Sladen, W. J. L. et al. 1966, Nature 210, 670. 

Stickel, L. F. 1968 : Organochlorine pesticides in the environment. Special 
Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 119, October 1968. U.S. Department of the 
Interior. 

Stickel, L. F. 1969: Paper given at "Conference on Chlorinated Hydrocarbon 
Pesticides" March 25-27, Stockholm. 

Tarjan, R. 1969 : Communication to the author. 

Tarrant, K. R. and Tatten, J. O'G. 1968 : Nature 219, 725. 

Tatton, J. O'G. and Ruzicka, J. H. A. 1967 : Nature 215, 346. 

Tauber, O. B. and Hughes, A. B. 1950 : Proc. Sec. Exp. Biol. Med. 75, 420. 

Terracini, E. 1967 : Tumori 53, 601. 

deVlieger, M. et al. 1968 : Arch. Environ. Health 17, 759. 

Wassermann, M. et al. 1967 : Pesticides Monitoring J. 1, 15. 

Wassermann, M. et al. 1968 a : Ind. Med. Surg. 37, . 

Wasserman, M. et al. 1968 b : La Semania Medica. 

Wassermann, M. et al. 1968 c: Proc. of the Lagos International Seminar on 
Occupational Health for Developing Countries, Lagos, 1968. 

West, J. 1964 : Arch. Environ. Health 9, 626. 

Westoo, G. and Noren, K. 1968: Nordforsk Biocidinformation No. 14 (Stock- 
holm) p. 6. 

WHO 1968 : WHO/Food Add./68.30. 

Woodard, G. et al. 1945 : Science Aug. 17, 177. 

Wurster, C. F. Jr. and Wingate, D. B. 1968 : Science 159, 979. 

Yakoshko, V. E. 1969 : Farmakologia i Toksikologia 32, 107. 



3885 



Some Health-Related Needs 
in Pesticide Investigations 




S. W. Simmons 

S. W. Simmons, Ph.D. , Pesticides Program, Food and 
Drug Administration , Consumer Protection and 
Environmental Health Service, Public Health Service, 
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30333 



The universal presence of pesticides in man, from the fetal stage on, calls for 
many studies: evaluation of toxicity in the fetus with reference to prematurity, 
pre-eclampsia, birth defects, etc., studies on detection of metabolites; disposal of 
pesticide wastes; chemical epidemiology; monitoring of occupationally exposed 
people; training programs for analytical chemists; many others. 



It is entirely fitting that the Sixth Inter-American 
Conference on Toxicology and Occupational 
Medicine has selected pesticides as the topic for 
discussion. Diseases caused by non-viable entities in 
our environment are belatedly getting some of the 
attention that they have long deserved, and pesticides 
are an important part of these media. Pesticides 
confront us in ever increasing numbers and formula- 
tions, and they are not going away. They are in the 
food we eat, the air we breathe, and the homes we 
live in. Each of us carries his own body burden of 
pesticides. They are inescapable, and it behooves us 
to study them, to understand them, and to use them 
safely. This does not imply that pesticides are doing 
us harm; it does constitute a clear command for us to 
find out exactly what risks are involved in their use. 



Considerable progress has already been made in this 
area; however, instead of relating progress, of which 
you are aware, I propose to cite some needs which I 
hope will be a challenge and an inducement to 
intensify efforts for the safer use of a very valuable 
armament to our survival. 

First of all, evaluation of the toxicity of new 
pesticide chemicals involves a considerable portion of 
the effort of most toxicology laboratories. The need 
for this work is obvious, and closely related to it is 
the problem of screening test pesticides for toxicity to 
man. Data from animals can only be a guide, and 
there is often a great difference between toxicological 
effects on different animals. Better test animals are 
needed, and where safe and feasible, there is no 
substitute for human volunteer studies. 



INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 1969 



3886 



We know that there is a problem of potentiation or 
antagonism in the simultaneous exposure to certain 
pesticides and certain drugs, as well as between some 
pesticides. The extent of this is a moot question. The 
toxicity of a pesticide from its use alone does not 
necessarily indicate its potential toxicity when used in 
combination with other chemicals, and this problem 
needs further investigation. Dr. Deichmann, the Di- 
rector of this Conference, has contributed substantial- 
ly in this field. 

It is known that the fetus in utero is storing 
organochlorines, at least as early as the fourth week 
of gestation. The effects of the low levels that now 
occur may be of no consequence to an adult, but a 
study should be made of the effects of these com- 
pounds on the fetus with particular reference to 
prematurity, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, abruptio 
placentae, stillbirth, birth defects, spontaneous abor- 
tion, and congenital or infant malignancy. 

The analytical problems in dealing with pesticides 
are legion, and a great deal of work is needed on the 
quantitative detection of more compounds in more 
types of substrata. The development of analytical 
procedures for detection of metabolites of pesticidal 
compounds is necessary before their metabolism and 
site of action in the animal body can be understood. 
The data reported from various laboratories are often 
difficult to correlate because of differences in analyti- 
cal procedures. Rigid standardization is detrimental 
to progress, but data comparisons would be more 
meaningful if some standardization could be adopted 
by the various laboratories, at least until clearly 
better methods are devised. 

There has been a relative lack of epidemiological 
investigations of chemical poisonings. Most epidemi- 
ologists have a background in infectious diseases, and 
few have been concerned with chemical epidemiol- 
ogy. More attention should be given to the prevalence 
and distribution of toxic chemicals in man and the 
environment. Concurrently, the determination of the 
prevalence and distribution of clinical and subclinical 
pathology in man is needed to discover and evaluate 
any causal or contributory relationship to pesticides. 
Most State health departments have not given or 
have only begun to give attention to the many prob- 
lems of recent origin resulting from our chemical 
environment. All State departments of health should 
be developing a surveillance system which could be 
used for monitoring occupationally exposed people. 
The appropriate routine analysis of blood and urine 
of heavily exposed workers, regardless of the chemi- 
cals to which they are exposed, would, in most 
instances, give warning of potential danger. This does 
not preclude the establishment and use of proper 
threshold limit values in air. The need for every area 



to have available an experienced forensic pathologist 
and a competent toxicological service is only too 
evident. More training programs are needed so that 
all State and many local health departments may 
have on their staff a trained analytical chemist and an 
epidemiologist well versed in the investigation of 
chemical poisoning. I might say that the Pesticides 
Program of the Public Health Service is anxious to 
help in this endeavor. 

As a corollary to epidemiological and surveillance 
activities, routine monitoring of man and the environ- 
ment is essential. Monitoring programs are being 
carried out by several government departments, and 
a monitoring journal which carries information on 
pesticide levels wherever they may exist, is now being 
published by the Pesticides Program for the Federal 
Committee on Pest Control. Several years of such 
work with more standardized analytical procedures 
should provide a better basis for epidemiological 
extrapolations. 

There are probably 100,000 cases of poisoning 
from pesticides in this country each year, with some 
150 accidental deaths. Yet, poisoning has not been 
declared a reportable disease, while at the same time, 
many far less important diseases are required to be 
reported. We need to know from a clinical and 
epidemiological point of view who gets poisoned with 
what, and where, when, how, and why. Until we can 
sec the entire iceberg, it is hard to evaluate its 
magnitude. 

Information that can prevent pesticide poisonings 
is available, but it must reach the public before it 
can accomplish its purpose. There is a great need for 
public information on pesticides, particularly at the 
local level. Many of the poisoning cases reported to 
us, all too clearly could have been prevented if public 
information had been adequate. 

Better diagncsiic procedures are needed, since 
pesticide poisoning may mimic many other condi- 
tions, and oftentimes a diagnosis is based on associa- 
tion rather than clinical signs and symptoms. Im- 
proved analytical, biochemical, and clinical tests are 
needed that can be adapted for routine use in small 
laboratories and even in the field. 

The mode of action of many pesticides is not 
understood. A clearer understanding of this would be 
the starting point for the development of specific 
treatment. There is, at present, a great need for a 
specific antidote for cases of chlorinated hydrocarbon 
poisoning. Treatment is needed not only to counter- 
act the symptoms, but to get to the site of action and 
reverse the effect. The problem is finding the mode of 
action. The importance of this is obvious. 

A problem of increasing magnitude is the handling 
and disposal of pesticide wastes and used containers. 



INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 1969 



f 



3887 



We have given this problem much consideration, and 
the Federal Committee on Pest Control has a special 
subcommittee appointed to study it. In spite of this, 
no practical solution has evolved. Waste disposal 
from manufacturing and formulating plants is han- 
dled in a variety of ways often resulting in contamina- 
tion of the environment in the vicinity and pollution 
of streams for long distances. 

In agricultural areas of heavy pesticide usage, the 
disposal of containers is a formidable problem. 
Abandoned pesticide containers are strewn through- 
out the entire length of the Mississippi levee. A 
system of returnable drums or of easily disposable 
containers and an organized plan of disposal is a 
must. Certain bacteria and fungi are apparently ac- 
climated to metabolism of specific pesticides. Strains 
of bacteria have been developed that utilize DDT as 
a source of energy, converting it into COo (Johnson, 
R. F., Personal Communication, February 1968). 
There may be other organisms that would break 
down toxic chemicals to harmless materials. Investi- 
gations are needed to determine if such methods can 
be used for the problem of pesticide waste disposal 
or for ridding areas of accumulated residuals. 

A related problem involves the transportation of 
pesticides and their storage. I need only mention the 
recent incidents of large scale human poisoning in 
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Tia Juana, Jamaica, and Co- 
lombia as an example of the importance of the 
problem. Fortunately, and surprisingly, it has not 
happened here. The U.S. Department of Transporta- 
tion lays down regulations governing transportation 
of hazardous materials, and these must be familiar to 
and followed by all concerned if such incidents are to 
be prevented. One real problem is storage of pesti- 
cides with edible products after they reach their 
destination. This is a State and local matter which 
desperately needs attention. 

We frequently get requests from States for help on 
formulating legislation governing the control of pesti- 
cidal chemicals. There is a great need for more 
uniformity in State regulations governing the use, 
transportation, and storage of pesticides. Efforts are 
being made by the Public Health Service and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to assist the States in this 
regard. Fortunately, there is already a considerable 
uniformity regarding the registration of pesticides. 

The transport mechanism of pesticides through the 
environment is inadequately understood, even that 
resulting from the runoff from farm land. The bio- 
logical magnification of pesticides in their passage 
through the food chain needs to be further investi- 
gated. As an example, in one study of lake water 
treated with DDD there was a concentration in the 
water of 0.02 ppm immediately after treatment. 



Residue levels 13 months after treatment were 10 
ppm in plankton; in fat from plankton-eating fish, 
903 ppm; in fish from carnivorous fish, 2690 ppm; 
and m fat from fish-eating birds, 2134 ppm. This 
represents a 500-fold increase in levels in plankton 
and a 100,000-fold increase in fish-eating birds over 
levels occurring in lake water after treatment, i There 
is no indication that the intake of pesticides in man's 
food is of any significance healthwise, but man who is 
at the end of his food chain should find out. 

Nearly a billion pounds of pesticides are produced 
in this country each year. We do not have sufficient 
knowledge of where these pesticides are being used. 
If we had accurate recording of the use patterns of 
pesticides, we might be able to correlate observed 
effects with pesticides used. We would also be able to 
anticipate problems which might be likely to develop 
in particular regions. The problem of recording the 
use pattern of pesticides is a difficult one and must 
be considered in relation to other pressing needs. 

Presently, a considerable effort is being made to 
substitute other methods for chemical control of 
insects with the idea that they would be less hazard- 
ous to health. This matter was considered by the 16th 
Meeting of the World Health Organization Expert 
Committee on Insecticides in September 1966. They 
concluded that a biological agent or the toxic product 
of an organism will not necessarily present either a 
greater or lesser health hazard than a synthetic 
material. Contrary to the popular belief that "natural" 
substances are harmless, they pointed out that the most 
poisonous materials known are in fact, of natural 
origin. Finally, they concluded that any material, liv- 
ing or dead, that is proposed as a pest control agent 
should be submitted to the same searching examination 
for potential toxicity to man as is applied to synthetic 
pesticides. Particular attention was called to hazards 
that might be inherent in the use of fungi since some 
of these are incriminated in some of the most serious 
of human diseases. If and when other methods 
supplant the use of chemicals as pesticides, the 
toxicology problem will not be eliminated, but only 
changed. 

These are a few of the many problems that 
confront us. Their solution is a challenge to our 
ability and a necessity to our well-being. 

References 
1 Hunt, E. G.: Scientific Aspects of Pest Control, Nai. Acad. 

Set.. Nat Res. Council Pub. No. 1402, 251-262, 1966. 
Presented at the Sixth Inter-American Conference on Toxi- 
cology and Occupational Medicine, University of Miami, 
Coral Gables, Florida. 

Reprint requests: Industrial Medicine and Surgery, P.O. 
Box 546 Miami, Fla - 33156 



INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 1969 



3888 



ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARINGHOUSE, INC. 

137 D STREET. SOUTHEAST 
FRANK M. POTTER, JR. WASHINGTON. D. C. 20003 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 202-8441370 



July, 1969 
MEMORANDUM ON PESTICIDES 



The pesticides issues are complex; there are few ext- 
remists on either end of the spectrun who claim that the use 
of chemicals for pest control is either all pood or all bad. 
Opinions do differ, and differ widely, as to whether the use 
of certain chemical compounds should properly be banned or 
more strictly regulated. 

This memorandum represents an attempt by the Clearinghouse 
to put the controversy ihto perspective by identifying^ the prin- 
cipal questions that have been associated with it. The questions 
are not answered here; it is unlikely that many answers to these 
questions would go unchallenj^ed by the other parties to the 
controversy. It is our hope, however, that as a result of 
this effort to pull the issues together, some answers may begiii 
to emerge, and that the areas of agreement, which are more 
substantial than one might think, will also become clearer. By 
bringing the questions together in one context, we hope to enc- 
ourage a more adequate understanding of the overall problem, the 
benefits and costs associated v;ith the use of pesticides, and 
the risks that their continued use may entail. 

The Clearinghouse has assembled a panel of experts on the 
issue, representing different disciplines and points of view. 
The members of this panel, all Advisors to the Ad Hoc Committee 
on the Environment, have agreed to provide information and assist- 
ance on these questions to members of the Committee. This panel 
was given an earlier draft of this memorandum and asked to comment 
upon it; those comments have been most helpful and are incorporated 
herein. 

The principal dispute over pesticides today relates to the 
use of the chlorinated hydrocarbons, or persistent pesticides: 
DDT, dieldrin, aldrin , endrin, heptachlor, toxaphene , chlordane , 
lindane and BHC are the ones most frequently mentioned. Parathion, 
an organophosphate that is vastly more lethal than any of these, 
but is at the same time more degradable and short-lived, has also 
been criticized. For the most part, however, the questions and 
comments in this memorandum relate to the persistent pesticides. 



3889 



These t^nd to be fairly lonp-lived, indiscriminate in their toxic 
effects, and widely distributed in the biosphere - the envelope 
of life that surrounds the Earth. Opinions differ vjidely as to 
the dimensions of the threat that they may or may not pose to man, 
and to a somewhat lesser extent, his environment. 

In our vievj, there are five basic issues in this controversy: 

1. What are the patterns of use and misuse that have 
created the problems underlying the 2 0-year old controversy 
over chemical pesticides? (See Part II) 

2. What are the nature and severity of the hazards 
associated with these problems? (See Part III) 

3. What alternatives are available which may involve 
lesser hazards? (See Part IV) 

4. (■/hat costs (social and economic) are predictable if 
these alternatives are adopted? What, if they are not? 
(See Part V) 

5. VJhat mechanisms ouj^ht to be considered, if any, 
to permit us to deal with these and future problems more 
adequately? (See Part VI) 

PART I 

Background 

Sweden has banned the use of dieldrin and aldrin permanently, 
and D"1T =ind lindane on a conditional or temporary basis; Denmark 
has banned the use of DDT out of doors. Michigan has barred DDT 
and W'-Sconsin ,. Arizona and California are moving in the same direction, 
Similar efforts are being made in Nev? York, Pennsylvania and other 
states. In Wisconsin, militant citizens' organizations are mounting 
a serious attack on DDT before the Department of Natural Resources. 
In all of these cases, the basic objections to these chemicals are 
that they tend to persist for long (but somev;hat indefinite) periods 
of time, attack more than the target insects, and are inadequately 
understood in their long-term effects. 

(Pesticide opponents claim that, notwithstanding the public 
clamor over Rachel Carson's Silent Spring , published six 
years ago, there has been little if any constructive response 
from the chemical industry or the government. Although Sen- 
ator Ribicoff held extensive hearings on the subject in 1963 
and 1964, no substantive legislation resulted.) 



36-513 O - 70 - Pt. 6C - 14 



3890 



The Wisconsin case is still pending; the issue is whether 
DDT may properly be considered a "Pollutant"; i.e., vjhether its 
use results in "acute or chronic (injury) to animal, plant or 
aquatic life". V/isconsin's v^ater quality standards have been 
Federally approved, and the F'-yPCA has suggested that DDT miii^ht fit 
the definition of a pollutant under most state standards if it 
could be demonstrated to be harmful to aquatic life. This last 
contention, according to some scientists, hardly requires proof. 

WCBS-TV in New York City recently produced an excellent 
short documentary on the effects, present and potential, of DDT 
upon marine life. The Clearinghouse has been given a film of that 
Drogram for the use of the members of the Ad Hoc Committee and its 
Advisors; the film includes interviews vjith Justice Douglas, Sen- 
ators Hart and Nelson, and Congressm.en Dingell, Ottinger and Ryan, 
all of v7hom commented favorably on the program.. 

A Committee on Persistent Pesticides, set up by the National 
Research Council and chaired by Dr. James Jensen, has recently 
submitted a report to the Department of Agriculture (referred to 
as the Jensen report). This report is considered by many to be 
considerably more critical of the status quo than earlier NAS/NRC 
documents, and merits careful reading. The philosophy of this 
report is perhaps best exemplified by the following: 

Where little or no information is available concern- 
ing the transport, accumulation characteristics, and 
degradation products of a long-lived (persistent) synthetic 
chemical, it would apnear prudent for man to refrain from 
needlessly releasing the chemical into the biosphere. The 
crucial questions are: What are the degradation products? 
How toxic are tliey? Ifliat is their behavior in nature? 
If a long-lived chemical is released and is later found 
to be toxic, nothing can be done about the store already 
dispersed^ it must remain in the biosphere until dissi- 
pated by the slow processes of degradation and removal. 
Release of short-lived material is a different matter. 
If such a material is released and is later found to be 
hazardous, the store in the biosphere will be rapidly 
reduced once the use of the material is discontinued. 

Any errors which may have crept into this memorandum are 
entirely ours and quite unintentional. The Clearinghouse will 
very much appreciate any such being called to its intention. 
It is not our purpose to v>7rite an indictment or a clean bill of 
health. That purpose is rather to reduce the controversy to 
meaningful language and manageable proportions. 



3891 

PART II 
Patterns of Use and Misuse 



World agriculture depends today upon the extensive 
use of pesticides to maintain current levels of production. 
Pesticides have also proven of great value as an effective 
means of conbattinp, disease. Notwithstanding these positive 
and unquestioned benefits, several questions can be raised 
concerninp the patterns of use as these nay create or exacer- 
bate existing problems. 

1. Is our traditional dependence upon DDT and other, 
similar insecticides necessary - or are other, less lethal, 
but effective alternatives available? Many claim that more 
desirable compounds are already available. 

2. The major value of DDT is considered to lie in 
its persistence: it need not be applied frequently in order 
to be effective. This saves labor costs and, coupled v?ith 
its relatively low cost of manufacture, makes it particularly 
attractive to the grovrer. Its persistence is at the same 
time one of its major defects: DDT is a world traveler, 
affecting most or all forms of life on the Earth. I'ave its 
long-term effects been adequately studied and extrapolated? 

3. Are there regional or geographic patterns of use 
that create problems as to the more toxic of these compounds? 
For example, it is estimated that more than 2/3 of the DDT 
used in this country is used to protect the cotton crop. Do 
other relevant patterns exist? Are there perhaps regional 
weather patterns that may be unsuitable for application of 
specific compounds? 

4. Most of the undesirable effects attributed to 
these chemicals occur after they have been transported av;ay 
from the target areas. Do we knov; enough about the transport- 
ation systems now in operation, carrying DDT as far as 
Antarctica? Is there any practical v/ay of inhibiting that 
transportation process? 

5. The ready accessibility and lov7 cost of many insect- 
icides make them particularly attractive for regular or program- 
med application, often when their use may be wholly unnecessary. 
Hov7 extensive is this problem, and what is its magnitude? To 
what extent is it balanced by the unavailability of competent 
pe.rsonnel to advise on optimum use?liow should we encourage 

the increase in the reservoir of trained personnel? 

6. The American housev/ife is conditioned by many factors 
(one of \;hich may be Federal la\r) to accept only "perfect" 



3892 



produce. The level of pesticide applications to produce these 
results is far greater than would be required if an occasional 
worm or bruise were acceptable. Is this a significant problem? 

7. Pesticides are applied in a number of vrays: aerial 
sprayinp, hand sprayinr, etc. Uhat problems are associated with 
application methods, and how nipht they be better handled? 

8. To vjhat extent are farmers and other large pesticide 
users forced to use chemical controls by the fact that their 
neif»hbors are doinp, so and in the process effectively limitinj^ 
natural prcdation in the area? 

9. r.ccent experience demonstrates cases where pest 
problems have f^rown, rather than decreased, following introduction 
of pesticides. This is usually due to the development of 
resistant target insects, coupled X7ith simultaneous destruction 

of their natural predators. This phenomenon sufrpests that an 
entirely different approach may be called for: one which would 
permit reduction of target pests to acceptable levels by 
integrated control programs (including cultural, biological and 
selected discriminatory chemical methods) rather than by whole- 
sale dependence upon chemical methods. 

10. Hany consider existing programs for monitoring the 

use of pesticides in the United States to be crude and inadequate. 
There is no global monitoring system in existence. I'ovr important 
Is it to develop an adequate monitoring system, and how ought 
such a system to be established? 

11. Little is known about the specific application of 
different chemicals. Vo\j important is it to bo able to l:noT7 
TTith certainty that, on a given date or dates, x pounds of 
DDT, dieldrin, etc. were applied in a certain area? If it Is 
important, hoT; sl'ould a reporting system be organized? 

12. /*11, or almost all, pesticides degrade over a period 
of time. For some, this occurs T'ithin hours or days; for others, 
the process requires years. If all the persistent pesticides 
T7ere diccontinucd tomorrow, do we knox,» how long it would take 
for their effects to disappear? Are we making assumptions about 
the rate of degradation of DDT etc., based upon the fact that vc 
cannot find them, when in fact they have simnly moved to an area 
where ttc are not lool-.ing for them? I'ere again the com.plexi ties 
of the transportation system present significant questions, for 
which we do not appear to liave ansvrers . Are V7e indeed even asking 
the right questions? 



13. Is it possible to deal rationally xrlth the philosophy 
adopted by some home rardeners : "If a little is good, more must 
be better?"? How significant a problem is this? 



3893 



14. 'lost of the pesticides controversy centers on the use 
of a few insecticides. T'erbicides and funpicides are also used 
extensively; have the disruptive impact of these upon soil and 
uater ecosystems been adequately considered? Hhat does this r.ean 
in terns of human ecolof.y? 

15. Between 1957 and 1967, the use of DDT declined 
significantly. In that sane period, however, the use of 
other rembers of the same family, principally dieldrin and 
aldrin, has increased correspondinply , so that the overall 
levels of application remain rouphly equal. Dieldrin and 
aldrin are considerably more toxic than DDT. ''hat docs this 
progression mean in terms of man and his environment? 

16. Is the intensity of application of persistent 
pesticides declininp? The Jensen report suppests that it may 
be, but hov7 does this square with the steadv production levels 
described above (xrhich xiere noted in that same report)? Even 
more importantly, vrhat are the world production fipures? 

17. The major thrust of pesticide criticism has been 
directed to the chlorinated hydrocarbons. Lead, arsenic, copper 
and mercury are also used to destroy pests and are hiphly toxic 
to many forms of life, includinp man. I'oxt serious a problem 

do these present? 



18. DDT is fat soluble, and tends to concentrate in 
animal fats and livers. At some point, these levels tend to 
stabilize, and the averape adult American has levels of 10-12 
parts per million of DDT in his or her body. ilothers ' milk 
is said to have levels of four times the amount of DDT that 
vre will tolerate in interstate commerce in cows' mill:. Is 
enouph known about the processes of me tabolization and elim- 
ination of the persistent pesticides? 

19. Experiments are under way to hasten the depredation 
process of DDT by combininp it T7ith a catalyst, so that it rrill 
be rendered harmless after tv;o to four weeks from application. 
Does tb.is approach m.al:e sense, or is it no more than a natchwork 
approach to a much more basic problem? 

20. Inherent in the pattern of use of persistent and 
some nonpersistent pesticides is the fact that once a farmer 
or proup of farmers be^in to use them, they arc committed and 
cannot thereafter stop without exposinp their crons to vastlv 
increased numbers of pests, until natural controls reestablish 
themselves. There is an obvious analopy to drup addiction, 
V7hich includes the temptation and perhaps even the necessity to 
escalate to more nowerful substitutes, as pests become immune 



3894 



to soue controls. (This inr.unity is said to occur very seldom 
in the case of the non-persistent chemicals.) If society vrere 
to insist at sore point upon the banninp or phaslnp out of the 
persistent pesticides, hox7 can it help the farrer to "Vic!; the 
hahit" ''ithout exposinf hinself to larpe pest incursions in t\e 
process? Ts anyone lool.inR into this question? 

21. In our attenpts to learn the Irr^act of these chenicals, 
have 're been askinj' the ripht auestions? The Jensen report states 
that "reasearcl'. on the effects of persistent i:esticidGs in the 
ecosysten is concerned alrost entirely i;ith the relatively fe\' 
forr'S of life of direct interest to ran." Oufht this research to 
>>e expanded, and if so, ho';? 

22, All i>ien and aninals are said to have TDT in their 
bodies; One ray or another, it alr.ost certainly has sone 
effect upon us. ('.'hether or not this effect is substantial 
Is another question altogether.) Some scientists have oues- 
tloned x.'hether lOT, or other chericals, nay have a synergistic 
effect, increasinf or decreasing the impact of other chenicals 
v/hich V7e tale deliberately, such as insulin or aspirin. ?'as 
this been adequately considered, and if not, trhy not? 



3895 

PART III 

Knovn and Suspected I'azards 

At least with respect to man, it trill be difficult 
and perhaps impossible to demonstrate vrith certainty the 
adverse consequences of pesticide use upon health. Indeed, 
a strong statistical case has been considered to have been 
made against tobacco, T;ith less than impressive results. 
Some scientists feel, hov/ever, that there are definite 
indications of health hazards to nan: 

1. Carcinogenic . A recent ITIH study (an interim 
report of which was printed in the Congressional Record on 
May 1, at the request of Senator Hart) indicates that DDT 
and some other chemical compounds can cause tumors in mice. 
Interestingly enough, none of the other persistent pesticides 
were tested in the same study, which considered some 120 
compounds. The reason given was that v;hen the study was 

set up in 1963, no one thought that these other pesticides 

would still be in use, since less dangerous alternatives 

would have been found. Does this study indicate comparable 
hazards for man? 

2. Itutagenic . Some scientists question whether DDT 
and others nay have an adverse genetic effect upon nan; some 
experiments indicate that they do have such an effect upon other 
animals and birds; in man's case, is the problem compounded 

by his relatively long life and reproduction span? 

3. Toxic . DDT is enzyme-inductive, and is said to have 
created serious problems for rats and birds. These effects may 
not be confined to the species tested. Actual physical damage 
to man from the use of these compounds appears to be rare; 
although scientists suggest that, because of our long lives, 

we may be exposed to dangers which we understand only imperfectly. 
More research in this area appears to be indicated. Russian 
scientists are said to feel that adverse human effects may 
take a decade or more to appear. What additional research ought 
to be done on this question? 

4. General . Rarely discussed is the fact that the rapid 
rise in the use of DDT and its relatives has taken place since 
the early 1950's, and that the present adult population was never 
exposed to these as children. Hot until today's children have 
grovjn to maturity and themselves become parents can the long-term 
effects be determined. Against this must be contrasted the 
extensive tests made upon v7orkers in a plant manufacturing DDT, 
vThere their exposure and intake is considerably greater than that 
to which we are presently exposed or are likely to be exposed - 
yet their health is said to be unaffected. It is true that this 
is a very small sample (30-40 workers), but is this a complete 



3896 



answer? To what extent is the integrity of this research 
compromised by the absence of children, older people, prepnant 
women, etc., from the labor force and study p.roup? 



The hazards to species other than nan may 
to document. T'e are cominp, to the realization 
interdependent with many species and forms of 1 
strong, suppestions have been made that we must 
adequate understanding of the nature of this re 
before we set out to make changes that nay prov 
Bible. Certainly iie should know more about the 
term effects upon species upon which we are dir 
dependent: dcnestic livestock and fov7l, marine 
fich, and grains. But ought the inquiry to sto 
Jensen report concluded that "there is substant 
continuing damage in some areas, particularly t 
by pesticide residues at present environmental 
to be ^joefully ignorant about the effects of th 
pesticides upon natural ecosystems - especially 
such as the rivers and oceans. For example: 



be somewhat easier 
that man is 
ife, and very 
av/ait a more 
lat ionship 
e to be irrever- 

potential long- 
ectly and visibly 
and fresh water 
p there? The 
ial evidence of 
o fish and birds, 
levels." He appear 
e persistent 

non-target areas 



4. Some feel that there can no longer be denied to be 
a serious problem concerning the use of DDT and increased 
mortality in fish life. This mortality is said to approach 
100% V7hen DDT levels reach 5 ppm in fish eggs - less than one 
hnlf of the concentration said to exist in the average American 
adult. If true, this raises important questions for man both as 
a healthy creature and as a consumer who looks vrith increasing 
intensity to the sea for sustenance. 

5. Scientists point to a relationship betv/een the incid- 
ence of DDT in the environment and the ability of birds to lay 
eggs V7ith shells thick enough to hatch. They point to the 
disappearing American bald eagle as a particularly unfortunate 
case in point: some eagles are said to be laying eggs with no 
shell whatsoever. 



6. Much of our oxygen is produced by tiny monocellular 
forms of life in the oceans; estimates have placed this production 
at roughly 2/3 of the total world oxygen production. It has also 
been suggested ^hat marine plankton are particularly susceptible 
*:o p-^s ;:icides . Is this correct, and if it is, what are the 
dj.mensions of the problem that it suggests for the future? 

7. The most adverse consequences of the use of persistent 
pesticides probably occur as a result of what is knov7n as "biolog- 
ical magnification", invol-'ing the increase in pesticide concentrat- 
ion as £iiiimals move up the food chain. This is particularly true 

of the carnivores; somewhat less so for man vrho is i.t the end of 
a shorter food chain and who rarely eats the flesh of carnivores. 
Does this phenomenon spell extinction for some forms of life, such 
no the bald eagle? If so, ought we now to take steps to preserve 
representatives of those species, so that thev may safely be 
reintroduced v/hen the concentration levels have diminished? 



3897 



PART IV 

Available Alternatives 

There has been a pood deal of recent research upon 
available alternatives to the present patterns of pest- 
icide use. These alternatives involve both chemical and 
nonchenical approaclies . 

As to the chemical alternatives, the Questions are 
relatively simple: 

1. If it vjere concluded that there are compounds 
and categories of existinf, chemical controls, suppression 
or elimination of \rhich may be desirable, are there other 
chemical controls which do not appear to present equivalent 
or greater hazards? How much would they cost to manufacture 
and hov7 much to apply? 

2. If these do exist, within what time period could 
they be developed to fill the vacuum created by the with- 
drawal of the less desirable forms novr in use? 



The nonchemical alternatives investigated in recent 
years have been imaginative, and some have proved to be 
remarkably effective. Some of these were discussed in the 
1963-1964 Senate hearings, but surely we know more today about 
the effectiveness of such approaches as: 

(a) Host resistance - developing tougher and/or less 
palatable xrheat, cotton, etc. 

(b) Biological controls - developing predators, diseases, 
organisms and hormonal controls to limit pests. 

(c) Cultural controls - early or deep plowing, seasonal 
shifts, etc., to eliminate the conditions in v/hich pests 
can thrive. 

(d) Sexual sterility - releasing great numbers of sterile 
male pests to breed unsuccessfully. 

(e) Attractants - luring pests to places where they can 
be safely destroyed. 

(f) Natural controls - setting the stage so that nature 
can do the j ob . 

3. How well do xie knot? the extent to V7hich the nonchemical 
alternatives could be substituted for present procedures? To 
what extent is such a program dependent upon trained personnel x^yho 
do not yet exist? What incentives ought we to develop to ensure 
that enough scientists will be attracted to this area of research? 



3898 



U. Vhat additional research oupht to be done on these 
methods? By vjhom (is there any way that industry could be induced 
to move into this area)? V'ith vjhat priority? And - hovr moch aie 
V7e prepared to pay? 

5. Vov effective are these alternatives likely to be, in 
terms of replacing chemical controls in the future? How quickly 
can this be done? 

6. What problems and hazards may themselves be associated 
with the chemical and nonchemical alternatives proposed in pl«ce 
of the persistent pesticides? Some of the chemicals are far more 
hazardous to man; others cause injury to animals and insects 
which vje consider to he beneficial. Have these questions been , 
adequately considered? 



3899 

PART V 
Costs 

The pesticide industry is a nulti-nillion dollar 
buainess - in 1967 insecticides alone accounted for sales 
of $212,568,000, and this takes no account of the costs 
associated with their application. The benefits of 
pesticides are also considered to be p;reat. A 1965 study 
indicated that for every dollar Invested in the research, 
purchase and application of pesticides, there vzould be a 
return in terms of increased production of betvreen $4 and 
$5. That same study pointed to returns of about $30 for 
eTsry dollar invested in biological controls in the area 
tested, and it indicated that this figure vras , if anythin";, 
cdaservative . The reasons for the spread are apparent: 
biolsflcal controls involve only research costs, and if the 
rssaarch is effective, are nonrecurrent - once the predator 
is established, it generally can survive v/ithout additional 
hflp from the prower. 

Rarely considered in the context of the overall problem, 
but in our judf»nent critical to an adequate understanding 
of the problem, are questions such as: 

1. T'hat are the "trade-offs" associated v/ith the use 
of chenical pesticides? Must ue tolerate the disappearance 
of tbe California Condor in our efforts to control the coyote, 
a relatively innocuous beast? l?hat "price" do we pay, in our 
efforts to control Dutch elm disease and the gypsy moth (nov; 
eajoyinp its U.S. centennial), in the contamination of the 
P9bo salmon and in the poisoning of its fry? 

I. Hovf accurate are the figures associated with the 
benefits ascribed to pesticides? Is "market price" the best 
available indication of value, when an increase or decrease 
in the to-tal quantity of goods reaching the market may or may 
■ot have an effect upon the total price paid by consumers for 
Ckoss floods? To what extent are changes in crop yields cor- 
riCtl^y attributable to the use or nonuse of pesticide "X"? 
W«)ild alternative controls be equally effective and equally 
inexpensive, considering total costs, both direct and indirect? 

3. nov; are the health problems for man and his v/orld 
to be related to the dollar costs associated with the use or 
••nwse of pesticides? What is it worth to you and your neighbor 
«*t to run the increased risk (of V7hatever magnitude) of 
cancer? 



3900 



, A. Similarly, hov7 are the Incr-aased hazards to plant 
and animal life to be brought into the equation? Just because 
these costs cannot easily be related to dollars and cents 
does not seem to be a reason to ip.nore them - but vrhat values 
should they be piven? 



5. Uhat steps oufht v^e to take to encourage the assenh- 
linp, of data that \.'ill make this k.ind of Inquiry meaningful? 
To V7hat extent are government agencies doint^ this no\7 , and 
oupht they to be pushed? 



3901 



PART VI 
Control Mechanisms 



The Federal system for repulation of pesticide use 
is fragmented; many feel that it is quite inadequate. It 
is only fair to say that the industry does not aj>ree , and 
that the officials of the agencies concerned are officially 
contented vjith the status quo. Briefly (and necessarily, 
therefore, inadequately) the division of responsibility is 
as follows : 

USDA - research on biological alternatives, reviewing 
adequacy of labels, determining that the proposed 
compound has some efficacy, and registering for use. 
There is some conflict as to v/hether they can and will 
remove compounds from the market, when they are found 
to be undesirable. 

Food and Drug Administration - establishment and reg- 
ulation of tolerances in foods produced for human con- 
sumption. 

Public Health Service - research on hazards associated 
the use of pesticides; advice on vector control of 
disease (all human— or iented) . 
Interior - research on hazards to fish and v/ildlife. 

It might also be added that the positions of these agencies 
on common questions may not always be consistent, although the 
inconsistencies tend to be smoothed over outside of the family. 

The claim has often been made that these agencies are 
inadequately concerned v?ith the long-range ecological effects 
of the use of pesticides upon man and his environment. 
USDA is under more or less constant attack on the ground that 
it serves as a promoter of the compounds that it is set up, 
hox^ever inadequately and incompletely, to regulate. Certainly 
the lines of communication between the Department and the 
industry are excellent - as indeed they should be. 

A number of specific problems have been identified as 
associated with the existing regulatory structure. This list 
is by no means exhaustive. But these are some of the 
more common complaints and suggestions: 

1. It is difficult for the homeov7ner and small farmer 
to obtain adequate information as to the pest control options 
that are available to him, and their potential values and costs. 
This makes it difficult even for the Individual who has a well- 
developed "ecological conscience" to be sufficiently informed 
to exercise true freedom of choice. 



3902 



2. The FDA cannot, under present budgetary and manpower ,. 
limitations, adequately sample the food reachinj^ the market. 
This operates to decrease the pressure upon the prower to ponform 
to approved application procedures, since he knows that the 
chances of his beinp caupht are comfortingly small. 

3. USDA claims that its existing authority is adequata 
to permit it to police and to prevent the export of pesticides 
found to be undesirable for U.S. consumption. Others iaty that - 
this putative authority is seldom if ever exercised, and that 
these co.-npounds find their way into the world market without 
significant restriction. 

4. There is a real question expressed as to the effe«ti.»«- 
ness of any system which depends upon the adequacy of labtl« ~ ' 
for its impact. Han is fallible, and not inclined to tead 

the small print. Many pesticides are misused for just this 
reason . 

5. USDA is presently considering permitting heavy 
concentrations of DDT, dieldrin, etc., to be used in aftd around' 
international jetports as a means of preventing insect 
immigration. This may pose a real problem in the future, 
considering the fact that many of these airports near »nd 
often on rivers and estuaries: Kennedy and the proposed 
Everglades airport are an excellent example. No one seert"* 

to be clear on what is proposed, what controls nay be 
exercised, or how effective such a step might be. 

6. The packaging of some pesticides may encourage their 
misuse - a homeowner forced to buy a 25 lb. bag of insecticide 
nay be tempted to use it In ways not prescribed on the label 
(assuming that he reads it at all) - just because it is there 
and already paid for. If he could have bought an 8 ounce 
package in the first place, the temptation would never have 
arisen . 

Considering the magnitude of the problem, many serioes 
suggestions have been advanced that a new regulatory af^encf- 
should be established on the Federal level, vrith the powers 
to (1) develop its ovrn testing program, (2) to recall and 
interdict the use of pesticides found to be undesirable at 
any time, (3) perhaps to require prescription purchase of ' 
the more dangerous compounds, and to establish licensing 
procedures for persons to apply these, and (4) to provide a 
central source of information as to the most desirable forms 
of pest and disease control in special circumstances. 



3903 



' ■ ' It has also been strongly auf^p.ested that the burden of 
pf9V^ng the desirability of introducinj'. nex* pesticides be 
[»l«c«idl_ wpcn the manufacturer. Some scientists claim that 
th« effect of our experience with DDT is what amounts to a 
lone-term chronic experiment, performed upon an unvjillln}^ 
group of subjects, involvinj* the effects of continued expos- 
ttVe to DDT. If no harm has been done, well and r.ood; but 
Trtlat if it should turn out that the results have not been 
beneficial? In other words, ought the l^ck of harmful effect 
to be ^ necessary element of proof for manufacturers seekinp; 
to' promote new compounds? 

The Jensen committee pointed out that our existing 
regulatory structure is fairly in-effective, save as it relates 
to basic food crops. The report states that these regulations 
do not eignif icantly affect the use of pesticides on non-food 
crops, nor does it effectively act upon the chemicals which 
travel long distances from the point of application and which 
d« not degrade. Addressing itself to this problem, the 
report stated: "Unless there is a change (possibly in the 
for« of regulatory action) by which the persistent materials 
lose their advantage, they will probably continue in general 
use." It is difficult to see what non-regulatory changes 
would have such an effect. 

The Jensen report closed by stressing the need for more 
adequate research and a greater educational effort - to ensure 
that pesticides are used with a minimum adverse impact on the 
environment. This appears to beg the immediate ouestion: 
ought V7e to change the regulatory structure as well? 

An alternative to this approach vjould be to leave the 
primary responsibilities v/here they now lie, but to increase 
the present limited authority of those agencies to impose more 
adequate and flexible controls, better related to a common 
purpose and philosophy. This would seem necessarily to involve 
coordination (a popular but vague concept) of agency views at 
some level higher than those agencies themselves - it v/ould be 
a proper subject for concern on the pert of the newly-established 
interdepartmental Environmental Quality Council, and may in 
fact be under reviev; at present. 

An important factor to be borne in mind is that the 
pesticide manufacturing industry today is said to obtain only 
a low rate of return for its investment, due at least in part 
to the costs of conforming to the existing regulatory framework. 
If this framev;ork is to be changed, efforts should be made to 
«ee that it becomes no more burdensome, lest we impoverish the 
continuing research effort by forcing competitors out of the 
marketplace . 



3904 



Pesticide Pollution 

Part I. Are the risks well calculated? 



It wasn't until Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" 
brought ihr matter to nationwide altentioii that the 
general public realized just how toxie pesticides 
are and how carelessly they liave been used. That 
book was first published in 1962 by Houphton Mifflin 
Co. and later made availal)lo in a special Consumers 
Union edition for reports readers. Now, seven years 
later, the pesticide market continues to boom— 
despite still-unfolding evidence that ilie misuse of 
pesticides may well pose a threat to wildlife, natural 
systems and man himself. This article, the first of 
two, reviews some of the reasons wliy responsible 
scientists and citizens are concerned about the 
threat of pesticide*. It is a tbreat that, unfortu- 
nately, can only be partially defined. Research on 
the long-wna effect* on man is almost completely 
lacking, and conclusions from research already per- 
formfd on other animals do not necessarily apply 
to man. Thus, discussions of possible carcinogenic 



and mutagenic effects of pesticides on man must, of 
necessity, be speculative. Still, the number of un- 
explored risks should be warning enough that con- 
tinuous monitoring of pesticide dangers demands 
high national priority. Although the article that fol- 
lows is not CU's work and we therefore cannot en- 
dorse every statement or implication, we feel that it 
is a valid statement of concern and an effective anti- 
dole to apathy. The article itself is an abridged 
version of a recent CF Letter, a periodical pub- 
lished by The Conservation Foundation, an inde- 
pendent, nonprofit group concerned with environ- 
mental issues. Part 11, to be published next month, 
will look at Government attempts to limit the dan- 
gers, at the politics of pesticides, and at alternatives 
for solving the. problem. Reprints of (he entire re- 
port arc available for SO?" per copy from The Con- 
servation Foundation, 1250 Connecticut Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 



Jtetticides, complex chemjcal compounds, pose a complex 
dilemma. Tttey damage the world's fish and wildlife re^ 
sources. They are causing seriotis and subtle changes in the 
environment. Indeed, diey are under suspicion of endanger- 
ing man-ihiniself. Yet man finds them Iremendoasly useful 
ia bis struggle for health and survival. 

For some 25 years, inan has been concocting an aslonish- 
iog assortment of synthetic chemical poisons and spreading 
thein over the pkuiet. In doing so, he has been taking some 
not-very-well-cafculated risks. He has been rebuked and 
warned for being careless, for not fully understanding the 
consequences. Some restrictions have been imposed; some- 
what greater care is being taken. But man continues the 
libecal use of pesticides to wage war on the endless varieties 
of insects, bacteria, rodents and other small creatures that 
roDtinue tOrplague him ao relentlessly-by attacking him 
directly, or by devouring much of his precious food and fiber 
supply. 

To be sure, the widespread dissemination of pesticides 
has had extretnely tangible benefits which, it is argued, 
would otherwise have been ' unattainable. < Pesticides are 
credited with making life comfortable and nuisance-free, 
indoors and out. They ire credited with saving counties^ 
lives through tiie control of malaria, cholera, typhus, Roc^y 
Mountain spotted fever, encephalitis and other diseases. And 



they are credited -with helping man raise and protect an 
extraordinarily plentiful supply of inexpensive food. 

The farm and chemical industries point to the crops and 
livestock saved from destruction, with values measured in 
the billions of dollars each year, But the evidence also shows 
thai, in the rush to rely on expedient chemicala, mistakes 
hove been made and safer alternatives have been passed up. 
.Thece have o(ten heen unintended side effects, ia«1uding 
losses of fish lifiA wildlife. Finally, the evidence tfiggests, at 
least, that man may be seriously harming himself in the 
process. Certainly he is taking risks. 

How widely used? 

How extensive b the use of pesticides? U.S. faribers last 
year spent an estimated S800 million on thera. Total domestic 
sales this year are forecast at $1.7 billion, most for agri- 
culture, but incloiiing $2S5 million for household and garden 
use, and another S2a5 million for industrial and institutional 
use. The $1.7 billion represents a dramatic increase from the 
l%5tolal of $1 billion. \ 

There are some 900 basic chemical compounds used to 
formulate thousands of synthetic coromerciaU pesticides. 
Classed .according to purpose, these include insecticides, 
herbicides,, mitipides, ian|;icides and rodenticides. Most 
famous— or i.>>lMK>Uli-J*'tI>« ubiquitous'DDT. But^theia'are 



3905 



PESTICIDE POLLUTION .•.miiim^.l 



many olhf rf-mdrin, (llclclriii, iiMiin, dilnrilunc. liiMi|phriic. 
Ilndiin«, mnlliiiXNcliloi, hi'{itarlil«r.. |iiiriilliiiiii. mnhillilnii, 
2. M). 2.1,.1'T. <M)iliiii. riul>ni\l. ^.iirnriii. Thfin nre chlo- 
rinnted liwlimiirbuti* iPD'I'l. oruiiJiic |ilio»|ilmlci> ( mulii- 
(liioni, nnd riirlinmnlsii lenrlmiyll. 'I'lifii iiroiniilk'ii, ffleclti, 
domim' uiid ii«p v«rv widely, Tlw riiiriiil i|iii'p>liiiiii' vuUed by 
tliii u>e of n |>f»lieide are: 1» il I'lTrcliM' nn ihi- Inifji"! iiiieet? 
Wliiit otliPi (M|]iiiili>mi< doM il kill'/ !» it <liiti)<i'i'tiii>' to RkIi, 
wildlife, man? 

A punllcide nitty or msy not lu' highly tiAic. or puiaonoui, 
on direct ((inlurt. to varioiii) livliift lliiii)<K. It mity or may, 
not bf highU prriiHteiit. or rrviiohcnl to lit^ing broken down 
by nature into liarm'wi eiinipiincnl". Tlif inneclirid^ pnrs- 
ibioD. for example. i« extremely lo^ic 'let il breiik* down 
quickly In the environment. On ihp nilirr hsiid, IIDT i* con- 
lidered only fllghtly toxic to mun; Imi it mii\ persinl for 
year*, with coniequence* tjnknoun. 

Some efttcu of peiticide \\*i' 

Many III effect! of pfitieidei on mnrine life uiid wildlife 
are well docuniented; the literuture on the lubject ii vo- 
lurtiinouK. A tample of the Rndinpit: 

Estperimwli indteate that DDT in very imall lionceiitra- 
tioni can redure growth and phuiuxuithei*!* in certain 
marine plankton. "Such tingle-eelle^i olgue are the Indii- 
peniable hau nf marine food chiiins." nayi Dr. Charlei F. 
Wuriler. Jr.. of State l'nlver»iu of New York, Stony Brook. 
PholosyntheiU by marine pUnktcn in eniimuteil lo account 
for more than half of the world'd oxypien aupply. Wunter 
•ayi that "interferenee with thli> proeeM could have pro- 
found, worldwide biological Impllentloni." 

"Marine organitmi, eipedally iruHtacciinK." fay* William 
A. Niering, Profetaor of Botany ot Connecticut College, "are 
extremely leniitive to the periiitent peitlcidoR. A» little at 
0.6 to 6 parti per biUton (in the water) will kill or immo- 
bilize a phrimp population in two dayi." The Interior De- 
partment'! Bureau of Commercial FliherieH »ay! l«>t! ihpw 
that "oyitert !lopped ft^diiig nnd exhibited errutic !hell 
movement! when expoied to leu than one part per million of 
many chlorinated hy^drocnrboM. Shell formation |noyaten ^ 
wai inhibited by concentralionii of a few parlx i>er b^lllbn.*' '' 

Ca!e! in which large number! of fith have been killed are 
plentiful. The mott celebriited. probably, were the maiiive 
kilU in the lower Miiniwippi River from 1960 to J9C4. An 
elaborate invetiigation Irnoed the cou»e to end rin, apparently 
from a chemical plant. 

Nearly a million (mail coho talmon were killed recently 
baeaitie of DDT, lay Dr. Howard E. Johnson and Chariot 
Peoor of Michigan State UniverRit), who deduced that reil- 
duel were accumulated i!n the egg yolk of aduili, and their 
fry were poiioned during final absorption of the yolk •oc.. 

The wideipread loei of robint and other bird!— where elm 
treet are treated with DDT for Dutch elm dUeate'-provide! 
a !lmple example of "biological mugiiificaliuii," or the 
unique way In which "hard" or pemUteni peMiclde* can be 
concentrated In more and more |)otent doaei a» they move up 
the food chain. When leave! from a iprayed elnli fall, they 
are eaten by earthwormi. The DDT dueiin't hurm the worim; 



I'lil it (If. iimiiliil«! In tlii'lr lirniirF.. Wlini lobiii. enl llic 
wornii, lliey iif, uiniiliite it in ever lorgci and finally lethal 
(tones. 

The mannifitalion prorejK also orcur'* when niiiinle (|unii- 
iltii» 01 a |ieilicl(le acfiimulule in liny inavine orgniiimn- 
nnd are lrnn«ferrpd in ever-imiea»ing amminlh lo plunkldii 
enling M\. cnriilvoroup li"h and (inally l>iril» of prey. Tlil- 
ii po«P!il)le beenuM- jieslicideit kucIi a» DDT are nlnuHl tolalK 
InKoliibtc in wi-ler. hiil \erv KiluMr In fal. ^o lhp\ luvimiii- 

late nnd ore il d in the fall\ limiic of liinl-i. Wlieii fal 

rcm-rveii are uned up rapidh. hiicIi ait in niiuralioii iir ic 
pioduclion. the poisons eiilcr (illior parts i)f thp s\sleni. 
ap|)arcMll\ allncking ihe ner^diis s\*lem. Saxs Dr. Ralph \ 
MacMullnn. direclor of llir Micliijian Deparlnu'iil of Cor 
ler^ution; There it "ilrong liiciinistantini evldi'nce" th ii 
Uili sort of magnification is ic'-pdnsiliic for Ihe alarmiM^■ 
decline of.muny ipecies of lilnls such a* the hnid eaglr. 
o»prey, peregrine falcon and sparrow haivk. 

Oddly enough, such birds are not normally piiivoned di- 
rectly by the toxic pesticides. It is now widely believed thai 
npredurliott ii ic erel; linmpered. because reiidues of pesli 
elde such at DDT are transferred in lethal amount! to em- 
br)n birds via the egg )olk. or hecnuse the pertlrlde* upiel 
liver enityme aelivily nnd therefore calcium metoboliim, 
reaulting In eggshells so thin embryo chicks cannot lurvive 
In them. Studies have also indiented that some birds become 
!trangely nervou! and aggressive and destroy tlieir own 

There have been cases in which frogs, snaket and blrdi, 
as well as wild and domestic nnimali, have been killed by 
pastieldes, sometimes in masiive numbers. Rachel Carson, In 
her 1962 best teller Silrni Sprinn, cited doiens of Instance!, 
Many euch kill! are due lo outright mituie, whlrh »f course 
greatly magnifies the dangers and damage of peiticidei. But 
knowledge, or communication of it to the right people, has 
not been sufficient to prevent misuse. We do not in fact yei 
know all the ways in which pesticide application! may be 
upietllng the balance of nature, though example* from the 
past are plentiful. 

, We do know that peraiatent pesticide! are carried through- 
out the world by wind, water and living organisms. Often 
cited is the fact that even penguins in the Aniarclic-io far 
from aiiy>esiicide u!e-contairi reaidues of DDT. Dr. George 
W. Woo<^eKi an ecologlit at Drookhaven National Labora- 
tory, speak* of the "aerious and subtle change! caused by 
continuous exposure to low levels of peslicide« in the eti- 
vironment . . . that threaten! to degrade the biota of the 
. eArtb and especially the ocean! in a very terioui way." 

The dilemma for man 

The weight of expert opinion currently holdi that humana 
are not dirtctly harmed oy careful iiae of peitieides. There 
i! apparently no aolid evidence of !uch4iarm. But practically 
every human accumulate! lone peitloides which, aa in birds, 
are itored in body fat. In the I'.S. the average ia thought 
to bo about 10 to 12 part* per million, Selentitts believe that 
man manage! to get rid of pesticide accumulation! over n 
certain level, given a reasonable amount of time. Research 
on the long-term eflecU of peiiicides on humans i! virtually 
impoiaibie; and it is extremely difficult to extrapolate re- 
Htrch on animala to humans, So while thire ii no convincing 



L 



k 



38-813 O - 70 - Pt,8C - 18 



3906 



evidence thai |>eslici<les seriously damagt- man. neither is 
there proof that they ilon't. 

A number o( si ieniifir studies have linked |R"sticides and 
other chemical comiioumK with canrer. In early March it 
was reported that pieliminai\ analysis of a lar;;p-scale study 
of ISO such compounds -coiiducted for the National ('ancer 
Institute— indicates they are carcinogenic to mice i in very 
large doses I. Pesticides are reportedly among the com- 
IMunds under suspicion. 

Other reports suggest that pesticides arc a genetic hazard, 
to man. capable of producing mutations, which are usually 
harmful. Dr. James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin 
says, "1 here is reason to fear that some chemicals lincluding 
pesticides] may constitute as important a [mutagenic] risk 
as radiation, possibly a more serious one." Dr. Osny G. 
Fahmy of the Chester Beatty Research Institute in London 
says, "the amount of pesticide chemicals man is now 
absorbing from his environment is enough to double the 
normal mutation rate." He says they are capable of dis- 
rupting the DNA molecule; the effects are cumulative, and 
the mutations may not show up for generations. Dr. Marvin 
Legator of the Food and Drug Administration says the 
widely used and relatively nontoxic fungicide captan breaks 
chromosomes in mammalian cell cultures and may be ca- 
pable of inducing mutations in man. Dr. M. Jacqueline 
Verrett, also of FDA, says such chemicals can cause birth 
deformities in chickens. Medical World News has reported 
that a great many genetics experts are concerned about muta- 
genic chemicals "as either a proved or at least a potential 
menace to human health. ..." 

Dr. Robert W. Riaebrough j^f the University of Cali- 
fornia's Marine Resources Institute says consideration is 
not being given to the enzyme-inducing ability of pesticides. 
"No responsible person could now get up here and say that 
this constant nibbling away at our steroids (sex hormones) 
is without any physiological effect. If would be irresponsi- 
ble." 

None of these scientists claims to have proved any mass 
dire effects due to pesticides. But they are warning man that 
he should not be blind to the possibilities. Man was surprised, 
after all, when he found that the drug thalidomide could 
cause children to be deformed; that cigaret smoking could 
cause cancer; that simple X-rays could cause a skin ailment 
that didn't show up for decades ; or that amounts of radiation 
presumed to be safe could apparently cjiuse tumors in chil- 
dren more than 10 years later. 

Pesticide poisoning 

More obvious are the effects of pesticide poisoning in 
household, occupational and industrial accidents. "Each 
year," says a government study, "approximately 150 deaths 
are attributed to misuse of pesticides in the United States. 
About half of these occur in children who were accidentally 
exposed at home." It would be impossible to guess the num- 
ber of nonfatal poisonings. But cases of occupational poison- 
ing "have become more frequent," and "the adequacy of 
safeguards ... is put in question by reviews of the effects of 
pesticides on human health." 

In California alone in 1964, there were some 1328 reports 
of occupational disease attributed to pesticides and other 
agricultural chemicals. This has now become a majof new 



issue in the long, bitter strike and boycott against Cali- 
fornia's table grape growers. The union argues that many 
case- of poisoning are not reported, and many others are 
mistaken for other illnesses because the symptoms are so 
similar. It has filed suit to halt the use of DDT in the state. 
In .Mexico, 17 were killed and some 6()0 made violently ill 
in 1967 when parathion contaminated bread supplies. A 
week later, a truck loaded with parathion overturned and 
spilled the deadly pesticide over a California highway. 

The ironies of it all 

Aside from misuse and danger, the application of pesti- 
cides is likely to be fraught with irony and paradox— in fact, 
with failure. In the first place, it should be noted that agri- 
culture, particularly in the U.S., has tended to spread single 
' crops over larger and larger areas, sometimes over thousands 
of acres. Such monoculture is efficient and economical. But 
it is also an invitation to pests which thrive on a particular 
crop, especially since their natural enemies may no longer 
find the area to their liking- Such invitations, of course, have 
been answered with massive invasions. 

Perhaps the greatest irony in pesticide use is the destruc- 
tion of beneficial inseits and rodents in addition to the 
target species. (There has been some limited success in 
developing pesticides with narrow, specific effects.) Thus 
the victims are likely to include the very natural enemies 
that have been holding the Urget pest in check. There are 
many cases in which pest populations hav? burgeoned anew 
as a resuh. Sometimes the destruction of parasites and pred- 
ators simply clears the field for a surge of several new 
crop pests, compounding the problem of control. 

A second is that pests have a perverse tendency to develop 
resistance to the poisons man lavishes on them. Saya a Con- 
gressional report: "When a pest population, reproducing 
rapidly, is exposed to a lethal chemical, the laws of natural 
selection are dramatically demonstrated. The variety of 
genetic makeup, even wiUiin a single species, means that 
some insects in the population will have a biochemical mech- 
anism for resisUnce and a new population will build up, 
unaffected. . . ." Then there is an inclination to increase the 
dosage, or shift to another perhaps more poisonous chemi- 
cal, to kill off this tougher breed. But the report cautions 
that "there appears to be no toxicant powerful enough to kill 
every member of a large population." 

There's another kind of "resistance." For example. Pro- 
fessor Walter Ebeling and Donald A. Reierson of UCLA 
write of cockroaches that learn to avoid hazardous insecti* 
cides even after the first contact, with the result that the 
most toxic substances may be the least effective. 



WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 
Wtiat can be done to slow down the lavish use of 
pesticides, to protect wildlife, and to mitigate tli« 
risks to man? And, at ttie same time, to irontrol harm- 
ful pests and protect valuable food and fiber? The 
next issue of consumer repohts will review the pres- 
ent state of pesticide regulation, and explore im- 
provements and alternatives to chemical control. 



CONSUMER REPORTS 



3907 



Pesticide Pollution 

Part II. The politics of pesticides 



Seven year* after Rachel Canon's "Silent Spring" 
alerted the public to just how toxic some pesticides 
•re and how carelessly they have been used, the pesti- 
cide market continues to boom. Last month, in part 
one of a two-part series, CU reviewed some of the 
reasons why responsible citizens and scientists are 
concerned aboat the threat of these widely used 
chemicals. This report reviews the present state of 
pesticide regulation and explores possible improve- 



ments both in pesticide regulation and in chemical 
control of insect pests. The series is an abridgement of 
a report that originally appeared in "CF Letter," a 
periodical published by The Conservation Founda- 
tion, an independent, nonprofit group concerned with 
environmental issues. Reprints of the entire report 
are available for 50^ per copy from The Conservation 
Foundation, 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20036. 



T. 



_ here is a large, well-entrenched coalition in the United 
States that prides itself on the nation's superlative agriculture 
- — and generally opposes attempts to restrict the use of pesti- 
cides. The coalition is composed of farmers, bureaucrats, 
legislators and, of course, the manufacturers and distributors 
of pesticidee— an estimated $1.7 bilUon worth in 1969. At 
the forefront is the National Agricultural Chemicals Associa- 
tion, based in Washington, D.C, and including in its mem- 
bership the large pesticide makers. Its public position is 
crystal clear: There's nothing wrong with pesticides if they 
are handled and used properly. 

"Our basic philosophy," says Parke C. Brinkley, the chem- 
ical association's president, "is that there are some safe uses 
for all the products, and some unsafe uses. We don't think a 
total ban on a product is a very smart way of doing it. It 
would not be in the public interest." Why not? Because, it is 
insisted, there are particular uses and particular chemical 
compounds for which there is no good substitute. For exam- 
ple, DDT is considered cheaper and more effective in con- 
trolling many pests than other, less-harmful or less-persistent 
compoiinds. 

Considering that, and the immediate potential saving to 
farm and forest owners, it is small wonder that they turn to 
pesticides and that broad attempts to limit the use of pesti- 
cides are opposed. But for all its seeming logic, that approach 
presents a problem. For it is already clear that pesticides 
often cause unintended and damaging side effects, including 
heavy losses of fish and wildlife., They adversely affect natural 
systems, and they may even pose a threat to man himself. But 

AUGUST 1969 



with factual knowledge on most pesticides still to come in, 
how does society measure and balance the risks of pesticidei 
against their virtues in the meantime? 

Federal reflation 

Essentially, the Federal Government's regulation of pesti- 
cides is done on a piecemeal, or individual product-use, basis. 
The backbone of the process is the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, passed in 1947 and subse- 
quently amended and interpreted at great length.. That law 
controls registration and labeling of pesticide products. It is 
supplemented by provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act of 1938, also amended, under which the Food 
and Drug Administration is empowered to set "tolerance" 
levels for pesticide residues in raw agricultural commodities, 
to confiscate them if the pesticide content exceeds authorized 
levels, and even to initiate prosecution. Both Federal acts 
apply only to pesticides on food marketed in interstate com- 
merce. 

The Federal insecticide act is administered by the U.S. 
Department of .Agriculture's Pesticides Regulation Division. 
A manufacturer or shipper must apply for registration and 
labeling of a particular product to be used for a particular 
purpose. Although there are only 900 or so basic chemical 
compounds, there are some 15.000 pesticide registrations, 
including thosr for household use. An approved label will 
prescribe conditions of use, target, dosage, method and lim- 
ing of application, etc., as well as pertinent warnings. Ap- 
proved uses are determined by the U.S. Department of 



I 



3908 



Agriculture, based on its own research and review of data 
supplied by the manufacturer. That information deals with 
efiBcacy and toxic effects, among other things. 

Applications for registration are reviewed by the Food 
and Drug Administration if food is involved, and FDA has 
the power to block approval if it finds the proposed use of 
the pesticide is likely to result in a residue in food or feed 
exceeding the tolerance level. Applications are also reviewed 
by the Federal Health, Education and Welfare Department's 
Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service 
under its mandate to protect drinking water and long-term 
environmental health. And they are reviewed by the Interior 
Department if a pesticide use might affect fish or wildlife. 
Both the Health Service and Interior can only advise the De- 
partment of Agriculture; that is the limit of their authority. 

That limited authority presents certain problems. For ex- 
ample, the U.S. Department of Agriculture first legistered 
the insecticide lindane for use in vaporizers in 1950. Recent- 
ly, the U.S. Comptroller General scored USDA for permit- 
ting that uae of lindane in food-handling and other commer- 
cial and industrial establishments— despite the fact that the 
Public Health Service and other Federal, state and private 
organizations have long contended it is dangerous to health 
and food. On April 29, USDA cancelled the registration of 
lindane for aae in vaporizers. USDA explained that "intensi- 
fied" studies since the Comptroller General's report showed 
lindane vapors caused "undue risk to . . . health" and that 
iiaiaUted restaurant tests showed "illegal residues of lin- 
dane" in "practically all food, packaged and unpackaged," 
after five days' exposure. 

Officials of both Interior and Agriculture generally say 
titat cooperation is good, and that Interior's recommenda- 
tions are almost always accepted. However, Dr. Frederick H. 
Dale, chief of the Division of Pesticide Registration of In- 
terior's Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, adds that 
there is no formal follow-up procedure and "we're never posi- 
tive Agriculture hasn't disregarded our warning." Ned P. 
Everett, counsel to the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee, says evidence shows that some labels recommend- 
ed by Interior have been "toned down considerably" by 
Agriculture. A continuing effort has been made in Congress 
to require Agriculture to take Interior's labeling advice to 
prevent or minimize injury to fish and wildlife. In fact, the 
House on April 1, 1968, passed a bill containing such a pro- 
vision. However, it did not emerge from the Senate Com- 
merce Committee, where it was opposed by the National 
Agricnltoral Chemicals Association and the Agriculture De- 
partment A similar provision is contained in a new bill intro- 
duced this year, H.R. 1057. 

Attempts to strengthen pesticides regulation do not nor- 
mally fare well in Congress, where the four committees or 
subcommittees dealing with agricultural legislation and ap- 
propriations are dominated by farm-oriented Congressmen. 
For example, bills to ban the interstate shipment of DDT 
have been referred several times to the Senate Agriculture 



and Forestry Committee, which one observer calls a "dead 
end" for that kind of proposal. Another example involves a 
bill introduced in several sessions by Senator Abraham Ribi- 
coff of Connecticut. It would give Agriculture more muscle 
by requiring a pesticide manufacturer to register his estab- 
lishment and by permitting Agriculture to inspect it to see if 
proper materials are being used and if proper precautions 
and controls are being followed, and to inspect a warehouse 
or vehicle carrying pesticides. 

But, as the National Agricultural Chemicals Association's 
Brinkley reported to his membership: "Through the under- 
standing of Congress, and particularly Senator Jordan of 
North Carolina [chairman of the subcommittee to which the 
bill was referred], we have been given some time to see if the 
situation might be improved without the necessity of federal 
intervention." Brinkley said that compromise was "entirely 
acceptable to us." 

Even as they stand, the laws are not necessarily adminis- 
tered well. Some observers give the Food and Drug Admin- 
istration good marks for its system of residue tolerances on 
food. Others do not. Douglass F. Rohrman, an attorney for- 
merly with the Health, Education and Welfare Department's 
National Communicable Disease Center, says that a signifi- 
cant amount of work has never produced a truly complete set 
of sUndards. Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University says 
that most FDA tolerances are set "on the basis of short-term 
animal experiments and are set one poison at a time. Then, 
when it proves to be impossible to keep tolerances within 
limits, pressures are brought on the Government, and the 
tolerances are conveniently raised." Speaking of enforce- 
ment, one FDA official says "our programs are minimal in 
this area. They could be strengthened." He also says that al- 
though there have been many seizures of food, he knows of 
no case of criminal prosecution. 

The situation in the Agriculture Department is another 
story. Under Federal law, the Pesticides Regulation Division, 
a branch of the Agricultural Research Service, can act against 
a pesticide product if it is imregistered, misbranded or 
adulterated. In addition to the issuance of a written warning, 
the Pesticides Regulation Division has power to seize such 
products, cancel their registration, or ask the Justice Depart- 
ment to prosecute for criminal violations. How has this regu- 
latory program worked ? Consider these blunt charges in a 
recent report by the Government's watchdog General Ac- 
counting Office : 

■ For 13 years, the Agricultural Research Service never 
reported a violator of the Federal insecticide act for prose- 
cution— tkal despite "repeated major violations" of the law. 
(A number of duppers were cited for between four and 20 
major violations each.) 

■ Shippers cited by the service "did not take satisfactory 
action to correct violations," and in fact "ignored" notifica- 
tion that prosecution was being contemplated. 

■ "We found that, in taking action against products, the 

CONSUMER REPORTS 



3909 



PESTICIDE POLLUTION continued 



Service, with a few possible exceptions, did not obtain prod- 
uct quantity and location data to determine whether other 
shipments of the same misbranded, adulterated or unregis- 
tered products were available to the public in other loca- 
tions." 

■ In fiscal 1966, the Service tested and reviewed 2751 prod- 
uct samples and found 750 of those to be in violation (562, 
or about 20 per cent of the samples, in major violation). 
There were 106 seizures. 

In May, the House Government Operations Subcommittee 
on Intergovernmental Relations held a hearing to follow up 
the General Accounting Office's report. Among the disclo- 
sures reported by The Washington Post: "The law has per- 
mitted recalls of unsafe products since 1947— but procedures 
for recalls were not approved until [May 12, 1969]. The first 
recall was in September, 1967." 

Speaking of recalls, and casting further light on the effec- 
tiveness of the Agricultural Research Service's safety pro- 
cedures, the General Accounting Office report relates the 
history of 58 products containing thallium, which was used 
to kill rats and insects in homes. "A number of deaths bad 
occurred, principally in children, as a result of accidental 
consumption of the bait material." So in June, 1960, the 
Agricultwal Reaearch Service "took action to limit the 
thallium content of products in an attempt to reduce the 
poasibiUty of fatal accidents. ... In spite of the limiution, 
deaths continued to occur. ... In addition, statistics of the 
Pubtio Health Serrice indicated that there were about 400 
reportad case* of thallium poisoning of children during 
1962 end 1963." Effective September, 196S, the Agricultural 
ReseaKh Serrice cancelled the registrations of all t h a lli u m 
produeta. But, said the General Accounting Office, that action 
waa not supplemented by efforts to find out about the prod- 
ucts already on the ahelves. Thus, it said, thallium products 
were fooad to be Still available to the public in January, 
1968. Possibly some still are. 

Perhaps coiqplicatiBg the picture is the presence of serersl 
basicajly conflictiiig purposes within Agriculture. For one 
thing, the department's principal responsibility is to the 
farmer and food production, and Congress wouldn't let it 
forget that if it wanted to. So there is a potential conflict of 
interest simply in having pesticide regulation within the 
Agriculture Department. On the other hand, there exists a 
clear pesticide policy memorandum in the Agriculture De- 
partment, issued by former Secretary Orville Freeman on 
December 23, 1964. It expresses concern over the effects of 
pesticides and state* that department policy is "to practice 
and to encourage the use of those means of effective pest 
control which provide the least potential hazard to man and 
«niiwU when residual pesticides must be used to control 
or eliminate peats, they shall be used in minimal effective 
■motmts, applied precisely to the infested area and at mini- 
mal effective frequency. Biological, ecological or cultural 
methods or nenpersistsnt and low toxicity pesticides will be 
used whenerer such mean* are feasible and will safely and 
effectively control or eliminate target pests." 

But thm is a generally cozy relationship between the 

AMUST It6t 



agricultural industry and various branches of Government, 
some of whose officials end up working for industry. That 
coziness is not exactly discouraged by Congress. Congress- 
man Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi, chairman of the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, says that 
farmers must look to the Department of Agriculture to repre- 
sent their interests. "If the Department does not appear on 
behalf of the farm producers at hearings [on pesticide resi- 
dues] as to whether it is essential on the one side and to ques- 
tion whether it does any injury ... we are in a bad way." 

State regulation 

All states except two have registration laws covering pesti- 
cides distributed in intrastate commerce. Most of those laws 
are modeled after the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act and a uniform act prepared by the Council 
of State Governments. But though the Federal act and those 
state laws govern labeling and the prescribed use of a pesti- 
cide, they do not restrict actual use after a pesticide is sold. 
The Food and Drug Administration's residue tolerances are 
indirect restraints on excessive use of pesticides. They place 
a "natural restriction" on the farmer, says an aide of the 
National Agricultural Chemicals Association. "If he over- 
uses, there will likely be an excessive residue on the crop* 
and they'll be seized. A grower can't risk his entire crop that 
way." 

But some question the impact of FDA's regulatory pro- 
graoL Stanford University's Dr. Ehrlich, for example, say* 
that inspection of foods for residues is "completely inade- 
quate," and tliat farmers have not infrequently sprayed b»- 
yond official tolerances "knowing that the chances of being 
caught were practiooliy nil." Most atatee have their owa 
tolerance* for eommodities sold intrastate, and they gener- 
ally parallel the FDA's. There is no telling how much abuse 
or misuse of pesticides takes place, be it from misinforaa- 
tion, carelessness, or overxeslousness. But dozens of cosss 
have been cited, and the comment of Dr. Dole of the Interior 
Department is apt : "I hope there's not as much as I'm afraid 
there is. . . . We ooa put a warning on the label, but ... we 
can't hold [tiie farmer's] hand and see that he Bses it that 
way." 

Directed specifically at misuse of pesticides ore the so- 
called "use and application" laws enacted by many state*. 
Those may regulate specific usee, inspection of equipment, 
and licensing of operators, dealers and applicators, includ- 
ing aerial applicators. In California, for example, die De> 
partment of Agriculture establishes rules and regulatioM 
for the use of several "injurious" or "restricted" categories 
of chemicals. Before using certain chemicals, the prospective 
user (farmer as well as commercial applicator) must obtain 
a permit from his county agricultural commissioner, w^ 
may include on the permit any conditions he consider* n ne es 
sary to assure safety. Before delivery, the seller must obtain 
from tiie purchaser a signed statement that the appropriate 
permit has been secured. 

Some stale laws are extremely limited in scope. Some deal 
only with herbicides, others only with "structural" termite 
control. Enforcement is a problem too, with effectiveness 
varying as much as the law* themselves. And as in all regula- 
tory programs, enforcement is only as effective and vigorous 
a* the people carrying it out 



3910 



State legislatures and agencies, of course, are subject to 
the same economic and political pressures and dilemmas, 
the same latent conflicts of interest, as Congress and Federal 
agencies. Almost all states have placed pesticide regulation 
under their agriculture departments. Sometimes there is even 
a reluctance to supply information on pesticide use. Recent- 
ly, a Washington, D.C., city oBBcial simply declined to an- 
swer when he was asked how much DDT was being used on 
the city's trees. 

Still another opportunity for regulation of pesticide use 
ii provided by the water quality standards program, which 
states are carrying out in cooperation with the Department 
of the Interior's Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis- 
tration. Most state standards, which have to be approved by 
Interior, generally require that waters remain free from 
toxic substances in concentrations that would be harmful to 
man, fish or wildlife. 

Alternatives for the future 

1. Natural or "biological" controls of insects and diseases 
offer what are undoubtedly the most promising ways of 
gradually replacing pesticides. Those methods are of great 
variety and potential. Natural predators or parasites of the 
target insect often can be introduced in an area. For ex- 
ample, the press has reported that Citizens for Clean Air, 
a private organization opposed to use of chemical pesticides, 
recently released 300,000 ladybugs in a 20-block park area 
in New York City. Ladybugs feed on aphids and a wide 
variety of similarly destructive lice, scales, borers and their 
eggs. A bacteria or virus tiiat is ruinous to the target pest 
alone can be introduced. Males of some target species can 
be sterilized in vast numbers and then released. They mate 
witk females but produce no offspring; the population 
may thos b« lowered dramaticaUy. Many insects are at- 
tracted sexually by substances that can be made synthetic- 
ally. Hose attractants are used to trap or confuse the targets. 
Siaiilarly, food attractants can be used to induce pests to 
eat poison. Sound and light can be used to attract or repel 
iiwii tri And light can be used, in minute exposures, to dis- 
nipt an insect's timing— making it think, for example, that 
spring has arrived and inducing it to emerge into a cold or 
otherwise hostile environment There are also methods of 
genetic manipulation (even to the point of introducing into 
the population insects carrying lethal genes) , and hormonal 
control (to promote excessive growth, disrupt the life cycle, 
etc.) , A Ciechoslovak chemist has reported the synthesis of 
a hormone-like substance that imparts sterility to some 
bugs— and is contagious to them. Many crop varieties have 
been developed that simply resist attack from particular in- 
sects or disease. 

The Agriculture Department, in fact, has shifted a major 
portion of its research funds over the years from chemical 
to biological controls. The chemical industry, of course, is 
not likely to do so. "For the most part," says a Congressional 
committee, "biological control can only be considered a 
threat to some portion of the pesticide market." In fact, 
industry has been accused of shaping or dominating pest- 
control research. Rachel Carson noted in "Silent Spring" 
that many of the best entomologists labor in the "more ex- 
citing vineyards" of chemical control She suggested that 



that was because major chemical companies were "pouring 
money into the universities to support research on insecti- 
cides." 

2. So-called cultural methods of control can also be use- 
ful. Those include rotating crops and reducing areas of 
monoculture, to encourage more predators and fewer harm- 
ful insects; better timing of crops to avoid emerging insect 
populations; and more appropriate plant spacing, soil prep- 
aration and tillage, water and fertilizer management and 
sanitation. 

3. Even when insecticides are used, techniques can often be 
improved. Careful timing and minimal applications can pro- 
duce better results at less cost— both to the user and the en- 
vironment. Pesticides can be used, or developed, that are 
more selective and cause minor damage to beneficial insects 
and fish or wildlife. One new technique is called ultralow- 
volume aerial spraying. Undiluted insecticide is sprayed in 
a very fine mist. As little as one ounce per acre may be 
needed, and one plane load can cover a large farm or forest 
area inexpensively. 

4. Many experts believe that the real answer lies in inte- 
grated pest control programs— those that make maximum 
use of biological and cultural methods as well as selective 
application of pesticides when necessary as supplements. 

5. Avoidance of economic loss does not necessarily require 
the eradication of a pest Dr. William A. Niering, professor 
of botany at Connecticut College, says the farmer is forced to 
seek total eradication "by those demanding from agriculture 
completely insect-free produce. This has now reached ridicu- 
lous proportions. Influenced by advertising, the housewife 
now demands perfect specimens with no thought of or regard 
for how much environmental contamination has resulted to 
attain such perfection." 

6. It has been suggested by many scientists and legislators 
that DDT, or aD so-called "hard" pesticides, be banned en- 
tirely. Actually, there have been a number of steps in that 
direction. Some states and communities have banned DDT 
for certain uses, such as treating Dutch elm disease or mos- 
quito control Pending a study, Arizona has a one-year pro- 
hibition on DDT use in commercial agriculture; in Wiscon- 
sin hearinp have been held on a petition to ban DDT 
altogether; and Michigan has moved to make the sale of 
DDT iUegal. 

He California state legislature is considering a ban on 
DDT, and early in June The New York Time* reported on 
an open letter signed by 60 West Coast marine scientists 
and addressed to Governor Ronald Reagan and the people 
of California. In supporting such a ban, the scientists said: 
"The scientific evidence now available shows beyond qaes- 
tion that DDT and its residues have caused serious and 
irreparable damage to populations of beneficial birds and 
fidies. It is true that since World War II, DDT has saved 
millions [of lives] . . . and billions of dollars. . . . However, 
DDT is no longer an essential weapon in the battle for human 
health and food. It is less effective than it once was, for 
nearly ISO species of insect pests have developed resistance 
to it, and many other pesticides that are less destructive . . . 
are now available to take its place." 

Sweden just became the first nation to declare an outright 



CONSUMER REPORTS 



3911 



PESTICIDE POLLUTION continued 



ban on DDT (for at least two years) —apparently spurred in 
part by an international conference in Stockholm at which 
scientists stated they couldn't be sure DDT was nol harming 
humans. On April 1, Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin 
again introduced a bill (S. 1753) to prohibit the interstate 
sale or shipment of DDT in the U.S. Congressmen Bertram 
Podell of New York and Joseph Karth of Minnesota have 
offered similar bills in the House. 

7. Greater research is needed. The President's Science Ad- 
visory Committee has said that it is "well within the capacity 
of the chemical industry, which annually screens some 100,- 
000 new organic compounds as potential pesticides, to devel- 
op biodegradable pesticides of suitably narrow spectra of 
action." 

8. Even the best information is of no use buried. "One of 
our major problems," says Connecticut College's Dr. 
Niering, "is the communication of sound ecological knowl- 
edge already available. . . . The problem really challenging 
man is to get this scientific knowledge translated into 
action. . . ." The President's Science Advisory Committee 
believes "all data used as a basis for granting registration 
and establishing tolerances should be published, thus allow- 
ing the hypotheses and the validity and reliability of the data 
to be subjected to critical review by the public and the 
scientific community." 

9. The Science Advisory Committee has also suggested a 
more cautious approach to registration of pesticides: "Un- 
less a pesticide proposed for registration is equally effective 
in a less hazardous way than methods already available, 
[we] believe registration should be considered conserva- 
tively. As a corollary , . . more hazardous compounds might 
well be removed from the market when equally effective and 
less hazar^us substances are found." 

10. New or stronger Federal and state laws governing regis- 
traUon and labeling, use and application could be eriacted 
and enforcement could be improved. Among possible admin- 
istrative changes is the transfer of pesticide functions from 
agricultural agencies to those concerned with health or the 
environment; and the creation of independent, policy-mak- 
ing pesticide review boards, which some states in fact 
already have. Alto recommended by some is the regional ap- 
proach illustrated by the four-state agreement between the 
natural resource agencies of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and 
Michigan, designed to stem the flow of persistent pesticides 
into Lake Michigan. 

On April 14, Senator Nelson introduced a bill (S. 1799) 
to establish a permanent, 12-member National Commission 
on Pesticides. It would be responsible for evaluating the 
present usage of pesticides, reviewing existing use and label- 
ing restrictions, recommending safety standards for pesti- 
cides in water, developing a monitoring program, conducting 
or initiating research of all kinds, and making recommenda- 
tions to the President and Congress on the elimination or 
limitation of pesticide use. 

11. Greater accountability has been suggested. For instance, 
Dr. Robert L. Rudd of the University of California 



recommends that we "require public justification of any 
tax-supported control program and insist that this justifica- 
tion contain a clear description of the purposes of the control 
program, the methods by which it is to be conducted, the 
hazards inherent in it, and economic or social gains that 
justify both costs and hazards." 

12. Broader training of commercial applicators and others 
is also needed. Dr. Rudd proposes a "user education" pro- 
gram "in which the full range of hazards of chemical use is 
explained." He says "it is not enough to seek to educate 
growers and appliers in the proper methods of handling toxic 
chemicals. They must also be told the biological and social 
consequences of continuing chemical use." 

13. The pesticides problem seems tailor-made for the kind 
of oversight, review and judgment that could be provided by 
a Council of Environmental Advisors— a highly qualified 
group at the top level of the Executive Branch. Such a council 
is called for in several bills now pending in Congress. Control 
of pesticide pollution is a massive and complex problem. It 
involves both interagency and Federal-state coordination. It 
requires the resolution of divergent scientific views. And it 
involves conflict betwen different economic and social in- 
terests. 

14. Few, if any, improvements will be achieved without 
strong citizen interest and action. Traditional pesticide prac- 
tices are cemented by traditional bureaucratic and political 
alliances, and by traditional scientific and economic consid- 
erations. Gtizen and conservation organizations can play key 
roles in focusing public, legislative and administrative atten- 
tion on the pesticides problem. The Citizens Natural Re- 
sources Association's petition for a ban on DDT in Wisconsia 
was the subject of a hearing that was held there. Similarly, 
the Michigan Audubon Society initiated a court suit in 1967 
that led at least indirectly to restrictions on the use of DDT 
in that state. 



AUGUST 196* 



3912 



OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE IN 
CALIFORNIA ATTRIBUTED TO 
PESTICIDES AND OTHER 
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 




STATE OF CALIFORNIA . •. 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 
BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 



1966 



3013 



SOURCE OF DATA 



When an injured employee requires medical attention other than ordinary first 
aid treatment, the attending physician must file a report, the Doctor's First 
Report of Work Injury, With the Division of Labor Statistics and Research in the 
California Department of Industrial Relations (State of California Labor Code, 
1965, Section 6407). The employer also files a report, the Employer's Report 
of Industrial Injury, By definition, work Injury includes occupational disease. 

Under interagency agreement, doctors' reports of occupational disease for a 
selected list of disease conditions are routed by the Division of Labor Statistics 
and I^esearch for review by the Bureau of Occupational Health of the California 
Department of Public Health. 



COVERAGE 



This report deals with occupational disease attributed to pesticides and other 
agricultural chemicals as reported for the 80 percent of the 7.2 million em- 
ployed persons in California covered under the California Workmen's Compen- 
sation law in 1966. Among those excluded are federal employees, maritime 
workers, railroad workers In interstate commerce and the self-employed. 



This report prepared by 

Esther Baginsky 

Public Health Statistician 

with assistance from the staff 

of the Bureau of Occupational Health 

and the Repor ts. Preparation Vnit 

of the Data Proce ssing Center 



3914 



SUMMARY 



The 1,347 reports of occupational disease attributed to pesticides and other agri- 
cultural chemicals received in 1966 compares with 1,340 in 1965 and 1,328 in 
1964. 

Occupational diseases are not included from among self-employed farmers and 
unpaid family labor, 28 percent of the agricultural work force, and from self- 
employed one-man operations in structural and agricultural pest control work. 
Data in this review, therefore, undoubtedly understate the incidence of occupa- 
tional disease attributed to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. 

The rate of occupational disease from agricultural chemicals in agricultural ser- 
vices (6.6 reports per 1,000 workers) was nearly twice that for workers in all 
agriculture (3.5 reports per 1, 000 agricultural workers). 

Since 1951, there have been 32 occupational fatalities implicating agricultural 
chemicals. In this same period, 82 children and 22 other adults died in Cali- 
fornia from accidents attributed to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, 
a total of 136 accidental deaths. 

Organic phosphate pesticides were implicated in 19 percent of the 1,347 reports 
in this series; followed by herbicides, 11 percent; fertilizers, 10 percent; halo- 
genated hydrocarbon pesticides, 7 percent; and phenolic compounds, 7 percent. 

There were 233 reports of systemic poisonings in 1966. TTie organic phosphate 
pesticides were blamed in 173 of these. 

Forty percent of workers with occupational disease attributed to agricultural 
chemicals were expected to lose some time from work. Ten percent of such 
workers were hospitalized. 

Farm laborers accounted for more than half (704) of the 1,347 reports of occu- 
pational disease attributed to agricultural chemicals; nonfarm laborers, 15 per- 
cent; and operatives, including truck and tractor drivers, 14 percent. 

Eighty percent of pest control chemicals moved beyond local areas are moved 
by truck. Chemicals are usually transported in concentrated form, creating 
potential health hazards in transportation and storage of pesticides in the event 
of mishap. 



3915 



BACKGROUND 



Occupational disease caused by agricultural chemicals continues to be one of the 
most important occupational health problems in the State. Diseases caused by 
these chemicals include a high proportion of serious acute illness. In 1966, 42 
percent of the 557 reports of all occupational poisonings were attributed to agri- 
cultural chemicals, although only 5 percent of the 27,626 reports of all occupa- 
tional diseases received were attributed to these chemicals. Further, these 
cases are concentrated in the agriculture industry which has the highest rate of 
occupational disease in California: 11.9 reports per 1, 000 agricultural workers 
in 1966, or more than two and a half tLmes that for all industrial divisions (4.5 
per 1, 000 workers for all industry). 
f • 

The acute effects of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals on workers in 
California, as recognized and reported by physicians, have been summarized by 
the Bureau of Occupational Health of the California Department of Public Health 
since 1950. While limited to the segment of the population covered by the Cali- 
fornia Workmen's Compensation law, these data are the only regularly available 
information in the United States on acute conditions caused by agricultural chem- 
icals. As such, they have been of continuing interest to persons concerned with 
the effects of agricultural chemicals on the health of people. Although the use 
of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals is widespread in home and garden, 
the effects of this contact on the health of the general population are not com- 
pletely known. . . . - 

Comments in earlier reports of the Bureau of Occupational Health pointed to 
needed improvements for the protection of workers using agricultural chemicals. 
These comments still apply, as demonstrated by a review of the 1966 doctors' 
reports. Among the needed protective measures are: provision of washing fa- 
cilities for farm workers in the fields; adequate supervision of agricultural chem- 
ical users; improvement in the engineering of crop-dusting aircraft and related 
equipment; and standardization of labeling on pesticide containers. As recently 
as the summer of 1967, an outbreak of pesticide poisoning in the San Joaquin 
Valley was reported to have sickened about 25 peach pickers. Yet similar out- 
breaks among fruit pickers had occurred there in 1959 and 1963. 



DEFINITIONS 



The terms pesticides and other agricultural chemicals as used in this review 
include such materials as insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, fungicides, de- 
foliants, fertilizers, hormones, soil additives, and wood preservatives, which 



I 



3916 



are commonly used to promote growth or to destroy plant or animal life. Occu- 
pational disease arising from exposure to these materials occurs in agricultural 
pursuits and such nonagricultural activities as structural pest control , wood 
treatment, manufacture, transportation and distribution of the chemicals. Data 
concerning occupational disease are, therefore, included for both the agricul- 
tural and nonagricultural industries. 

For classification of occupational disease conditions reported by physicians, the 
term systemic poisoning refers to generalized illness caused by a toxic sub- 
stance in which signs and symptoms are present in more than one system of the 
body. Reported cases are classified to respiratory condition if signs and symp- 
toms are limited to the respiratory tract. Skin condition refers to a morbid re- 
action of the skin; burns and abrasions are excluded from this category. Eye 
condition refers to any condition of the eye caused by a chemical substance, and 
chemical burn is the corrosive destruction of tissue caused by contact with a 
chemical. Generalized allergic manifestations or signs and symptoms limited to 
any other single system of the body are assigned to the category other and un- 
specified . Beginning in 1964, eye conditions and chemical burns were included 
in the review for the first time in many years . 



NCIDENCE 



The 1 , 347 doctors' reports of occupational disease attributed to pesticides and 
other agricultural chemicals received in 1966 compares with 1 , 340 reports in 
1965 and 1,328 in 1964. Although still high, the number of reports appears to 
be leveling off beginning in 1960. This trend was interrupted by an increase in 
1963 when an outbreak of parathion poisoning occurred among peach pickers in 
the San Joaquin Valley. Similar outbreaks among citrus fruit pickers took place 
in 1959 (Table 1). 

Reports of occupational disease are received only for wage and salary workers 
covered under the California Workmen's Compensation law. Thus, such dis- 
eases among self-employed farmers and unpaid family labor, 28 percent jof the 
agricultural work force, are not included. There are also many self-employed 
one-man operations in structural and agricultural pest control work, at high 
risk from pesticides, for whom occupational disease reports are also not re- 
ceived. Data in this review, therefore, undoubtedly understate the incidence of 
occupational disease attributed to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. 

Rates of occupational disease reports attributed to agricultural chemicals have 
been computed for selected industries by relating the number of occupational 
disease reports for a given industrial category to the estimated annual average 
wage and salary employment for the same group. Occupational disease rates 



3917 



are based on all occupational disease reports, both lost time and nonlost time. 
They are not complarable with work injury rates prepared by the Division of 
Labor Statistics and Research of the California Department of Industrial Rela- 
tions for lost time work injury only. 

REPORTS OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ATTRIBUTED TO 

AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS PER 1,000 WORKERS 

CALIFORNIA, I966 



WORKERS 


REPORTS PER 
1,000 WORKERS 


Agriculture 

Farm Laborers (Including Foremen) 
Agricultural Services 

Structural Pest Control Operators 
Mosquito Abatement Districts 


3.5 
3.5 
6.6 

10,6 

a 



a Employment and number of reports are too few to 
compute a meaningful rate. 

Source: Reference Tables 7 and 8. 

Employment estimates from following State of 
California agencies: Department of Employment; 
Division of Labor Statistics and Research; De- 
partment of Public Health, Bureau of Vector 
Control. 



.Workers in agricultural services had a rate nearly twice that for workers in all 
agriculture. The 6.6 reports per 1,000 workers in 1966 was an increase of 8 
percent over 1965 (6.1). The rate for structural pest control continued at a 
high level, 9.4 reports per 1,000 workers in 1965 and 10.6 in 1966. 

Employees of mosquito abatement districts handle large quantities of agricul- 
tural chemicals and risk high exposure as a result. Seven reports were re- 
ceived for this group in 1966, 4 in 1965, and 8 in 1964, but the estimated number 
of workers employed was also small, an average of 600 in each year. 

These rates give some indication of relative risk, subject to the limitation that 
the number of workers actually exposed to agricultural chemicals is unknown, 
and may be considerably fewer than the estimate on which the rate is based. 
For example, most reports for workers in agricultural services came from pest 
control operators servicing farms. If the number of workers employed by these 
operators were known, the rate for pest control work, apart from other agricul- 
tural services, would be considerably higher. 



i State of California, Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vector Control, 
Private cogimunlcation. 



3918 



FATALITIES 



Since 1951, there have been 32 occupational fatalities implicating agricultural, 
chemicals. Tliirteen of r.hese were attributed to organic phosphate pesticides, 
7 to methyl bromide, and 12 to such diverse agricultural chemicals as chlorate 
metaborate, anhydrous ammonia, sodium arsenate, pentachlorophenol, carbon 
tetrachloride, nicotine sulfate and paraquat (Table 2), In this same period, 82 
children and 22 other adults died in California from accidents attributed to pes- 
ticides and other agricultural chemicals, making a total of 136 accidental deaths. 

In 1966, there were 8 accidental deaths, including those of 3 workers, and 18 
suicides in which it was officially determined that an agricultural chemical was 
the agent (Table 3). A description of two occupational fatalities from poisoning 
follows: 

One fatality involved parathion. After spraying peach trees with 
parathion all the preceding da*y and for three and a half hours that 
day, a young farm laborer of 28 became acutely ill at noon. This 
was reportedly the first time he had worked with parathion,. al- 
though he had been employed as sprayer for 3 years. There was 
conflicting information about protective measures used. He wore 
an approved respirator. Sixty milligrams of parathion were ex- 
tracted from one of his gloves and 2 milligrams from a patch on 
his trousers. Seven days after the exposure he died of complicat- 
ing bronchopneumonia brought on by his severe parathion poisoning, 
confirmed by cholinesterase tests. Parathion, like other phosphate 
ester pesticides, is readily absorbed through the unbroken skin as 
well as by inhalation or ingestion of contaminated materials. 

Another farm worker who died was spraying the herbicide, para- 
quat. He carried two identical containers on the tractor, one con- 
taining the herbicide, the other his drinking water. He took a drink 
from the wrong container. ... 

Warnings have been issued by the Bureau of Occupational Health that pesticides 
should be kept in their original labeled containers and "empty" containers should 
never be discarded where others can use them or children could reach them. 
They should be decontaminated, buried at an authorized dump, or burned. Re- 
cently, in 1967, reports have been received of a California farm worker who 
died after drinking parathion which had been placed in aplastic Clorox-type con- 
tainer, thinking it was water, and of four men who died because they drank from 
a wine bottle in which an arsenical herbicide had been mixed. 



3919 



SUMMARY OF 1986 DATA 



GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 

Reports came from 50 of California's 58 counties. As in past years, many of 
the reports (38 percent) were from the San Joaquin Valley. 

CHEMICAL AND CLINICAL TYPE OF DISEASE 

Organic phosphate pesticides were implicated in 19 percent of the 1,347 reports 
of occupational disease attributed to agricultural chemicals; followed by herbi- 
cides, 11 percent; fertilizers, 10 percent; halogenated hydrocarbon pesticides, 
7 percent; and phenolic compounds, 7 percent. Other specified chemicals ac- 
counted for 14 percent of the total, and in 33 percent of the reports the chemical 
was not identified. 

As in other years, skin conditions, eye conditions, systemic poisonings and chem - 
ical burns, in that order, were the most commonly reported of the occupational 
diseases in this series. 

There were 233 reports of systemic poisonings in 1966, nearly one and a third 
times as many as in 1965 (179). The organic phosphate pesticides v/ere blamed 
in 74 percent of these, although they accounted for but 19 percent of all occupa- 
tional diseases from agricultural chemicals. Parathion, as usual, was the most 
frequently identified chemical, with 102 reports, followed by Phosdrin, mala- 
thion and Systox. 

The halogenated hydrocarbon pesticides are the most widely used, and these 
chemicals accounted for 94 reports. With the exception of methyl bromide, car- 
bon tetrachloride and endrin, pesticides in this group generally cause less acute 
illness among people than the organic phosphates. There were 40 reports at- 
tributed to the DDT, chlordane, lindane group, and 30 to niethyl bromide. No 
reports involving carbon tetrachloride used as an agricultural chemical were 
received in 1966; there was 1 report in 1965; 2 in 1964. 

The fungicide, sulfur, was named as agent in 75 occupational disease reports. 
Of these, 33 were skin conditions and a like number eye conditions; 5 were chem- 
ical burns. Although these three classes of occupational disease do not usually 
cause a loss of time from work, 45 percent of the workers with conditions attri- 
buted to sulfur were expected to lose some time from work. (Sulfur was grouped 
with other specified^agricultural chemicals in previous reports.) 



3920 



TIME LOST FROM WORK AND HOSPITALIZATION 

The severity of illness caused by agricultural chemicals is indicated by the greater 
frequency with which workers were expected to lose time from work with such 
illness, as well as by the greater frequency with which they were hospitalized, 
compared with occupational illness from all causes. As used in this review, the 
term hospitalization excludes treatment solely in the hospital emergency room 
or outpatient department. 

Forty percent of workers with occupational disease attributed to agricultural 
chemicals were expected to lose some time from work, nearly twice the propor- 
tion as for all agents. Ten percent of such workers were hospitalized, almost 
three times the proportion of those hospitalized for illness from all causal agents. 

For illness attributed to organic phosphate pesticides, physicians advised their 
patients to take time off from work even more frequently than for all agricul- 
tural chemicals, and found it necessary to hospitalize more than 1 in 4 of these 
patients. Most such workers were expected to be back on the Job within a week. 
Organic phosphate pesticides can cause serious illness; however, within 48 hours 
the patient is usually dead or well on the way to recovery. Although recovered 
and able to work, the worker should not have to handle or be exposed to phos- 
phate esters until his cholinesterase level returns to normal. 



ESTIMATED TIME LOST 


TOTAL 

OCCUPATIONAL 

DISEASE 


OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE 
ATTRIBUTED TO AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 


FROM WORK AND 
HOSPITALIZATION 


Total 


Organlo 
Phosphate 
Pesticides 


Methyl 

Bromide 


Sulfur 


Total 

Estimated Time Lost Prom Work 
Time lost from work 
No time lost from work 
Not stated 

Hospitalization 
Hospitalized 
Not hospitalized 
Not stated 


100.0 
(27.626) 

22.8 
62,8 

11,1 

0,2 


100.0 
(1.317) 

10,1 

15,8 
11.1 

10.0 

89.8 
0.2 


100.0 
(253) 

58,5 
25,3 
16,2 

28.1 
71.5 

0.1 


100.0 
(30) 

50.0 
33.3 
16.7 

10.0 
60.0 


100,0 
(75) 

15.3 
37.3 

y.1 

2.7 
97.3 



Source: Reference Table 9. 

State of California, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, 
Do dor' t Firtt Report of Work Injury. 



As indicated in the text table, other agricultural chemicals such as methyl bro- 
mide and sulfur also had a disproportionately high percentage of disease condi- 
tions resulting in hospitalization or other work disability. 



3921 



AGE AND SEX^ 

Women accounted for less than 10 percent (121) of the 1,347 reports, about the 
same as in the past. Median age of all workers with reported occupational dis- 
ease was 35.5 years. 

INDUSTRIES INVOLVED 

Occupational disease among workers in the agriculture industry accounted for 
820 of the 1,347 reports (61 percent). Agriculture includes not only livestock 
and crop farming, but also such services to farms as cotton ginning, spraying 
and other horticultural and husbandry services. Spraying and pest control not 
conrj.ected with agricultural services are listed separately. Most reports con- 
cerned workers on farms, but 137 were employed in agricultural service Indus- 
tries, mainly pest control operators servicing farms. 

Data in this review undoubtedly understate the incidence of occupational disease 
from pesticides and other agricultural chemicals in agriculture. The experi- 
ence of the 90,000 self-employed farmers and unpaid family labor, 28 percent 
of those working in agriculture, ^ who also use agricultural chemicals, is not in- 
cluded and is unknown. 

There were 222 agricultural aircraft operators licensed in California to use air- 
craft in pest control work in 1966.2 Employees of 47 operators accounted for 
74 reports of occupational disease attributed to agricultural chemicals, about 
one and a half times as many as were received in 1964 and 1965. The increase 
was in reports of systemic poisonings, nearly all of which identified organic 
phosphate pesticides as responsible. Swampers, flagmen, mixers and other la- 
borers were the most frequently affected. .Ten were pilots. Of the 74 ill work- 
ers, 31 were under the age of 20; 2 were reportedly 15 years old. 



Estimated total of 323,600 persons working on farms and in agricultural ser- 
vices. Source: State of California, Department of Employment, Cali/omia 
Annual Farm Labor Report, 1966, and Division of Labor Statistics and Re- 
search, Private communication. 

State of California, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Pest Control Op- 
erfitors, 1966 (Announcement Numbers PC-187, PC-192, and Announcement 
September 7, 1966). 



38-513 O - 70 - Pt. 60 - 18 



3922 



REPORTS OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ATTRIBUTED TO AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 

BY CLINICAL ITPE OF DISEASE, AGRICULTURAL AIRCPJiFT OPERATORS 

CALIFORNIA, 1960-1966 











SYSTEMIC POISONING 




YEAR 




Attributed 








EYE 


CHEMICAL 




to Organic 


OTHER 




TOTAL 


CONDITION 


BURN 


Total 


Pnosphates 


CONDITION 


i960 


101 


a 


a 


78 


na 


23 


1961 


55 


a 


a 


40 


na 


15 


1962 


32 


a 


a 


23 


20 


9 


1963 


36 


a 


a 


28 


22 


8 


196'+ 


50 


10 


c 


25 


20 


13 


1965 


^8 


8 


1 


26 


23 


13 


1966 


71+ 


10 


2 


h^ 


46 


13 



na Not available. 

3 Categories not included in total statistics for this year. 

Source: State of California, Division of Labor Statistics and 
Research, t)ocior's First Report of Work Injury. 



Nonagricultural industries contributing large numbers of reports were manufac- 
turing, 15 percent; State and local government, 6 percent; and trade and con- 
struction, each with 4 percent of the total. Most of the 204 reports from manu- 
facturing industries came from chemical companies, generally, those special- 
izing in agricultural chemicals, from food processors and from lumber and wood 
products companies. School districts accounted for 25 of the 86 reports from 
government; the reports concerned mainly gardeners and maintenance men. 

Structural pest control work, a high risk category, has many self-employed one- 
man operations whose occupational diseases are not covered by the California 
Workmen's Compensation law. There were over 1,000 licensed structural pest 
control operators in 1966^ employing an average of 3,091 workers.^ These em- 
ployees accounted for 33 cases of occupational illness attributed to pesticides 
and other agricultural chemicals. Skin and eye conditions predominated,- a^d 8 
of the 33 reports implicated halogenated hydrocarbon pesticides. 



State of California, Structural Pest Control Board, Private communication. 
There were 1,061 licensed structural pest control operators for fiscal year 
1965-1966, 1,094 for fiscal year 1966-1967. 
State of California, Department of Employment, Private communication. 



3923 



OCCUPATION 

Almost all occupational groups were represented, but farm laborers, as usual, 
accounted for more than half (704) of the 1,347 reports of illness attributed to 
pesticides and other agricultural chemicals . Organic phosphate pesticides were 
blamed in 22 percent of reports concerning farm laborers; herbicides, 11 per- 
cent; sulfur, 8 percent; and fertilizers, 7 percent. 

More than 40 percent of the 704 farm laborers had a Spanish surname. This 
proportion continues high even though foreign contract laborers, mainly from 
■Mexico, have been reduced to insignificant numbers in the last two years. ^ Many 
of tlie'se workers are known to have langiiage difficulties. Employers of non- 
English speaking workers are required to provide work instructions in the lan- 
guage spoken by the employees. 2 

Nonfarm laborers, such as gardeners, warehouse and plant workers, accounted 
for 199 reports, 15 percent of all cases. The most frequently identified agents 
for this group were herbicides, phenolic compounds, organic phosphate pesti- 
cides and fertilizers. 

Operatives, the third largest occupational category, made up 14 percent of the 
-totals Among the 190 reports for operatives, 38 implicated organic phosphate 
pesticides; 34, fertilizers; and 16, halogenated hydrocarbon pesticides. 

Ninety-six of the operatives were classified as truck and tractor drivers. Most 
drivers (56) worked for farmers and pest control operators. The others were 
employed in nearly every other industry category; only 9 worked for trucking 
firms. 

TRANSPCRTATION OF PESTICIDES BY TRUCK 

According to final figures on the 1963 Census of Transportation, 80 percent of 
pest control chemicals moved beyond local areas in the United States were moved 
by truck. However, most shipm.ents v/ere local; only a small proportion of the 
tonnage .(23.6 percent) was shipped over 400 miles. 3 



State of California, Department of Employment, CaZ i/orni a Annual Farm La- 
bor Report, 1966. Foreign contract laborers- -1966, 1,200; 1965, 2,800. 
2t State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial 

Safety, Safety Orders for Agri cul tural Op erations, November 1961. 

^ U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Pesticide Bevieu, 1967. p. 3, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 



3924 



Chemicals are usually txansported in concentrated form so that even moderately 
toxic materials may be available in lethal quantities. Recent 1967 fatal poison- 
ings of 17 persons in Mexico and of 63 in Colombia, South America, were caused 
by food contaminated v/ith parathion during transportation or storage. Also in' 
1967, a spill of about 1,000 pounds of liquid parathion occurred on a highway in 
California. These three episodes are all examples of the severe health hazards 
to the general public, as well as to the truck drivers and warehouse workers 
handling these materials, in the event of mishap. 

The Bureau of Occupational Health is working with other governmental agencies 
concerned with potential hazards arising in transportation and storage of pesti- 
cides to develop procedures for the prevention of dangerous accidents as well as 
for effective decontamination and treatment when accidents occur. 



IN THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COIUMBIA CIRCUIT 



No. 23,812 



The Environmental Defense Fund. Inc., Irene Lopez, 

Elvira Garduno, Kathy Radke. Marilyn Vittor, 

Leigh Roycroft, and Juan Zamora. 

Petitioners, 



V. 



Robert H. Finch, 
Secretary, Health, Education and Welfare, 

Respondent. 



ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE 
SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 



BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS 



Ralph S. Abascal 
J. V. Henry 
Edgar A. Kerry 
Peter Haberfeld 

Post Office Box 1 1 27 

116 - 7th Street 

Marysville, California 95901 

James D. Lorenz, Jr. 
1212 Market Street 
San Francisco, California 94102 

Attorneys for Petitioners 



Edward Berlin 

Berlin, Roisman and Kessler 
1910 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

James W. Moorman 

2008 Hillyer Place, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20009 



(3925) 



3926 

(i) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 



Questions Presented 1 

Statement Pursuant to Rule 8(d) 2 

References to Rulings 3 

Statement 3 

A. Nature of this Proceeding 3 

B. The Statutory and Regulatory Scheme 4 

C. The Petitioners 5 

D. Prior Proceedings 5 

1. The Petitioner 5 

2. The Mrak Commission Report 7 

3. The Secretary's Decision g 

Statutes and Regulations Involved 9 

Argument 

Introduction and Summary g 

I. Substantial Evidence Establishes that DDT is a Cancer- 
Producing Substance; Accordingly, the Secretary Must 
Act Immediately to Prohibit Residues of that Poison on 
Raw Agricultural Commodities 1 1 

A. The Secretary must Prohibit Residues of Cancer- 
Producing Substances on Raw Agricultural Com- 
modities 11 

1, The Anticancer Principle and Its Effect 11 

2. The Anticancer Principle is Fully Applicable to 
Pesticide-Chemicals 16 

a. The Secretary, by contemporaneous adminis- 
trative construction, has construed the Delaney 
principle as being fully applicable to the pesti- 
cide provision 17 

*Cases or authorities chiefly relied upon. 



3927 
(ii) Page 

b. Congress intended for the Delaney principle to 
apply to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
generally, including the pesticide provision 24 

B. The Record Establishes that DDT is a Carcinogen 29 

1. The Evidence Presented to the Secretary by Peti- 
tioners Establishes that DDT is a Carcinogen 29 

2. The Report of the Mrak Commission Corroborates 
Conclusively the Finding that DDT is a Carcino- 
gen 30 

C. The Secretary has Utterly Failed to Comply with the 

Act 32 

II. Petitioners Presented "Reasonable Grounds" In Support 
of Their Petition; Accordingly, it was Incumbent upon 
the Secretary to at Least Publish their Proposal in the 
Federal Register thereby Initiating the Administrative 
Procedures 34 

Conclusion 40 

AUTHORITIES CITED 

Cases: 

*Bell V. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177 (C.A. 6, 1966) 14, 15, 29 

Certified Color Industry Committee, et at. v. Secretary, 283 

F. 2d 622 (C.A. 2, 1960) 28 

C C Co. v. United States, 147 F.2d 820 (C.A. 5, 1945) w 

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., et al. v. Clifford M. 

Hardin, CADC No. 23813 2 

*Flemming v. Florida Gtrus Exchange, 358 U.S. 153 (1958) . 28, 33 
Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294 17 

United States v. Bodine Produce Co., 206 F. Supp. 201 

(Ariz. 1962) 27 

*United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943) 10 

United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689 (1948) 10 

United States v. Two Bags, Each Containing 110 Pounds, 

Poppy Seeds, et al., 147 F.2d 123 (C.A. 6, 1945) 10 

United States v. 30 Cases, Etc., 93 F. Supp. 764 (S.D. Iowa, 

1950) 10 



3928 

(Hi) ?m 



62 Cases of Jam, et ai, v. United States, 340 U.S. 593 (1951) 



10 



Statutes and Regulations: 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 61 Stat. 

163, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 135, et seq 3 

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 

21 U.S.C. 301, et seq 3, 9 

Section 408 4 

Section 408(b), 21 U.S.C. 346(a)(b) 4 

Section 409(c)(3)(A), 21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A) 5 

Section 706(b)(5)(B), 21 U.S.C. 376(b)(5)(B) 5, 12, 15 

21 CFR 120 9 

21 CFR 120.5 22 

21 CFR 120.32 4, 35 

21 CFR 120. 147- 120. 147c 4 

P.L. 87-781, 76 Stat. 785 12 

Miscellaneous: 

HEW, News Release, November 9, 1959 19 

HEW, News Release, November 14, 1959 19 

HEW, News Release, November 16, 1959 .- . . . 20 

HEW, Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and 
Their Relationship to Environmental Health, December 
1969 [Mrak Commission Report] 7 

Innes, et al. , Bioassay of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals 
for Tumorigenicity in Mice: A Preliminary Note, 42 
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1101 (June, 
1969) 6, 7, 29, 31 

Kem^ny and Taridn, Investigations on the Effects of Chroni- 
cally Administered Small Amounts of DDT in Mice, 22 
Experientia 748 (1966) 6, 30 

Radomski, Deichmann, Clizer, Pesticide Concentrations in the 
Liver, Brain and Adipose Tissue of Terminal Hospital 
Patients, 6 Food Cosmetics and Toxicology 209 (1968) . . 7, 30, 33 

100 Cong. Rec. 9726 16, 27 



3929 

(iv) Page 

104 Cong. Rec. 17413 27 

104 Cong. Rec. 17415 28 

104 Cong. Rec. 17416 27 

104 Cong. Rec. 17418-17420 27 

106 Cong. Rec. 14350 12, 13, 27 

106 Cong. Rec. 14358 14, 23, 27 

106 Cong. Rec. 14359 22, 26 

106 Cong. Rec. 14362 22 

106 Cong. Rec. 15381 22 

1954 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 2627 16 

1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 5300 14 

1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 5309-5310 14, 26 

1960 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 22, 23 

Hearings on H.R. 7624 and S. 2197 Before the House Com- 
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th Cong., 
2d Sess 10 

page 42 13 

page 44 13 

page 53 13 

page 61 13 

page 62 24 

pages 61-63 13 

pages 63-69 21 

page 74 13, 24 

page 87 13 

pages 89-90 21 

pages 94-95 13 

pages 95-96 23 

page 107 27 

page 108 12 

page 172 28 

page 182 28 

page 183 28 

page 378 22 

pages 384-385 22 

page 501 13, 15, 24 



3930 
(v) Page 

page 506 24 

page 507 13 

page 508 24 

page 513 24 

page 514 15 

page 517 15 

pages 524-526 24 

House Report No. 1385, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess 16, 17, 27 

House Report No. 1761, 86th Cong., 2d Sess 22, 23 

House Report No. 2284, 85th Cong., 2d Sess 27 

House Report No. 2356, 82d Cong., 2d Sess 27 

Senate Report No. 1635, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess 16, 17, 27 

Senate Report No. 2422, 85th Cong., 2d Sess 14, 26, 27 



IN THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 



No. 23,812 



The Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., Irene Lopez, 

Elvira Garduno, Kathy Radke, Marilyn Vittor, 

Leigh Roycroft, and Juan Zamora, 

Petitioners, 



Robert H. Finch, 
Secretary, Health, Education and Welfare, 

Respondent. 



ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE 
SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 



BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS 



QUESTIONS PRESENTED 

It is uncontroverted that the pesticide-chemical DDT 
causes cancer in test animals and is responsible for wide- 
spread environmental degradation including damage to non- 
target organisms of many species, the preservation of which 
is essential to the well being of man. In response to evidence 
to this effect the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare 
not only refused to take immediate action to prohibit the 
further contamination of raw agricultural commodities with 

(39^1) 



3932 

2 

DDT, he refused to even publish notice of petitioners' pro- 
posal in the Federal Register, thereby denying them access 
to the administrative procedures available under the Food, 
Drug and Cosmetic Act. 

The questions presented are: 

(1) Whether the Secretary must act immediately 
to prohibit the continued contamination of raw agri- 
cultural commodities by a pesticide-chemical which 
is established to be cancer-producing; and 

(2) Whether, in view of the showing that DDT is 
a carcinogen and a hazard to human health generally, 
the Secretary properly could find that petitioners' 
had not presented "reasonable grounds" in support 
of their request that existing tolerances for DDT be 
repealed. 

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 8(d) 

Prehminary matters have already been considered and dis- 
posed of by the Court in this proceeding. Simultaneous with 
the filing of its Petition for Review, petitioners filed a "Mo- 
tion to Advance on the Docket and to Expedite" considera- 
tion of this proceeding. On January 14, 1970, Judge 
McGowan directed that a request for an extension of time 
filed by respondent be treated as respondent's opposition to 
petitioners' Motion. On January 29, 1970, a panel of the 
Court consisting of Chief Judge Bazelon and Judge Robinson 
granted petitioners' motion, specified an expedited briefing 
schedule and directed the Clerk to set this proceeding down 
for early argument. 

The same panel of the Court, also on January 29, 1970, 
directed the parties in No. 23813 (Environmental Defense 
Fund, Inc., et al, v. Clifford M. Hardin) to comply with the 
same expedited briefing schedule and instructed the Clerk to 
schedule the matter for early argument. Petitioners there 
challenge the failure of the Secretary of Agriculture to take 
actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Roden- 



3933 
3 

ticide Act (61 Stat. 163, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 135, et seq.), 
to suspend and cancel the registrations of economic poisons 
containing DDT. 

REFERENCES TO RULINGS 

In this proceeding petitioners seek review of a deter- 
mination by the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
Welfare under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 
1040, as amended, 21 U.S.C. 301, et seq. This case comes 
to the Court as a result of the Secretary's refusal, announced 
on December 8, 1969, immediately to prohibit residues of 
the chemical-poison DDT on raw agricultural commodities. 
The Secretary's decision which is challenged in this Court 
is set forth at pp. 8-9 of this brief in the Joint Appendix 
at page A-98. 

STATEMENT 

A. Nature of this Proceeding 

DDT is one of the most popular and widely studied of the 
of the pesticides.^ It has been recognized for some time 
that DDT represents an extreme ecological hazard and, more 
recently, that it is cancer-producing in test animals. Peti- 
tioners, relying on evidence of these hazards, requested the 
Secretary to act now to protect the public health and well- 
being by eliminating the unnecessary ingestion of that 
poison. 

The Commissioner of Food and Drugs, acting for the 
Secretary and without disputing the scientific evidence that 
DDT is a carcinogen and an environmental hazard generally, 
denied the petition refusing even to publish notice of peti- 
tioners' proposal in the Federal Register thereby depriving 
them of access to the administrative process. 



^"DDT", is a mixture of substances which has as its major in- 
gredient the chemical compound l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chlorophen- 
yl) ethane. DDT is widely used as a pesticide in a variety of economic 
poisons. 



3934 
4 

B. The Statutory and Regulatory Scheme 

Petitioners filed their request for administrative action 
pursuant to Section 408 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a (hereinafter referred to as "Act"),^ 
the pesticide provision. Essentially that provision precludes 
the use on raw agricultural commodities of pesticide- 
chemicals which are not generally recognized by "experts 
quahfied by scientific training and experience" as being safe 
unless they are used within tolerance limits prescribed by the 
Secretary or pursuant to an exemption order. In establishing 
tolerances the Secretary is to give appropriate consideration 
to, among other factors, "the necessity for the production of 
an adequate, wholesome, and economical food supply [and] 
to the other ways in which the consumer may be affected by 
the same pesticide chemical or by other related substances 
that are poisonous or deleterious." (Section 408(b), 21 
U.S.C. 346a(b)). Where "the scientific data before [him] 
does not justify the establishment of a greater tolerance" 
the secretary may establish the tolerance at zero, (ibid.) 

Tolerances have, over the years, been established for DDT 
residues on scores of raw agricultural commodities ranging 
from a tolerance level of zero to a high of 7 parts per mil- 
lion. See 21 CFR 120.147-120.147c.3 However, under the 
regulations an interested person may request the repeal of 
existing tolerances and if "reasonable grounds" are presented 
in support of such a request the petitioner is entitled to have 
his proposal noticed in the Federal Register and otherwise to 
enjoy the protection of the administrative procedures. 21 
CFR 120.32. 

The instant case also involves apphcation of the so-called 
Delaney anticancer amendment which requires the Secretary 



^Section 408, as well as the other relevant portions of the Act, 
are set forth in the Supplement to this brief. 

The relevant portions of the regulations are similarly included in 
the Supplement to this brief. 



3935 
5 

to prohibit the use of any chemical or additive which is 
shown to be capable of inducing cancer in test animals. 
The amendment is contained explicitly in the food additives 
section of the Act (Section 409(c)(3)(A), 21 U.S.C. 348(c) 
(3)(A)) and in the color additives section. (Section 706(b) 
(5)(B), 21 U.S.C. 376(b)(5)(B)). 

C. The Petitioners 

Petitioner, The Environmental Defense Fund, Incor- 
porated (hereinafter "EDF"), is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 
membership corporation organized under the laws of the 
State of New York. EDF is made up of scientists and other 
citizens dedicated to the protection of man's environment, 
employing legal action where necessary. EDF has, through 
Htigation, sought to protect the environment from various 
forms of pollution. Its Scientists Advisory Committee, with 
more than 200 members, including some of the world's 
foremost environmental scientists, assures that positions 
taken are thoroughly supported by scientific evidence. In 
its activities, EDF does not concern itself with the pecuniary 
interests of individuals; rather, it seeks to assure the preserva- 
tion or restoration of environmental quahty on behalf of the 
general public. 

Petitioners Irene Lopez, Elvira Garduno, Kathy Radke, 
Marilyn Vittor and Leigh Roycroft are young mothers who 
have in the past, do presently, or intend in the future to 
nurse their children. It is an established fact, recently con- 
firmed by the Commission on Pesticides and Their Relation- 
ship to Environmental Health,"* that mothers' milk contains 
excessive amounts of DDT residues to the point where 
breastfed babies as a general rule are subjected to twice the 
maximum average daily intake of DDT recommended by the 
United Nation's World Health Organization (App. B-26, 
27).5 



"^The so-called Mrak Commission. 

^"App." references are to the separately bound Joint Appendix. 



3936 
6 

Petitioner Juan Zamora, the father of eight minor child- 
ren, is an agricultural worker and as such is required to 
come into frequent contact with pesticide poisons. Again, 
the Mrak Commission corroborates that the dangers of DDT 
are considerably greater for those who must come into re- 
peated contact with it as a consequence of their occupations 
(App. B-62, 63). 

All of the individual petitioners reside in California, each 
is a consumer of food products, including raw agricultural 
commodities which contain residues of DDT, and each is 
economically disadvantaged.'"'^ 

D. Prior Proceedings 

1 . The Petition 

On October 7, 1969, a petition was filed requesting the 
issuance of a regulation repealing the tolerances for DDT 
on raw agricultural commodities. The petition was pre- 
mised on the fact that DDT has been demonstrated to be 
cancer-producing in test animals with circumstantial evidence 
suggestive of possible carcinogenic effects in humans as well. 
Petitioners submitted, in support of their contentions, a 
comprehensive study recently completed under the sponsor- 
ship of the National Cancer Institute (the so-called Innes 
report)* which lays to rest any doubt as to the carcinogen- 
icity of DDT in test animals. Additionally, petitioners sub- 
mitted an earlier study which shows the carcinogenic po- 
tentialities of DDT when ingested by test animals over pro- 
longed periods at dosage levels which approximate those to 
which the urban population is exposed,'' and a study which 



^'^The Mrak Commission found that the hazards of DDT are 
compounded in the face of nutritional inadequacies. 

' ^Bioassay of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals for Tumorigenicity 
in Mice: A Preliminary Note, J. R. M. Innes, et a/., 41 Journal of the 
National Cancer Institute 1 101 (June, 1969) (App. A-14). 

"^ Investigations on the Effects of Chronically Administered Small 
Amounts of DDT in Mice, Kemeny and Tarian, 22 Experientia 748 
(1966) (App. A-28). 



3937 
7 

suggests that DDT may well have carcinogenic effects in 
man.^ 

On October 31, 1969, petitioners submitted a supple- 
mental filing requesting expedited action by the Secretary 
directed at prohibiting the continued presence of DDT in 
raw agricultural commodities. In recognition of the fact that 
the environment is already contaminated with DDT, thereby 
posing practical problems with respect to the realization of a 
zero tolerance, petitioners suggested action which the Secre- 
tary reasonably could take at this time so as to rid our food 
supply of DDT at the earliest date possible-the establish- 
ment of zero tolerance levels but exempting from seizure any 
commodities that contain residues arising from the applica- 
tion of DDT prior to the repeal of existing tolerances. 

2. The Mrak Commission Report 

In December, 1969, the Secretary received the final 
report of the Mrak Commission. In that report the Commis- 
sion stated that "the evidence for the carcinogenicity of DDT 
in experimental animals is impressive and the [Technical 
Panel on Carcinogenesis] takes no exception to the con- 
clusions as to DDT recorded in the JNCI report of the 
National Cancer Institute study" (the Innes study) (App. 
B-41). 

The Commission reported that DDT residues are estab- 
lished nerve toxins and that they have acute effects on the 
central nervous system (App. B-21, 22, 25). More specifi- 
cally, that DDT residues are responsible for the induction of 
metabolizing enzymes in the liver thus "alter[ing] the sus- 
ceptibility to drugs or other chemicals that are normally 
metabolized by these enzymes" (App. B-61) and may, 
merely as a consequence of their accumulation in fatty 
tissue, "constitute a health hazard" (App. B-27). 



^Pesticide Concentrations in the Liver, Brain and Adipose Tissue of 
Terminal Hospital Patients, J. L. Radomski, W. B. Deichmann, E. E. 
Clizer, 6 Food Cosmetics and Toxicology 209 (1968) (App. A-30). 



3938 
8 

Finally, after detailing the adverse effects of DDT residues 
on phytoplankton, beneficial insects, marine invertebrates, 
fish, birds and mammals (App. B-15), in some cases destroy- 
ing entire species (App. B-8, 9, 15-17) the Commission 
warned (App. B-8): 

Man is an integral part of the living system, 
which includes about 200,000 species in the United 
States. Most of these are considered to be essential 
to the well-being of man. Pesticides are now affect- 
ing individuals, populations, and communities of 
natural organisms. Some, especially the persistent 
insecticidal chemicals such as DDT, have reduced 
the reproduction and survival of nontarget species. 

3. The Secretary's Decision 

By letter dated December 8, 1969, Herbert L. Ley, Jr., 
M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, acting for the Secre- 
tary, advised petitioners that their request had been denied 
(App. A-98): 

This refers to Pesticide Petition No. OE0894, re- 
questing that zero tolerances be established for 
residues of DDT on raw agricultural commodities. 

In a report to the Secretary of Health, Education, 
and Welfare, dated November 1969, the Commission 
on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environ- 
mental Health recommends the elimination of all 
non-essential uses of DDT, i.e., its use be limited to 
the prevention or control of human disease and other 
essential uses for which there are no alternatives 
available. However, the Commission recognized that 
unavoidable residues of DDT from past uses will 
continue to be present in the soil, water, air and food 
supplies for a period of years, and thus that it is 
not practical to attempt to eliminate the residues of 
persistent pesticides from food by the establishment 
of zero tolerance hmits. Plans are currently being 
developed to implement this recommendation of the 
Commission. We enclose a copy of the White House 



3939 
9 

announcement of the Environmental Quality Coun- 
cil's review of the report by the Commission on 
Pesticides. We believe the steps outhned are the 
most reasonable steps that should be taken at this 
time. 

In the absence of a showing that establishing the 
zero tolerances you request would be practical, we 
find that you have not presented reasonable grounds 
to support the proposed action. Accordingly, a pro- 
^ posal based on the above petition is not being pub- 
lished. 

The announcement of the Environmental Quality Council, 
reUed upon by Dr. Ley, does not state that any affirmative 
action will be taken by the Secretary in response to the DDT 
menace. 

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED 

The pertinent parts of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 
52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U.S.C. 301, et seq, and of 
the administrative regulations promulgated in implementa- 
tion of that Act, 21 CFR Part 120, are set out in the Supple- 
ment to this brief. 

ARGUMENT 

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 

In testing the propriety of any action by the Secretary of 
Health, Education, and Welfare under the Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act, it is appropriate to focus first on the over- 
riding objective sought to be accomplished by the Congress 
when it passed that legislation: protection of the health 
and welfare of the consuming public. 

As stated by former Secretary Arthur S. Flemming, 
"there is one thing that a responsible government cannot do. 
It cannot fail to place at the top of its list of priorities the 
health of all of the people even though by so doing it may be 
or may appear to be acting against the economic interests of 



3940 
10 

a segment of our society. The government's paramount ob- 
ligation to act in the interest of the health and safety of the 
people in administration of the food and drug laws was ably 
set forth by Justice Frankfurter"^ when he said: 

The Food and Drug Act of 1906 was an exertion 
by Congress of its power to keep impure and adult- 
erated food and drugs out of the channels of 
commerce. By the act of 1938, Congress extended 
the range of its control over illicit and noxious art- 
icles and stiffened the penalties for disobedience. 
The purposes of this legislation thus touch phases of 
the lives and health of people which, in the circum- 
stances of modern industrialism, are largely beyond 
self-protection. Regard for these purposes should in- 
fuse construction of the legislation if it is to be 
treated as a working instrument and not merely as a 
collection of English words. [United States v. Dot- 
terweich, 320 U.S. 277, 280, emphasis added. ^^ 

Confronted with a critical health problem which is com- 
pletely "beyond self-protection" by the individual, the Sec- 



^Hearings on H.R. 7624 and S. 2197 before the House Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. p. 42, 
hereinafter referred to as ''Hearings.''' 

^^See, also: 62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U.S. 593, 
596; United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 696; United States v. 
Two Bags, Each Containing 110 Pounds, Poppy Seeds, etal., 147 F.2d 
123, 127 (C.A. 6, 1945); C C Co. v. United States, 147 F.2d 820 
(C.A. 5, 1945); and United States v. 30 Cases, Etc., 93 F. Supp. 764, 
768-769(S.D. Iowa, 1950). 

In C. C Co. V. United States, supra, the Fifth Circuit, in upholding 
condemnation of partially decomposed oysters, recognized (147 F.2d 
at 824); 

That statutes enacted for the public good and to suppress a 
public wrong, although they impose penalties or forfeitures, 
are not to be construed strictly in favor of the defendant but 
should be fairly and reasonably construed so as to carry out 
the intention of Congress. The Federal Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act was enacted in the interests of the public wel- 
fare to protect the public health, and the courts must give it 
effect according to its terms. 



3941 
11 



retary not only took a most restrictive reading of his 
responsibilities under the Act, he also completely foreclosed 
utilization of the administrative process. 

As we show, where it is established that a pesticide-chem- 
ical is cancer-producing, the Secretary has no discretion but 
to immediately take all steps necessary to protect the 
pubhc from the continued ingestion of that poison. It is un- 
controverted that DDT is a carcinogen. Moreover, it is un- 
controverted that DDT, wholly apart from its cancer causing 
effects, represents an acute hazard to the human liver and 
central nervous system and is seriously threatening a com- 
plete disruption of the entire biosphere through its adverse 
effects of the survival of many of the species which are con- 
sidered to be essential to the well-being of man. 

In the face of this showing, it was incumbent upon the 
Secretary to move now to rid our food supply of residues 
of DDT. 

I 

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT DDT 
IS A CANCER-PRODUCING SUBSTANCE; ACCORD- 
INGLY, THE SECRETARY MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY 
TO PROHIBIT RESIDUES OF THAT POISON ON RAW 
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES 

A. The Secretary must Prohibit Residues of Cancer- 
Producing Substances on Raw Agricultural 
Commodities 

1 . The Anticancer Principle and Its Effect 

Congress entrusted responsibility for effectuating the 
purposes of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to the Secre- 
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare; there is one area, 
however, in which the Secretary is given no discretion: he 
may not permit residues of cancer-producing substances on 
foods and in food products. 



3942 
12 



This principle, the so-called Delaney anticancer principle, 
was first explicitly included in the Act in 1958 as part of the 
food additives provision: 

Provided, That no additive shall be deemed to be 
safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by 
man or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are 
appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food 
additives, to induce cancer in man or animal, * * * 
[Section 409(c)(3)(A), 21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A). 1*^ 

The inclusion of that nondiscretionary language was a 
direct outgrowth of the world-wide concern that had been 
focused on the cancer problem in 1956 and 1957. The 
1956 symposium of the International Union Against Cancer, 
which included cancer experts from some fifty countries, had 
reached the conclusion "that repeated exposure to even a 
minute dose of a cancer-producing agent constitutes a serious 
health hazard."*^ This finding was corroborated by scien- 
tists at the National Cancer Institute. ^^ 

Enactment of the Delaney anticancer clause followed as a 
reaction to the unchallenged scientific conclusion that no 
one knows how to estabhsh safe tolerances for carcinogens. 
As stated by Secretary Flemming during his testimony on 
the color additives amendment of 1960: 

The clause is grounded on the scientific fact of 
hfe that no one, at this time, can tell us how to 
estabhsh for man a safe tolerance for a cancer- 
producing agent. Until cancer research makes a 



" Substantially identical language was included in the color additives 
Section enacted in 1960 (Section 706(b) (5) (B), 21 U.S.C. 376(b) 
(5)(B), Supplement pp. 14-15. In 1962 the Delaney proviso of both the 
food and color additives sections was amended to permit the use of an 
additive as an ingredient of feed if it will neither adversely affect the 
animal nor will be found in any edible portion of the animal after 
slaughter nor in any food from the living animal. P.L. 87-781, 76 
Stat. 785. 

*2 106 Cong. Rec. 14350, see also Hearings, p. 108. 

*^106Cong.Rec. 14350. 



3043 
13 

breakthrough at this point, there simply is no scien- 
tific basis on which judgment or discretion could be 
exercised in tolerating a small amount of a known 
carcinogenic color or food additive. So long as the 
outstanding experts in the National Cancer Institute 
and the Food and Drug Administration tell us that 
they do not know how to establish with any assur- 
ance at all a safe dose in man's food for a cancer- 
producing substance, the principle in the anticancer 
clause is sound. [106 Cong. Rec. 14350.] *"* 

The statutory reference point was made a finding of car- 
cinogensis either in humans or animals for the obvious 
reason that protective action should not be withheld until a 
chemical, although known to be cancer-producing in test 
animals, is estabhshed to have similar potentiahties in hu- 
mans. In fact, the Congress had been advised, in a report 
submitted to it by the National Cancer Institute, that "[i]f 
a substance is shown by adequate tests to be carcinogenic 
for one mammahan species, it is probable that it is carcino- 
genic for many, but not necessarily for all, other, although 
quantitative differences between species may be marked. "^^ 

'^This rationale was emphasized repeatedly by Secretary Flemm- 
ing {Hearings , p . 6 1 ) : 

The preponderance of scientific evidence clearly dic- 
tates our position: Our advocacy of the anticancer proviso in 
the proposed color additives amendment is based on the sim- 
ple fact that no one knows how to set a safe tolerance for sub- 
stances in human foods when those substances are known to 
cause cancer when added to the diet of animals. I should like 
to underline again one statement in particular which I read 
earlier from the summary of Dr. Mider's review of the role of 
certain chemical and physical agents in relation to cancer. It is 
this: 

No one at this time can tell how much or how little of a 
carcinogen would be required to produce cancer in any human 
being, or how long it would take the cancer to develop. 

This is why we have no hesitancy in advocating the inclu- 
sion of the anticancer clause. 

See also, Hearings, pp. 44, 61-62, 74, 87, 94-95, 501 and 507. 

^^Hearings, p. 53, from the report on "The Role of Certain Chem- 
icals and Physical Agents in the Causation of Cancers" prepared by 



3944 
14 



Thus, once it is shown that a chemical or additive is a 
carcinogen in any strain of test animal no element of discre- 
tion remains; the Secretary must prohibit its use where 
there is a possibility that use would result in the presence of 
residues in food. This is not only the clear import of the 
statute and of its legislative history, ^^ it has been the con- 
sistent construction given by the Secretary and by the only 
reviewing court that has considered the language. ^"^ 

Secretary Flemming left no doubt as to how he construed 
the Delaney anticancer clause: 

[The anticancer clause] allows the Department and 
its scientific people full discretion and judgment in 
deciding whether a substance has been shown to 
produce cancer when added to the diet of test ani- 
mals. But once this decision is made, the limits of 
judgment have been reached and there is no reliable 
basis on which discretion could be exercised in deter- 
mining a safe threshold dose for the estabhshed 
carcinogen. 

* * * 

And under our basic poHcy, as well as under the 
Delaney clause, we have said that where those tests 
show that a substance will induce cancer when in- 
cluded in the diet of a test animal, that it will be 
banned. It cannot be used under those conditions. 
This is our interpretation of the Delaney amendment, 
and it is our conviction as to sound pubhc policy. 



G. Burroughs Mider, M.D., Associate Director in Charge of Research, 
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Public Health 
Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, quoting from 
the report of the Subcommittee on Carcinogenesis to the Food Pro- 
tection Committee, Food and Nutrition Board, National Academy of 
Sciences - National Research Council. 

*^See 106 Cong. Rec. 14358, and Senate Report No. 2422, 85th 
Cong., 2d Sess., 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 5300, 5309- 
5310. 

"Bell V. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177 (C.A. 6, 1966), discussed infra, 
p. 15. 



3945 
15 

Now, if these tests show that these substances 
have induced cancer when ingested by these animals— 
and, as I said earlier, this question of whether they do 
or do not show is a matter for scientific determina- 
tion and the exercise of scientific judgment-but if 
they show that they have induced cancer when in- 
cluded in the diet of one or both of these animals, 
then under the law we must ban the use of that par- 
ticular substance. ^^ 

It was in full recognition of this contemporaneous admin- 
istrative construction that the Congress reaffirmed its dedica- 
tion to the Delaney principle by including it in the color 
additives amendment of 1960.*^ 

Finally, the Sixth Circuit construed the Delaney clause as 
"generally intended to prohibit the use of any additive which 
under any conditions induce cancer in any strain of test 
animal." Bell v. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177, 181 (1966). 
In response to the argument that the per capita consumption 
of the chemical under attack— diethylstilbestrol, an estrogen 
additive used to produce juicier and fatter caponettes— was 
insignificant and that we are naturally exposed to estrogens, 
the Court said (366 F.2d at 182): 

[t]he answer to the petitioner's contentions in 
great part is that DES is a carcinogen. The record 
shows that DES is definitely a cause of cancer in ani- 
mals, at least an inciter of incipient cancer in man, 
and possibly a cause of cancer in man. The record 
also shows that it may take many years, as much as 
the greater part of a Ufespan, for a carcinogen to pro- 



^^ Hearings, pp. 501, 514 and 517. 

^^Section 706(b) (5) (B), 21 U.S.C. 376(b) (5) (B). 

Most recently the Mrak Commission, recognizing that "[t]he effect 
of the Delaney clause is to require removal from interstate commerce 
of any food which contains analytically detectable amounts of a food 
additive shown to be capable of inducing cancer in experimental ani- 
mals," recommended modification of the language to permit the 
Secretary some area of discretion (App. B-4). 



3946 
16 



duce a detectable cancer, and that the quantity of 
DES which is required to cause a cancer is presently 
unknown. All that is positively known is that there is 
a definite connection between DES and cancer. Fur- 
thermore, it was shown that prolonged exposure to 
even small amounts of carcinogenic substances is 
more dangerous than short term exposure to the 
same or even larger quantities. 

2. The Anticancer Principle is Fully Applicable to Pesti- 
cide-Chemicals 

As we have shown, the Delaney anticancer principle re- 
quires the Secretary to take whatever action is necessary to 
preclude the addition to food products of additives that are 
found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal. We 
now show that that principle is fully applicable to pesticide- 
chemicals. 

As is true of the Act generally, protection of the pubhc 
health was an overriding objective sought to be realized by 
Congress when it enacted the pesticide provision. As stated 
in both the House and Senate Reports and by the floor 
leader in the House: 

A primary objective in drafting the bill was to 
develop legislation that would provide for prompt 
administrative action to permit effective use of pesti- 
cide chemicals without hazard to the pubhc health; 
legislation that would be safe for consumers and 
practical for producers. ^^ 

Hence, in exercising his authority under the provision the 
Secretary is to consider "the overall effect the pesticide 
chemical may have in consumers' diets. "^^ The Congress 
emphasized that: 



^House Report No. 1385, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2; Senate Report 
No. 1635, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess., 1954 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. 
News, p. 2627; 100 Cong. Rec. 9726. 

2^ House Report No. 1385, supra, fn. 20, p. 3; Senate Report No. 
1635, supra, fn. 20, p. 2628. See also House Report No. 1385, p. 8 
and Senate Report No. 1635, p. 2632. 



3947 
17 

Before any pesticide-chemical residue may remain 
in or on a raw agricultural commodity, scientific data 
must be presented to show that the pesticide-chem- 
ical residue is safe from the standpoint of the food 
consumer. The burden is on the person proposing 
the tolerance or exemption to estabhsh the safety 
of such pesticide-chemical residue.^^ 

Finally, the Congress made it clear that the tolerances 
were to be established by focusing on the particular pesti- 
cide-chemical "rather than with reference to the formulated 
or finished product itself. For example, in a finished product 
containing DDT a tolerance under this bill would be estab- 
hshed for DDT rather than for the finished product itself. "^^ 

a. The Secretary, by contemporaneous administrative 
construction, has construed the Delaney principle 
as being fully applicable to the pesticide provision 

It has long been recognized that "[a]dministrative prac- 
tice, consistent and generally unchallenged, will not be over- 
turned except for very cogent reasons [and that this] prac- 
tice has pecuhar weight when it involves a contemporaneous 
construction of a statute by the men charged with the 
responsibility of setting its machinery in motion * * *". 
Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 
315. As we show, the person "charged with the responsi- 
bihty of setting" in motion the machinery of the Food, Drug 
and Cosmetic Act not only construed the Delaney principle 
as applying fully to the pesticide provision, he so told the 
Congress. Indeed, the Congress was advised that even if an 
anticancer pohcy had not been stated, the Secretary would 
nevertheless read the Act as if it were included. The Con- 
gress, apprised of this contemporaneous administrative con- 
struction, tacitly endorsed it. 

^House Report No. 1385, supra, fn. 20, p. 5; Senate Report No. 
1635, supra, fn. 20, p. 2629. 

^^House Report No. 1385, supra, fn. 20, p. 7; Senate Report No. 
1635,5upra,fn. 20, p. 2631. 



3948 
18 

The anticancer principle was first inserted in the Food 
Additives amendment enacted on September 6, 1958. By 
November 9, 1959, the Secretary already had construed its 
requirements as applying to pesticide-chemicals and, indeed, 
had relied upon it in ordering the destruction of raw 
agricultural commodities that contained residues of a pesti- 
cide-chemical which had been found to be capable of induc- 
ing cancer in test animals. The pesticide-chemical was 
aminotriazole, the raw agricultural commodities were cran- 
berries. In stopping the sale of cranberries that were found 
to have residues of aminotriazole "which causes cancer in the 
thyroid of rats when it is contained in their diet," Secretary 
Flemming stated: 

Because of the impUcations of this incident in its 
relation to the safety of our food supply, I am 
prompted to make the following additional com- 
ment. 

As the cranberry episode illustrates, the Food and 
Drug Administration has dechned to set any toler- 
ance for any amount of a chemical in foods if the 
chemical produces cancer when fed to test animals. 
This principle is set down in the Food Additives 
Amendment, enacted last year, in a specific provision 
prohibiting the Food and Drug Administration from 
setting any tolerance for any such chemical. Even 
though the earlier Pesticide Amendment, which is 
appHcable to the cranberries, does not contain such a 
specific prohibition, the same principle has been ap- 
plied. 

The apphcation of this principle is necessary in our 
opinion because while in theory there may be a min- 
ute quantity of a carcinogen which is safe in foods, in 
actuality our scientists do not know whether this is 
true or how to establish a safe tolerance. 

Therefore, we would oppose any attempt to take 
the cancer clause out of the Food Additives Amend- 
ment, and we will support the inclusion of such a 



3949 
19 

clause in the color bill which is now before the Con- 
gress.^'* 

Five days later, in issuing his third directive that contam- 
inated cranberries be seized. Secretary Flemming said: 

Seizure action is being initiated on the basis that 
the berries were shipped illegally in interstate com- 
merce since no tolerance for aminotriazole in foods 
has been established. Refusal by the Food and Drug 
Administration to set a tolerance for this chemical is 
in accordance with the Department's policy not to 
permit the use of chemicals in food when it is estab- 
hshed that they cause cancer in animals or in man, a 
policy incorporated by Congress in the Food Addi- 
tive Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
Act.25 

On November 16, 1959, the Secretary expanded on the 
rationale underlying his actions: 

Refusal on the part of the Food and Drug Admin- 
istration to permit the inclusion of any quantities of 
aminotriazole in food is based on the Department's 
policy of refusing to permit the use of chemicals in 
food when it is established that they cause cancer in 
animals or man. Research has established the fact 
that the weed killer, aminotriazole, causes cancer in 
the thyroid of rats when it is contained in their diet. 
The basic laws under which the Food and Drug Ad- 
ministration operate provide authority for the insti- 
tution of such a policy. 

This policy, however, was actually looked at and 
considered by the Congress when in 1958 it included 
specific language in the Food Additive Amendment 
to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. 

The provision states that "no additive shall be 
deemed safe if it is found to induce cancer when in- 
gested by man or animal, or if it is found, after tests 

2"* HEW, News Release, November 9, 1959. 
2^ HEW, News Release, November 14, 1959. 



3950 
20 

which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety 
of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal." 

In such circumstances, the Food and Drug Admin- 
istration is prohibited from issuing regulations setting 
tolerances for the additive, and shipment of foods 
containing any amount of such additive in interstate 
commerce is therefore illegal. ^^ 

And on November 18, 1959, the Secretary not only reaf- 
firmed that it was Departmental policy to apply the require- 
ments of the Delaney anticancer principle to pesticide-chemi- 
cals, he also noted that he had so advised the Congress: 

I have called this conference for the purpose of 
considering a plan to be submitted by representatives 
of the cranberry industry designed to separate con- 
taminated cranberries from those that are not con- 
taminated. 

The shipment in interstate commerce of cranber- 
ries containing residues of aminotriazole is in viola- 
tion of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

Refusal on the part of the Food and Drug Admin- 
istration to permit the inclusion of any quantities of 
aminotriazole in food is based on the Department's 
policy of prohibiting as unsafe the use of chemicals in 
food when it is established that they cause cancer in 
animals or man. Research has established the fact 
that the weed killer, aminotriazole, causes cancer in 
the thyroid of rats when it is contained in their diet. 

It is the Department's position that because such a 
chemical is unsafe, we cannot issue a regulation set- 
ting a tolerance for it when it causes cancer in man or 
animal. Shipment of foods containing any amount of 
such a chemical in interstate commerce is therefore 
illegal. 

This policy is basic in our food and drug law, and 
it was spelled out in the law itself when Congress re- 



26 



HEW, News Release, November 16, 1959. 



3051 
21 



cently passed the Food Additives Amendment. This 
included the following provision: 

[Delaney Amendment set out] 

In endorsing this language, we told Congress this 
policy was already in force under the pesticide chemi- 
cals law without the above-quoted language. ^"^ 

This statutory construction was discussed in detail by the 
Secretary when he testified on the 1960 color additives 
amendment,^^ with the following colloquy taking place: 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Younger. 

Mr. YOUNGER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secre- 
tary, as regards the question of applying the test to 
any of the substances used in insecticides, or addi- 
tives, have all of them been tested as to cancer? 

Secretary FLEMMING. Mr. Congressman, and Mr. 
Chairman, taking the pesticides side of the amend- 
ment first, if I may do so— 

Mr. YOUNGER. Yes. 

Secretary FLEMMING. About 1 10 pesticides have 
been cleared, authorized, or certified as safe by the 
Food and Drug Administration. That means, of 
course, that that authorization includes the question 
of whether or not they are carcinogenic, or whether 
or not they do induce cancer.^^ 

Furthermore, in a- subsequent letter to Chairman Oren 
Harris of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, the Secretary again emphasized that 

According to advice of our scientists, the principle 
of the above-quoted anticancer (Delaney) proviso of 
the Food Additives Amendment reflects, basically, 
the current state of scientific knowledge, and we 
would therefore, except as noted below, feel con- 



^Statement of Arthur S. Flemming, November 18, 1959. 
^^ Hearings, pp. 63-69, 89-90. 
^Hearings, p. 15. 



3952 

22 



strained to apply the same principle even in the ab- 
sence of this proviso, and we do in fact apply it in the 
administration of the Pesticide Chemicals Amend- 
ment which does not contain the proviso. ^^ 

It is also of significance that in the regulations promul- 
gated in implementation of the pesticide provision, only four 
specific reasons are detailed as examples of when it may be 
appropriate to establish a zero tolerance for the residues of a 
chemical. Among the reasons singled out for such emphasis 
is where (21 CFR 120.5): 

(b) The chemical is carcinogenic to or has other 
alarming physiological effects upon one or more of 
the species of the test animals used, when fed in the 
diet of such animals. 

Moreover, the Secretary has emphasized that he would feel 
compelled to apply the anticancer principle even if it had not 
been expressly included in the Act. Senator Dirksen summar- 
ized the Secretary's position as follows (106 Cong. Rec. 
15381): 

Mr. President, this matter has been of considerable 
interest to me. I have discussed it with the Secretary 
of Health, Education, and Welfare. He says that even 
if the Delaney amendment were deleted from the 
legislation, they would still have to apply that gen- 
eral principle,* and that they do apply it on the advice 
of the National Institutes of Health.^* 



^House Report No. 1761, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 1960 U.S. Code 
Cong. & Adm. News, p. 2936. 

It is interesting to note that the Department of Agriculture con- 
curred in the conclusion that the requirements of the Delaney anti- 
cancer principle should be read into the pesticide provision. See 
Hearings, pp. 379 and 384-385. 

^^ Similar characterizations of the Secretary's position were offered 
in the House by Chairman Harris (106 Cong. Rec. 14359 and 14362): 

The Secretary further stated that even if the Delaney 
clause is deleted from the bill, he believes that he has the 
authority to apply the policy that is reflected in that clause 
but he urged the Congress to join with the executive branch 



3953 
23 

The Secretary reached this conclusion in view of the over- 
riding consumer protection objective of the Act and the ina- 
bihty to fix safe levels of carcinogens: 

As long as the preponderance of scientific evidence 
is in that particular direction, then I say that the 
policy incorporated in the Delaney amendment is a 
sound policy and one that we should follow. 

Whenever we establish the fact that a substance 
induces cancer when included in the diet of an 
animal, we are going to bar its use as far as it being 
included in the diet of man is concerned; that is, we 
are going to do everything we can under our existing 

law to achieve that objective. ^^ 

* * * 

I want to emphasize the statement I made on Jan- 
uary 26 that the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as 
it now stands, will be enforced to prohibit the 
addition of cancer-producing substances to food 
unless a law should be passed directing us to follow 
another course of action. 



in giving added assurance to the public by including the anti- 
cancer clause in the proposed color additives legislation. 
* * * 

It is true that the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
Welfare did say if we did not have the Delaney clause in the 
bill - and I here want to join others in compHmenting the 
gentlemen from New York [Mr. Delaney] for his consistent 
and determined effort toward this great problem - he would 
administer the law the same as if the Delaney clause had been 
written into it. The Secretary did have this provision in the 
bill when he sent it up to the Congress and asked me to intro- 
duce it. The Secretary testified he thought it should remain 
in the bill because he did not believe that he as Secretary or 
any administrator at this time should have the authority to 
make a determination permitting the use of any substance 
known to be cancer producing. 
See also 106 Cong. Rec. 14358 and House Report 1761, 86th Cong., 
2d Sess., 1960 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News, pp. 2932-2933. 



32 



Hearings, pp. 95-96. 



3954 
24 



Even though we have this authority in the law, we 
urge the Congress to join with the executive branch 
to give added assurance to the consuming pubHc by 
directing the anticancer clause in the proposed color- 
additives amendment. ^^ 



* * * 



As I indicated in my testimony, with or without 
a Delaney amendment on the food additives, with or 
without a Delaney amendment on the color additives, 
this is the policy that we would follow under the 
basic authority that has been conferred on us by 
Congress. 

We know of no other way of discharging that 
authority in a manner that would be fair to the 



consumer.^ 



* * * 



b. Congress intended for the Delaney principle 
to apply to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
g enerally, including the pesticide provision 

As we have shown. Congress was well apprised of the fact 
that the Secretary was applying the Delaney anticancer 
principle to the pesticide provision and tacitly approved of 
that construction of the Act when it passed the color addi- 
tives amendment. We now show that Congress itself consid- 
ered the explicit statement of the Delaney principle unneces- 
sary, rejected efforts to weaken the Act's built-in anticancer 
bias, and intended for the pesticide and food and color addi- 
tives sections to be similarly construed. 

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the legislative history 
of the first Delaney amendment is that the Committees of 
both the House and the Senate with responsibility for the 
Act, thought the amendment unnecessary; that is, considered 
it implicit in the general language of the Act. Congressman 
Oren Harris, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and 



^Hearings, p. 501. 

^Hearings, p. 506. See also, Hearings, pp. 61-63, 74, 508, 513, 
524-526. 



3955 

25 

Foreign Commerce, explained the Committee's action as fol- 
lows (104 Cong. Rec. 17414, emphasis added): 

Subsequently to the reporting of the bill, as 
amended in the full committee, the committee 
adopted unanimously a further amendment to the 
amendment. This amendment was suggested by Mr. 
DELANEY who over the years since he was the chair- 
man of a Select Committee to Investigate the Use of 
Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics, has expressed his 
deep and abiding interest in this subject. While the 
Committee felt that the bill as reported by the com- 
mittee includes the matter covered by the Delaney 
amendment in the general language contained in the 
bill, there was no objection to the addition of the 
amendment suggested by Mr. DELANEY. This amend- 
ment would be inserted on page 24, line 1 6 of the bill 
H.R. 13254, as reported; * * * 

The report of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public 
Welfare is even more emphatic on this point (emphasis added): 

Two amendments made by your committee to the 
bill as passed by the House are explained below. We 
would like, in addition, to call attention to the fact 
that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- 
merce of the House of Representatives, before bring- 
ing the bill to a vote in the House, decided to add to 
its previously approved bill the provision which ap- 
pears on page 8 of the House-passed bill (lines 10 to 
15) and reads as follows: 

[Delaney anticancer clause set out] 

Your committee, which has the responsibility in 
the Senate of considering all legislation primarily re- 
lating to the health of our people, is well aware and 
thoroughly approving of the vast amount of time and 
energy which Congressman Delaney, author of that 
amendment, has devoted to the fight against cancer 
and to our attempts to find its cause and cure. We 
have no objections to that amendment whatsoever, 
but we would point out that in our opinion it is the 
intent and purpose of this bill, even without that 



3956 
26 



amendment, to assure our people that nothing shall 
be added to the foods they eat which can reasonably 
be expected to produce any type of illness in humans 
or animals. We applaud Congressman Delaney for hav- 
ing taken this, as he has every other opportunity, to 
focus our attention on the cancer-producing poten- 
tiahties of various substances, but we want the record 
to show that in our opinion the bill is aimed at pre- 
venting the addition to the foods our people eat of 
any substances the ingestion of which reasonable peo- 
ple would expect to produce not just cancer but any 
disease or disabihty. In short, we believe the bill 
reads and means the same with or without the inclu- 
sion of the clause referred to. This is also the view of 
the Food and Drug Administrator. ^^ 

Thereafter in 1 960 Congress turned aside efforts to temper 
the impact of the anticancer principle; specifically, to make 
carcinogenicity just another factor to be considered by the 
Secretary. Chairman Harris explained why the House Com- 
mittee rejected these efforts (106 Cong. Rec. 14359): 

The [National Academy of Sciences] panel dis- 
cussed in considerable detail the scientific problems 
that confront us in connection with determination of 
the cancer-producing potentials of chemicals. They 
pointed out the difficulties of designing and conduct- 
ing an experiment to determine whether a substance 
is a cancer producer for man and the difficulties in 
evaluating the test data after they are obtained. 

Some of the panel members have suggested that 
despite these difficulties, in extraordinary cases, the 
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare should 
have the authority to decide that a minute amount 
of a cancer-producing chemical may be added to 
man's food after a group of scientists consider all the 
facts and conclude that the quantity to be tolerated 
is probably without hazard. 



^^ Senate Report No. 2422, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 1958 U.S. Code 
Cong. & Adm. News, pp. 5309-53 10. 



3957 
27 



In view of the uncertainty surrounding the deter- 
mination of safe tolerances for carcinogens, the com- 
mittee decided that the Delaney anticancer provision 
in the reported bill should be retained without change. 

Finally, even had Congress not emphasized the pervasive 
nature of the anticancer prohibition, it intended for the pesti- 
cide, and food and color additives provisions to be similarly 
construed. Each of those provisions have the same funda- 
mental purpose: safeguarding the public health by protecting 
the consumer. ^^ Further, each was an outgrowth of the in- 
vestigation and findings of the Select Committee to Investi- 
gate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products.^'' It was the 
apparent intent of the Select Committee to initiate substan- 
tially parallel legislation covering each of those areas. ^^ The 
absence of the anticancer clause in the pesticide provision is 
explained by the fact that it had been enacted two years be- 
fore disclosure of the cancer findings which prompted the 
Delaney amendment. (See supra, p. 12). And there was no 
reason for Congress to amend the pesticide provision: first, 
Congress did not consider the anticancer clause necessary 
(see supra, pp. 25-26) and second, it was fully apprised of the 
Secretary's determination-as a matter of law-to apply the 
anticancer principle no less rigorously to pesticide-chemicals 
(see supra, p. 17).^^ 



I 



^Pesticides: House Report No. \3%S, supra, fn. 20, pp. 2, 3, 5 and 
7; Senate Report No. 1635, supra, fn. 20, pp. 2627-2629 and 2632; 
100 Cong. Rec. 9726. Food Additives: House Report No. 2284, 
85th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1,4 and 5; Senate Report No. 2422, supra, 
fn. 16, p. 5301; 104 Cong. Rec. at 17413, 17416, 17418-17420. 
Color Additives: 106 Cong. Rec. at 14350 and 14358. 

^Pesticides: House Report No. 1385, supra, fn. 20, p. 4; Senate 
Report No. 1635, supra, fn. 20, p. 2628; Food Additives: House 
Report No. 2284, supra, fn. 36, p. 2; Color Additives: 106 Cong. Rec. 
\A3S^; Hearings,^. 107. 

^House Report No. 2356, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 26 and 27. 
See, also. United States v. Bodine Produce Co. , 206 F. Supp. 201 , 206- 
207 (Ariz., 1962). 

^It is not without interest that industry groups did not object 
either to the explicit inclusion of the anticancer clause in the color 



3958 
28 



In Flemming v. Florida Citrus Exchange, 358 U.S. 153, a 
unanimous court upheld the Secretary's decision to decertify 
a coal-tar color, which had been certified for almost fifteen 
years, because evidence before him indicated that the color, 
when included in the diets of rats in small dosages "was del- 
eterious and often fatal, with liver damage and enlargement 
of the heart in evidence." 358 U.S. at 159. It is significant 
that the color additives provision had not yet been amended 
to include, exphcitly, the anticancer principle. Yet the court 
agreed that it was appropriate for the Secretary to base his 
potential harm to humans finding on the results obtained 
from the testing of laboratory animals. See, also: Certified 
Color Industry Committee, et al. v. Secretary, 283 F.2d 622 
(CA 2, 1 960), where the court extended Florida Citrus to per- 
mit the Secretary to apply his revocation order to color 
batches previously certified."*^ 



additives provision or its implicit reading by the Secretary into the 
pesticide provision. Hearings, pp. 172, 182 and 183. 

*That each of these provisions is to be similarly construed is also 
evident from the comments of Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
Elliot L. Richardson, on the inclusion of the first proposed anticancer 
clause (104 Cong. Rec. 17415): 

The widespread interest in cancer led to suggestion that the 
food additives legislation should mention the disease by name 
and forbid the approval of any substance that is found upon 
test to cause cancer in test animals. This Department is in 
complete accord with the intent of these suggestions - that 
no substance should be sanctioned for uses in food that 
might produce cancer in man. H.R. 13254, as approved by 
your committee, will accomplish this intent, since it specifi- 
cally instructs the Secretary not to issue a regulation per- 
mitting use of an additive in food if a fair evaluation of the 
data before the Secretary fails to establish that the proposed 
use of the additive will be safe. The scientific tests that are 
adequate to establish the safety of an additive will give infor- 
mation about the tendency of an additive to produce cancer 
when it is present in food. Any indication that the additive 
may thus be carcinogenic would, under the terms of the bill, 
restrain the Secretary from approving the proposed use of the 
additive unless and until further testing shows to the point of 
reasonable certainty that the additive would not produce 
cancer and thus would be safe under the proposed conditions 



3959 
29 

B. The Record Establishes that DDT is a Carcinogen 

As we have shown the Delaney anticancer principle per- 
vades the entire Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and applies 
with full force to its pesticide provision. That being the case 
it is incumbent upon the Secretary to establish, without de- 
lay, zero tolerances for the residues of any pesticide-chemical 
which is found capable of inducing cancer in man or in "any 
strain of test animal." Bell v. Goddard, supra at p. 181. 

We now show that in light of the overwhelming and uncon- 
troverted evidence of record which establishes the carcino- 
gencity of DDT, it is incumbent upon the Secretary to take 
immediate action directed at securing the complete absence 
of DDT residues on raw agricultural commodities. 

1. The Evidence Presented to the Secretary by 
Petitioners Establishes that DDT 
is a Carcinogen 

In support of their contention that DDT is a carcinogen 
petitioners submitted three scientific studies. The most com- 
prehensive was that recently completed by thirteen scientists 
working under the sponsorship of the National Cancer Insti- 
tute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfard-the so-called Innes report (App. 
A-H)."** DDT was added to the diet of mice and compared 
with both positive and negative control groups (App. A-15). 
The frequency of tumors of the liver, lungs and lymphoid 
organs was four times greater in mice fed DDT than those in 
the negative control group (App. A-24). The carcinogenicity 
was clearly established because DDT caused cancer of the 
same kind and at approximately the same frequency as did 



of use. This would afford good, strong public health pro- 
tection. 

'*^ Bioassay of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals for Tumorigenicity 
in Mice: A Preliminary Note, J. R. M. Innes, et ai, 42 Journal of the 
National Cancer Institute 11 01 (June, 1969). 



3960 
30 

known cancer-causing agents, the positive controls (App. 
A-24, 26). 

The National Cancer Institute study confirmed earlier evi- 
dence indicating the carcinogencity of DDT. One study also 
submitted in support of the petition, a five generation study 
of mice, is particularly probative for it found carcinogenicity 
to result from prolonged exposure to low levels of DDT.^^ 
The mice were fed a dosage of DDT at a level which resulted 
in its accumulation in the fatty tissue of the experimental 
group in "the same order as the DDT level in the fatty tissue 
of the urban population" (App. A-29). It was found that the 
mice which had been subjected to the accumulation of low 
levels of DDT developed a substantially higher incidence of 
leukemia and of tumors than did the non-DDT mice (App. 
A-29). 

Finally, petitioners submitted a study which is at least pro- 
bative evidence that DDT may have carcinogenic effects in 
man."*^ In studies undertaken at the University of Miami 
School of Medicine, human victims of terminal cancer were 
found to contain more than twice the concentration of DDT 
residues in their fat as did victims of accidental death (App. 
A-34, 35). The accident victims were found to carry 9.7 
parts per million in their fat, about average for Americans, 
while the cancer victims contained 20 to 25 parts per million 
(App. A-34-36). 

2. The Report of the Mrak Commission Cor- 
roborates Conclusively the Finding that DDT 
is a Carcinogen 

In rejecting the petition the Secretary acknowledged that 
he had relied in part on the findings of the Mrak Commission. 



^^Investigations on the Effects of Chronically Administered Small 
Amounts of DDT in Mice, Kemeny and Tarian, 22 Experientia 748 
(1966) (App. A-28). 

^^ Pesticide Concentrations in the Liver, Brain and Adipose Tissue of 
Terminal Hospital Patients, J. L. Radomski, W. B. Deichmann, E. E. 
Clizer, 6 Food Cosmetics and Toxicology 209 (1948) (App. A-30). 



3961 
31 

However the findings of that Commission, rather than in any 
way detracting from the effect of the scientific evidence 
submitted by petitioners, supports fully the conclusion that 
DDT is a carcinogen."^ 

At the outset it should be noted that the Commission 
acknowledged the credibility of the Innes study (App. B-41), 
agreeing both with the propriety of using test "doses con- 
siderably higher than would be present in food" (App. B-37) 
and with the conclusion of the Innes group that evidence of 
increased tumorigenicity must be accepted as an index of 
potential carcinogenicity (App. B-36) since "(a) No ade- 
quately tested chemical has been found to produce only 
benign neoplasms and, (b) a substantial percentage of 
benign-appearing tumors in mice has been demonstrated 
ultimately to eventuate in cancer" (App. B-47). 

The panel itself caterogized pesticide-chemicals according 
to their probable carcinogenesis (App. B-38). Of critical 
significance is the fact that DDT was included among the 
"compounds judged 'positive' for tumor induction on the 
basis of tests conducted adequately in one or more species, 
the results being significant at the 0.01 level" (App. B-40). 
Indeed, the panel acknowledged that "the observations of 
human experience have not been sufficient to ehminate the 
possibility that continued chronic exposure [to DDT] may 
slowly induce a low level of cancer in man" (App. B-41). 

The Commission's Technical Panel on Carcinogenesis was 
particularly concerned about reducing residues in food 
because it found that (App. B34): 

The presence of carcinogenic substances (of both 
synthetic and natural origin) in food might be a 
significant factor in the occurrence of what is 



"•^ Indeed, the Commission stated that "the evidence for the car- 
cinogenicity of DDT in experimental animals is impressive and the 
Panel takes no exception to the conclusions as to DDT recorded in the 
JNCI report of the National Cancer Institute study." (App. B41). 



3962 
32 

commonly referred to as "spontaneous" cancer in 
man and animals. * * *^^ 

C. The Secretary Has Utterly Failed 
to Comply With the Act 

It remains only to apply the principle of the Delaney 
clause to the evidence of the carcinogenicity of DDT. We 
submit that there is no way in which the anticancer principle 
can be applied, short of its complete obliteration, without 
reaching the conclusion that the Secretary is under a 
statutory mandate to take whatever action is necessary to 
achieve the elimination of DDT residues from raw agricul- 
tural commodities. 

But what has the Secretary done; he has responded with 
grandiose assurances that he will, sometime in the future, 
consult with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior "on 
the environmental contamination aspects of pesticide regis- 
trations" and he has "agreed that HEW should review 
established tolerance levels of specific pesticides in food and 
drinking water." This is the sum and substance of the 
Secretary's response; assurances of concern coupled with the 
postponement of action. These, declared the Secretary in his 
rejection of petitioners' request for immediate action, "are 
the most reasonable steps that [he] should be tak[ing] at 
this time" (App. A-98). 

What the Secretary ignores, however, is that the Delaney 
anticancer principle permits no equivocation; it does not ask 
for assurances and promises but rather for action and 
immediate action at that. This is where the Secretary has 
completely failed to discharge his responsibility. Stripped 
of rheteric he has done nothing to protect the public from 
the continued ingestion of the carcinogen DDT. To be sure 
it is the Secretary of Agriculture that has the authority to 
suspend and cancel the registration of pesticides. But the 
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare cannot hide 



"^^ Earlier in the Report it is stated that since human exposure to 
pesticides is greatest through foods; "so far as the health of the general 
population is concerned, the greatest emphasis on pesticide control 
should be on reducing the concentrations in food" (App. B-7). 



3963 
33 

behind that dichotomy of authority; he has his own respon- 
sibiHties and they require taking all actions necessary to 
effect the immediate cessation of the use of DDT. 

The Secretary's preoccupation with possible adverse eco- 
nomic effects on industry is misplaced. The clear import of 
the Delaney amendment is that when the conflict is between 
possible economic disruption and the ingestion of a car- 
cinogen, protection of the public health, and not the 
enhancement of private gain, is always to win out. Certainly 
this is made clear in Flemming v. Florida Citrus Exchange, 
358 U.S. 153, where the Supreme Court rejected the con- 
tention that the Secretary was to establish a tolerance for a 
color (which was found not to be harmless) because its use 
was an economic necessity. It is noteworthy that unlike 
DDT the additive there at issue is not a carcinogen. 

It is particularly imperative that the Secretary move with 
all possible expedition in the case of DDT. First, the studies 
of Radomski, et al. submitted by petitioners (App. A-30) 
are at least circumstantial evidence that DDT may be car- 
cinogenic not only in test animals but in man as well; the 
Mrak Commission itself raised a serious question along these 
lines (App. B-41). Second, the chemical stability of DDT, 
with a probable "half-life" of 10 to 15 years, makes it 
imperative that its usage be prohibited immediately. Lastly, 
each member of the public, once having been warned of the 
potential dangers of most food additives can voluntarily stop 
their further ingestion. In the case of DDT no element of 
choice exists. Like it or not each of us is forced to ingest 
DDT regularly included as an additive to the food we eat. 

Even if it were permissible for the Secretary to defer 
immediate action directed at the withdrawal of a pesticide 
carcinogen the continued use of which is necessary for 
public health and food production purposes, deferral of 
action in the case of DDT could not be justified. The Mrak 
Commission found that (App. B-5): 

It is reported by well informed scientists that as 
far as insect vectors of disease are concerned there 
are none known which are normally susceptible to 
DDT that cannot be controlled with a substitute. 



3964 
34 

* * * Although DDT is still involved in some of the 
international food production programs sponsored 
by U.S. agencies, there is a feeling that a withdrawal 
or systematic reduction of DDT would have a mini- 
mum effect.'*^ 

II 

PETITIONERS PRESENTED "REASONABLE GROUNDS" 
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PETITION; ACCORDINGLY, IT 
WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE SECRETARY TO AT 
LEAST PUBLISH THEIR PROPOSAL IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER THEREBY INITIATING THE ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE PROCEDURES 

In response to the petition, W. B. Rankin, Deputy Com- 
missioner, Food and Drug Administration, advised petitioners 
that it was "being processed as provided by 21 CFR 120.32" 
(App. A-86). That regulation provides that "an interested 
person furnishing reasonable grounds therefor, may propose 
* * * repealing a tolerance for a pesticide chemical on raw 
agricultural commodities * * *." It defines "reasonable 
grounds" as including "an explanation showing wherein the 
person has a substantial interest in such tolerance * * * 
and an assertion of facts (supported by data if available) 
showing * * * that new data are available as to toxicity of 
the chemical * * *." Subsequently, Herbert L. Ley, Jr., 
M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, by letter of 
December 8, 1969, advised petitioners of the Department's 
determination that "a proposal based on [their] petition is 
not being published" (App. A-98). After referring to the 
persistence of DDT, Commissioner Ley found that "in the 
absence of a showing that establishing the zero tolerances 
you request would be practical, we find that you have not 
presented reasonable grounds to support the proposed 
action" (App. A-98). 



"^See also App. B-6, 25. This is because of the fact that there are 
many alternatives to DDT (App. B-5, 7), alternatives "that do not have 
the damaging side effects on the environment that DDT exhibits" 
(App. B-6). 



3965 
35 

The effect of this determination was to deprive petitioners 
not only to the benefits of Federal Register pubhcation, but 
to deny to them the entire administrative machinery provided 
for in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. While it is conceded 
that the fact that there is widespread environmental con- 
tamination complicates the problem for the Secretary, it is 
ludicrous to thereby suggest that the Secretary need do 
little more than bemoan the magnitude of the problem. 
Instead, what is called for is full utilization of the admin- 
istrative processes for the collection and distillation of all 
possible solutions. 

The procedures provided for in 21 CFR 120.32 have a 
dual purpose. First, to assist the Secretary in the discharge 
of his statutory responsibilities by invoking a dialogue as to 
the dangers of a particular pesticide and second, to assist the 
Secretary by focusing on the solutions which are available to 
him to meet a recognized danger. In the case of DDT the 
dangers are uncontroverted; it is the solution which is at 
issue. The Secretary, by his own concession, does not him- 
self know how to solve the DDT problem. The purpose of 
21 CFR 120.32 is to permit the public generally to lend its 
assistance with the hope of broadening the Secretary's aware- 
ness as to what can be done. 

Petitioners recognized the difficulty of the problem which 
confronts the Secretary (a problem which under the Delaney 
principle he cannot lawfully ignore) and in their supplemental 
fihng of October 31, 1969 suggested a possible solution 
which would give effect to the anticancer mandate while 
not threatening confiscation of a major portion of our food 
supply-the immediate establishment of zero tolerances with 
exemption from seizure of any commodities that contain 
DDT residues that are a consequence of applications made 
prior to the effective date of the revised tolerances. 

We do not suggest that this is the only procedure for 
effecting the required zero tolerance. We do contend that 
it is not a frivolous suggestion and that it should have 
suggested to the Secretary that had the proposal been 



3966 
36 

published in the Federal Register other solutions would have 
been forthcoming.'*^ The real objective of public notice is, 
after all, to marshall information for the benefit of adminis- 
trative agencies that may unfortunately be less than omni- 
scient but nevertheless have to make judgments which can 
have a profound effect on our well-being. It is clear there- 
fore, that petitioners'^^ and the public generally were sub- 
stantially prejudiced by the Secretary's refusal to notice the 
proposal. 

There was no basis upon which the Secretary properly 
could conclude that petitioners had not presented "reason- 
able grounds" sufficient, at least, to initiate the administrative 
process."^^ 

We have already shown that DDT is a carcinogen. We now 
show that wholly apart from its carcinogenic potentials DDT 
represents an imminent hazard to human health, if indeed, 
not to survival itself. ^^ 

Man is an integral part of the living system which 
includes about 200,000 species in the United States. 
Most of these are considered to be essential to the 
well-being of man. Pesticides are now affecting 
individuals, populations, and communities of natural 
organisms. Some, especially the persistent insecticidal 
chemicals such as DDT, have reduced the repro- 
duction and survival of nontarget species. (App. B-8, 
emphasis added). 



^^The Mrak Commission itself offered an alternative proposal, the 
"stepwise lowering" of tolerances (App. B-4). 

'^^It should be noted that no suggestion was made in Dr. Ley's letter 
that the petitioners were not "interested persons" or that they other- 
wise lacked standing to prosecute their petition. 

The Secretary's denial seems premised on a failure to establish 
reasonable grounds in support of the particular solution offered by 
petitioners; the regulation does not permit so restrictive a reading. 

A showing of carcinogenicity is, of course, not necessary to 
initiate a repeal proceeding. 



3967 

37 

That conclusion of the Mrak Commission is corroborated 
in frightening detail throughout its voluminous report. DDT 
residues are established nerve toxins and have acute effects 
on the central nervous system (App. B-21, 22, 25).^' In 
addition, DDT residues are responsible for the induction of 
metabolizing enzymes in the liver, including in the liver of 
man (App. B-20, 24, 29),^^ thus "alter[ing] the susceptibility 
to drugs or other chemicals that are normally metabolized 
by these enzymes" (App. B-61), and generally causing liver 
damage (App. B-21, 22, 26, 28). And DDT concentrations 
in fat (it is accumulated in fatty tissue) may itself "constitute 
a health hazard". (App. B-27).53 



^'The Commission specifically found that: 

The chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, especially DDT, 
have been known to act in the cerebellum, brainstem, spinal 
cord, and peripheral nerves * * * Thus the acute effects of 
these compounds appear to be scattered widely throughout 
the nervous system. Moreover, they have topical action on the 
nerve endings in the mucous membrane (Hayes, 1963) and 
may extend their action proximally on the nerve pathways as 
shown by various case reports, * * * (App. B-28). 



In animals, the earliest apparent effect of DDT poisoning 
is abnormal susceptibility to fear, with violent reaction to 
stimuli that normally would be unnoticed (Hayes, 1965). 
There is definite motor unrest and an increased frequency of 
spontaneous movements. A fine tremor appears and becomes 
constant, interfering with normal activity. As the nervous 
system involvement progresses, there are attacks of epilepti- 
form tonoclonic convulsions. Death may result from ventri- 
cular fibrillation. (App. B-29) 

^^As stated by the Mrak Commission, "it is a sad comment on the 
dearth of knowledge of human physiology to point out that the 
threshold dose of DDT for induction of metabolizing enzymes in 
human liver is unknown." (App. B-20). 

^^The Mrak Commission goes on to acknowledge that "rapid 
mobilization of fat in nutritional deprivation may result in sufficiently 
high residual DDT levels to produce conventional toxicity * * * Such 
toxicity has actually been demonstrated for DDT in rats in laboratory 
experiments" (App. B-27). 



3968 
38 



Apart from these direct human health hazards from the 
exposure to DDT residues, such residues have a profound 
effect on the biosphere upon which man is dependent. For 
example, DDT and its residues interfere with the photo- 
synthetic process (App. B-6, 15). The relationships between 
DDT residues and hazards to bird populations, by both direct 
mortality and reproductive failure, have been particularly 
well documented. (App. B-16). DDT causes carniverous 
birds, including birds of prey,^"^ sea birds, and many other 
species, to lay eggs with abnormally thin shells. These eggs 
break prematurely resulting in sharply reduced reproductive 
success. Populations of these species have in many cases 
undergone catastrophic declines, in some cases approaching 
extinction. The decline in eggshell thickness occurred in the 
late 1 940's, shortly after the large scale introduction of DDT 
into the world environment. Controlled feeding experiments 
with DDT and its metabolites have established the casual 
relationship between DDT residues, the production of eggs 
with abnormally thin shells, and greatly reduced reproductive 
success (App. B-17). 

DDT inhibits reproduction in fish, with abnormal mortality 
of the fry following the contamination of the adult fish and 
their eggs. This has occured in several freshwater situations, 
with mortalities of 100 percent of the fry in some instances 
(App. B-16). Controlled experiments confirmed that DDT 
residues were the causative agents (ibid.). Many fish from 
other areas, including commercially important fish from 
marine waters, show concentrations of DDT residues in their 
tissues that approach those that caused this abnormal fry 
mortality. Important freshwater and marine fisheries are 



^This is a consequence of biological magnification which results in 
the concentration of DDT residues as you move up a food chain. 
("Chemicals which are preferentially absorbed into living organisms 
and stored for extended period, as are DDT and its derivatives, may, 
therefore, be concentrated greatly up the food chain" (App. B-12)). 
This is particularly of concern to man who is of course, at the top of a 
food chain. 



3969 
39 

seriously threatened by present and anticpated future con- 
centrations of DDT residues in the tissues of the fish.^^ 

DDT residues do great damage to useful invertebrates of 
many species. Insect communities are frequently disrupted 
by the killing of beneficial predatory and parasitic insects, 
thereby aggravating the insect pest problem DDT was 
intended to control. DDT kills pollinating insects. It 
damages various crustaceans such as crabs and shrimp 
(App. B-16). Even the base of oceanic food chains, the 
phytoplankton, can have their photosynthetic activity 
reduced by a few parts per billion of DDT in the water 
(App. B-6, 15). 

The indirect cost to society of this degradation reaches 
the incalculable (App. B-18). It is not at all surprising that 
the Mrak Commission, "after carefully reviewing all available 
information" (App. B-2); 

* * * concluded that there is adequate evidence 
concerning potential hazards to our environment and 
to man's health to require corrective action. Our 
Nation cannot afford to wait until the last piece of 
evidence has been submitted on the many issues 
related to pesticide usage. We must consider our 
present course of action in terms of future genera- 
tions of Americans and the environment that they 
will live in. 

These facts undoubtedly explain why the use of DDT on 
raw agricultural commodities is increasingly being prohibited 
by governmental authorities.^^ 



^^It was DDT contamination of coho salmon that led to the estab- 
lishment of the Mrak Commission. 

^For example restrictive action has been ordered by the States of 
Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, Michigan and Wisconsin, the 
Canadian federal government and several of the provinces, and by 
Sweden. 



3970 
40 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the uncontroverted evidence that DDT is a 
carcinogen, this proceeding should be remanded to the Sec- 
retary with directions that he immediately take all action 
that is necessary to effect the elimination of that poison 
from raw agricultural commodities. Administrative pro- 
ceedings conducted following remand should not be con- 
cerned with whether it is appropriate to continue, for any 
period of time, using DDT; rather, the Secretary should 
consider only the solution that should be implemented to 
afford the consuming public the greatest possible protection 
from continued exposure to that cancer-producing poison. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Edward Berlin 

Berlin, Roisman and Kessler 
1910 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

James W. Moorman 

2008 Hillyer Place, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20009 

Ralph S. Abascal 

J. V. Henry 

Edgar A. Kerry 

Peter Haberfeld 

Post Office Box 1127 

1 1 6-7th Street 

Marysville, California 95901 

James D. Lorenz, Jr. 
1212 Market Street 
San Francisco, California 
94102 
February, 1970. 



IN THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 



No. 23,813 

Environmental Defense Fund, Incorporated; Sierra Club; 
West Michigan Environmental Action Council; National 
Audubon Society, and Izaak Walton League of America, 

Petitioners, 

V. 

Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture, 
and United States Department of Agriculture, 

Respondents. 



Petition for Review of Order of the 
United States Department of Agriculture 

BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS 



JURISDICTION 

The jurisdiction of this Court rests on Section 4d of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as 
amended, 7 U.S.C. § 135b(d), 61 Stat. 168, as amended 
by 78 Stat. 190. 

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 

1. Whether Respondents have erred in denying Peti- 
tioners' request that they issue notices under Section 4c 
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
7 U.S.C. § 135b(c), to commence administrative proceed- 
ings by which the registrations of all economic poisons con- 
taining DDT could be cancelled, where (a) the Respondents 
have found that widespread DDT use should be discontin- 

(3971) 



3972 
2 

ued, and (b) the evidence before the Respondents compels 
such a finding. 

2. Whether Respondents have erred in denying Petition- 
ers' request that they suspend DDT registrations immediately 
for the duration of Section 4c cancellation proceedings 
v/here the evidence before Respondents is that DDT is an 
imminent hazard to the public. 

3. Whether the Petitioners have standing to obtain re- 
view. 

4. Whether there is a reviewable order before the Court. 
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT 

This cause was previously before a panel including Chief 
Judge Bazelon and Judge Robinson on Respondents' Mo- 
tion To Dismiss and Respondents' Motion for Reconsidera- 
tion of Order Deferring Ruling on Motion To Dismiss. An 
order was entered on January 29, 1970, deferring consid- 
eration of the Motion To Dismiss. A related cause. Environ- 
mental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Finch, No. 23812, involving 
many of the same factual issues, is also before this Court 
for consideration at this time. 

REFERENCES TO RULINGS 

The Order of December 11, 1969, of the Respondents, 
including four attachments, is set forth at pp. 36-45 of the 
Appendix hereto. 

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED 

Sections 2-4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 135-135b, 61 Stat. 168, as . 
amended by 78 Stat. 190, is attached as an addendum to 
this brief. 



3973 
3 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

The Parties. The Petitioners are five groups actively en- 
gaged in environmental protection. Their activities include 
a long-term involvement in efforts to control the environ- 
mental pollution caused by DDT and other persistent pesti- 
cides. They have participated in proceedings in a variety 
of jurisdictions to hmit the use of DDT. 

The Environmental Defense Fund is made up of scien- 
tists and other citizens dedicated to the protection of the 
environment on behalf of the pubHc, employing legal action 
where necessary. It has participated in hearings on DDT in 
various jurisdictions. Its Scientists Advisory Committee, 
with more than 200 members, including some of the 
world's foremost environmental scientists, assures that posi- 
tions taken are thoroughly supported by scientific evidence. 
(App. 1-2). The Sierra Club, which has a membership of 
80,000, is devoted to the preservation of scenic resources, 
forests, waters, wildlife and wilderness. The Sierra Club 
has participated in several citizens' campaigns and legal 
actions to preserve the environment and has become well 
known for these efforts. (App. 2). The National Audu- 
bon Society, which has 80,000 members, is devoted to the 
protection of wildlife and the natural environment. An ex- 
ample of Audubon's many activities is the ownership and 
operation of 40 wildlife refuges. (App. 2-3). The West 
Michigan Environmental Action Cojuncil has a membership 
of 25 civic organizations and 300 individual members, and 
is devoted to protecting and restoring the quality of the 
environment. (App. 3) The Izaak Walton League has a nation- 
wide membership of 50,000. The League has long had a spe- 
cial interest in and an active program to protect aquatic habi- 
tats. Because of its concern with the effects of DDT on 
aquatic organisms, it has participated in state and local pro- 
ceedings to curb the use of DDT. (Motion To Intervene of 
Izaak Walton League.) 

The Respondents (hereinafter sometimes called "Agricul- 
ture") have primary responsibility for the regulation of 



3974 
4 

pesticides in the public interest. The Secretary of Agri- 
culture has delegated responsibility for the regulation of 
pesticides to the Pesticides Regulation Division, a branch 
of the Agriculture Research Service. No pesticides may be 
sold in interstate commerce unless they are registered 
with Respondents pursuant to the terms of the Federal In- 
secticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act^ (hereinafter cited 
as "FIFRA"). Respondents have authority under that Act 
to cancel the registration of pesticides causing harm and in- 
jury to man, animals and the environment. In case of 
imminent hazard to the public, Respondents have author- 
ity to summarily suspend DDT registrations. 

Petition Submitted to Respondents. Petitioners requested 
by a formal petition filed on October 31, 1969, that 
Respondents initiate proceedings under Section 4c of FIFRA^ 
to cancel DDT registrations. (App. 1-19) (Such proceedings 
are initiated by the issuance of notices to registrants, which 
will hereinafter be referred to as "Section 4c Notices".) 
Petitioners made their request on the ground that pesticides 
containing DDT are not in compHance with the standards 
of FIFRA; in particular that DDT is causing immediate, 
serious, permanent and irreparable injury to man, the en- 
vironment, and animals, including fish and wildlife. Peti- 
tioners also requested the immediate suspension of DDT 
registrations under Section 4c for the pendency of cancel- 
lation proceedings on the ground that DDT is an "immi- 
nent hazard to the pubhc." Suspension is intended to pro- 
tect the pubhc by removing immediate hazards from the 
market during lengthy deregistration proceedings (see pp. 24- 
26, infra). 

The Petition described in detail the evidence concerning the 
harm caused by DDT (App. 12-16), citing numerous scienti- 
fic articles and an Affidavit of Dr. Charles F. Wurster, a pro- 
fessional environmental scientist. (App. 28-32) A submission 



^7 U.S.C. § 135 er seq., 61 Stat. 168, as amended. 

^7 U.S.C. § 135b(c), 61 Stat. 168, as amended by 78 Stat. 190. 



3975 
5 

containing, among other things, a bibUography of 268 articles 
on DDT prepared by the Environmental Defense Fund 
accompanied the Petition. 

The facts before the Respondents were contained in Peti- 
tioners' submissions and three reports of blue ribbon scien- 
tific committees appointed by government agencies: (1) Re- 
port of November, 1969, of the Commission of the Secre- 
tary of Health, Education and Welfare on Pesticides and 
their Relationship to Environmental Health (hereinafter 
cited as the Mrak Report),^ which recommended that all 
uses of DDT"* be eliminated except where essential to pre- 
serve human health ?nd welfare (App. 34, 41 , 43); (2) Report 
of the President's Science Advisory Committee of May 15, 
1963, which called for the eUmination of persistent pesti- 
cides (App. 40, 43); and (3) Report of May, 1969, of a Com- 
mittee of the National Research Council, recommending 
immediate attention to the environmental problems of persis- 
tent pesticides. (App. 34, 41, 43) These reports, and, in par- 
ticular, the Mrak Report, represent major fact-finding efforts 



I 



^The Mrak Report's list of Commission members, staff members, 
advisors and contributors fills 12 pages (Mrak vi-xvii). Dr. Emil 
Mrak, Chancellor Emeritus of the University of California at Davis, 
was Chairman of the Committee. The report is 677 pages long. In 
preparing the report, over 5,000 references to scientific research were 
reviewed and evaluated (Mrak 5). h is a document on pesticides of 
unique scope and comprehension. 

Because of the importance of the Mrak Report to this cause, Peti- 
tioners have lodged five copies with the Clerk. The Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare, in the case oi Environmental Defense 
Fund V. Finch, No. 23812, has also filed with the Court 25 copies of 
the Mrak Report. 

'*"DDT," sometimes called dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is a 
mixture of substances which has as its major ingredient chemical 
compound, l,l,l-trichloro-2, 2-bis-(p-chlorophenyl)ethane. "DDT 
residues" include DDT; DDE, 1, l-dichloro-2, 2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) 
ethylene; DDD, also known as TDE, 1, l-dichloro-2, 2-bis-(^-chloro- 
phenyi)ethane; and several other closely related chemical compounds 
derived from DDT by conversion processes within the environment. 
(App. 3) 



3976 
6 



on the part of governmental agencies. Facts regarding DDT 
on all essential points in this cause are dealt with in the 
Mrak Report. Petitioners will therefore cite specifically the 
Mrak Report where relevant. 

DDT is a pesticide widely used for pest control in a 
variety of agricultural and non-agricultural situations. It is 
often used against insects and other pests in connection 
with tobacco, cotton, shade trees, forest trees, fruit trees, 
vegetables, and animals. In many cases, the use of DDT is 
not related to protecting human health or producing food. 

One of the most important characteristics of DDT is its 
persistence in the environment. (App. 28, Mrak 103-104) 
Unlike many other pesticides, DDT is not broken down to 
non-toxic compounds by biological processes. 

DDT is causing serious, permanent and irreparable harm 
to man, wildhfe resources and to the earth's ecosystem and 
environment. The harm is of a widespread and immediate 
nature. (See generally App. 12-16, 28-31, Mrak 206-212) 
DDT and its residues have characteristics (App. 12-13, 28, Mrak 
187) that cause it, when released into the environment, to 
accumulate in the tissue of non-target organisms (including 
man) (App. 12-13, 28, Mrak 187, 321-344) and concentrate 
in food chains. (App. 13, 28, Mrak 187) DDT has been in 
common use since World War II. (Mrak 45-46) Today more 
than 100 million pounds of DDT is manufactured and released 
into the environment each year. (App. 28, Mrak 48) As a 
result, the entire biosphere has become contaminated with 
DDT residues. (See generally Mrak 99-176)^ DDT and DDT 
residues are contaminants of human foods, including many 
foods never treated with DDT (App. 13, 29, Mrak 1 36-140), 
and contaminate the tissues of virtually all human beings. 
(App. 13, 28, Mrak 321-341) 

DDT has been proven a cancer-causing agent in test ani- 
mals in a definitive study supported by the National Cancer 

DDT contaminates such diverse elements in the environment as 
air, rainwater, sea birds, antarctic animals, cosmetics and human milk. 



(App. 13, 29, Mrak 1 14, 1 16, 213) 



3977 
7 

Institute (App. 15-16, Mrak 470-472, 481-483) confirming 
earlier evidence. (App. 16, 30-31) The Mrak Report noted: 

"... a remarkable degree of concurrence has been 
found to exist between chemical carcinogenesis in 
animals and that in man where it has been studied 
closely." (Mrak 482) 

Another study found human victims of terminal cancer to 
contain more than twice the concentration of DDT residues 
in their fat than did victims of accidental death. (App. 16, 

30-31, Mrak 495) 

DDT is also endangering the reproduction and survival of 
many non-target organisms. (Mrak 179, 189, 206-212) For 
example, DDT and DDT residues are a major hazard to bird 
populations, causing direct death, reproductive failure and, 
in some species, catastrophic dechnes approaching extinc- 
tion. (App. 13-14, 29, Mrak 179, 189, 21 1-212) DDT like- 
wise is causing direct kills and reproductive failures of fish, 
threatening important freshwater and marine fisheries. (App. 
14, 29, Mrak 209-210) DDT and DDT residues are also caus- 
ing great damage to useful invertebrates of many species (App. 
14-15, 30, Mrak 206-209) and are causing a variety of other 
ecological and environmental damage. (App. 15, 30, Mrak 
189,206-209) 

The tragedy of DDT is compounded by the fact that 
alternative pest control techniques, particularly integrated 
techniques, are available for all DDT uses, which would not 
pose the same threats to the environment and to human 
health as DDT. (App. 16, Mrak 161-168) 

Order of Respondents. On December 1 1, 1969, Respon- 
dents denied Petitioners' request for immediate suspension 
and substantially denied Petitioners' request to commence 
cancellation procedures under Section 4c of FIFRA. (App. 
34-45)^ Respondents took the following actions: 



^Respondents' order consisted of a letter to Petitioners (App. 34- 
35) that incorporated by reference two notices: (1) Pesticide Regis- 
tration Notice 69-17, dated November 20, 1969, initiating procedures 
to cancel registrations for the sale of DDT for four uses. (App. 40-42) 



3978 
8 



1 . Denied Petitioners' request for immediate suspension 
of all uses of DDT; 

2. Denied Petitioners' request for issuance of Section 4c 
notices for all economic poisons containing DDT. The Re- 
spondents issued a Section 4c notice for four uses of DDT: 
tobacco, shade trees, household uses, and, with exceptions, 
aquatic uses. Respondents did not disturb approximately 
100 other uses of DDT; 

3. SoUcited comments concerning the approximately 100 
other uses of DDT. 

Respondents' determination of December 1 1, 1969, (App. 
34-43) embodies their decision, states their findings and their 
reasons, and recites the evidence upon which their action 
was taken. The Mrak Report and the other government 
reports mentioned above (pp. 5-6) were expUcitly relied on. 
(App. 35, 40-41, 43) Respondents found that the discontin- 
uation of widespread use of DDT was warranted. (App. 41 , 
43-44) The notices referred to the extensive use of DDT, its 
persistence and the resulting environmental contamination. 
(App. 40, 43) It was specifically stated that the Respondents 
were taking action "to assure greater protection of the envi- 
ronment." (App. 35) The Respondents stated that their de- 
termination of December 1 1 , 1969, together with the related 
action referred to therein, constituted their response to Peti- 
tioners' request. (App. 35) 

The determination denied the relief sought by Petitioners 
(except in small part for four uses of DDT). Section 4c 
notices were not issued for most uses of DDT and no prod- 
uct containing DDT or any use of DDT has been suspended. 



This is a Section 4c notice for these four uses which initiates the FIFRA 
cancellation procedure and is of the type Petitioners sought for all eco- 
nomic poisons containing DDT. Thus, the issuance of this Section 4c 
notice granted partial relief to Petitioners. (2) Notice published in the 
Federal Register on November 25, 1969 (34 F.R. 18827) inviting views 
and comments for a period of 90 days in regard to other uses of 
DDT. (App. 43-45) 



3979 
9 

Proceeding in this Court. Petitioners sought review in 
this Court on December 29, 1969, asking the following relief: 

(a) That the order of December 1 1, 1969, in re- 
sponse to the Petition of October 31, 1969, be set 
aside; 

(b) that the Respondents be ordered to follow 
statutory procedures, issuing § 4c notices to com- 
mence the procedures by which the registrations of 
all economic poisons that contain DDT could be 
cancelled; and 

(c) that the Respondents be ordered to immedi- 
ately suspend the registration of all economic pois- 
ons that contain DDT during § 4c proceedings. 

Because of the urgency of Petitioners' cause. Petitioners 
moved, on December 29, 1969, that the matter be advanced 
on the docket and expedited. Respondents moved on Jan- 
uary 12, 1970, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Petition- 
ers filed their Opposition thereto on January 22, 1970. On 
January 29, 1970, this Court, noting "the urgency of peti- 
tioners' complaint and the importance of the pubhc safety 
considerations which it raises," granted Petitioners' Motion 
to Expedite and ordered that the jurisdictional questions 
raised by Respondents be deferred for consideration with 
the merits. 

On February 2, 1970, Respondents moved for reconsid- 
eration of the Court's January 29 order and announced to 
the Court that they would not need the period allotted to 
file a brief and would rest completely on their Motion to 
Dismiss. (Motion to Reconsider, p. 6) Respondents urged 
the Court, should it deny the Motion to Reconsider, to set 
the cause down for oral argument as soon as possible follow- 
ing the filing of Petitioners' brief. 



3980 
10 

ARGUMENT 

I. 

RESPONDENTS HAVE ERRED IN DENYING PETI- 
TIONERS' REQUEST THAT THEY ISSUE NOTICES 
UNDER SECTION 4c OF FIFRA TO COMMENCE 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY WHICH REG- 
ISTRATIONS OF ALL ECONOMIC POISONS THAT 
CONTAIN DDT COULD BE CANCELLED 

The Respondents denied Petitioners' request that they 
issue Section 4 c notices for all economic poisons containing 
DDT. Respondents, however, are required by FIFRA to 
issue such notices at this time because (a) they have made 
a finding that widespread DDT use should be discontinued, 
and (b) because the evidence before them compels a finding 
that DDT use should be discontinued. 

A. The Respondents Must Issue Section 4 c Notices 
Because They Have Made a Finding That Wide- 
spread DDT Use Should Be Discontinued 

FIFRA was passed in 1947 to protect the public from 
harmful or ineffective pesticides and other economic 
poisons, i.e., substances intended for pest or weed control. "^ 
The Act was amended in 1964 to better protect the pubhc 
by closing loopholes which had permitted manufacturers to 
market unsafe products. The amendment gave Agriculture 
effective means of refusing, canceUing, and suspending regis- 
trations.^ Specifically, FIFRA sets out standards and pro- 
cedures with regard to pesticides to "protect the public"^ 



''FIFRA § 2a; 7 U.S.C. § 135(a), 61 Stat. 163 (1947); House Re- 
port No. 313, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947); 109 Cong. Rec. 20079 
(Statement of Senator Ellender), 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). 

^See, e.g., Senate Report No. 573 (on S. 1605), 88th Cong., 1st 
Sess. (1963); House Report No. 1125 (on H.R. 9739), 88th Cong., 
2d Sess. (1964); 1 10 Cong. Rec. 294849, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964); 
1 10 Cong. Rec. 7189, 88th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1964); 109 Cong. Rec. 
20079, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). 

^FIFRA § 2(z)(2), 7 U.S.C. § 135(z)(2)(c), 61 Stat. 166, as 
amended by 73 Stat. 287. 



3981 
11 

and "prevent injury to living man and other vertebrate ani- 
mals, vegetation and useful invertebrate animals." '^ 

Economic poisons — including DDT— are required to be 
registered with the Secretary of Agriculture prior to sale in 
interstate commerce.^* They cannot, however, be registered 
unless they are properly labeled. Economic poisons are 
"misbranded" for these purposes if the label is not ade- 
quate, if complied with, to avoid injury to the pubhc and 
to man, animals, and the environment. If no label can be 
written which will prevent such injury, an economic poison 
is inherently misbranded and cannot be registered or sold 
in interstate commerce. '^ 

Upon a preliminary finding that an economic poison is 
not in compliance with FIFRA, a Section 4c notice is 
issued to the registrant. The Section 4c notice issued upon 
such a preliminary finding triggers an administrative proce- 
dure which can lead to cancellation. The registrant can, 
under Section 4 c, challenge the Secretary's preliminary 
determination through administrative procedures which 
include a reference to an advisory committee of quahfied 
experts selected by the National Academy of Science and 
a public hearing before an examiner. At the end of such 
procedures, the Secretary decides whether or not to cancel 
the registration. 

The issuance of a Section 4 c notice is not equivalent to 
a final determination that registration must be cancelled. 
Indeed, Congress, in reviewing the administration of FIFRA, 
stressed that the Secretary of Agriculture should issue a 
Section 4 c notice "whenever a reasonable question as to 



^^FIFRA § 2(z)(2)(d) and (g), 7 U.S.C. § 135(z)(2)(d) and (g), 
61 Stat. 166, as amended by 73 Stat. 287. 

^^FIFRA § 4(a)-(c), 7 U.S.C. § 135b(a)-(c), 61 Stat. 167-168, as 
amended. 

^^FIFRA § 135(z)(2)(c) & (d), 7 U.S.C. § 135(z)(2)(c) & (d); see 
also 7 C.F.R. §§ 362.9, 362.10(k), 362.105(c), 362.105(h), 362.106(0 
(4)(v), 362.108(c)(6) and 362.121(g). 



3982 
12 

the safety of a registered product becomes apparent." 
"Deficiencies in Administration of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act," House Rept. 91-637, 91st 
Cong., 1st Sess., Nov. 13, 1969, p. 19 (emphasis in origi- 
nal). In the course of the subsequent administrative pro- 
ceedings the Secretary of Agriculture has an opportunity 
to weigh all competing considerations and then make a 
final determination on cancellation. 

It is plain that there is "a reasonable question as to the 
safety of" DDT. Indeed, the Respondents have found that 
environmental considerations warrant the discontinuation 
of widespread use of DDT. The Respondent specifically 
found (App. 41,43-44). 

"Current information on levels of DDT in the envi- 
ronment warrant the discontinuation of widespread 
use of DDT when such use is not essential in the 
production of food or the protection of health." 
Having made a finding that the widespread use of DDT 
should be discontinued, the Respondents have a duty to 
issue Section 4 c notices for all economic poisons containing 
DDT. '3 This is the only way in which the procedure for 
cancellation of DDT registration can be started. 

While caUing for general discontinuation of DDT use. 
Respondents' finding leaves open the possibility that some 
uses of DDT might be permitted in unusual circumstances. 
Such questions are of the type which would properly be 
considered administratively after issuance of Section 4 c 
notices. 

There is no rational basis at this stage of the proceedings 
upon which the Respondents could limit their action to 
four uses of DDT and leave all other uses unaffected. 
Respondents' finding that widespread use of DDT should 
be discontinued applies with equal force to all DDT uses. 
One cannot properly make such a sweeping finding and 



'^Section 4c provides that "Whenever the Secretary . . . determines 
that registration of an economic poison should be cancelled, he shall 
notify ... the registrant." 7 U.S.C. § 135b(c). 



3983 
13 

then apply it to only four out of 100 DDT uses. DDT's 
mobility, solubility, and persistence characteristics (App. 
12-13, 28, Mrak 187) make it irrelevant as to where it is in- 
jected into the ecological system-whether it is sprayed on 
tobacco or on cotton. 

Moreover, there is no justification for Respondents' 
refusal to issue Section 4 c notices for DDT use on such 
products as cotton, lumber products, woolens, and lawns. 
Plainly, such uses have nothing to do with human health 
or food production. Respondents did issue Section 4c 
notices for four uses, but did not offer any explanation for 
the selection of these four uses or the exclusion of others. 

Instead of issuing Section 4 c notices for all uses of DDT, 
the Respondents have invited "views and comments" on 
about 100 uses. (App. 43-45) This comment procedure has 
no basis in FIFRA; it will be duplicated in the proceedings 
which follow issuance of Section 4c notices; and it adds a 
wholly unnecessary element of delay to the already pro- 
tracted administrative procedures under Section 4c. 

The invocation of this comment procedure is an example 
of the Respondents' failure to carry out the fn'icy of 
FIFRA, which has been exhaustively documented Dy the Gov- 
ernment Operations Committee of the House of Represen- 
tatives (H.Rept. 91-637, p. 15, supra)}"^ Among the admin- 
istrative derelictions catalogued by the Government Opera- 
tions Committee, the Committee noted: 

''The Pesticides Regulation Division did not take 
prompt or effective cancellation action in cases 
where it had reason to believe a registered product 
might be ineffective or potentially hazardous (Em- 
phasis in original) 



^"^The procedure is the same as that indulged in by Respondents 
with regard to certain arsenicals. 

"Despite the fact that a contested cancellation proceeding could 
take many months at best, the subcommittee found that in the case 
of certain arsenic compounds, USDA resorted to an unnecessary pre- 
liminary procedure which took two years before even starting cancel- 
lation proceedings." (H.Rept. 91-637 at 50) 



3984 
14 

"Although PRD has had specific cancellation 
authority for more than 5 years, it has never 
secured cancellation of a registration in a contested 
case, (emphasis added) 

"The subcommittee investigation disclosed evi- 
dence of lengthy and unwarranted delays in initiat- 
ing cancellation action after facts sufficient to 
justify such action became known to PRD."^^ 

In fact, the Committee reported that Agriculture really 
took no action at all if a registrant contested a notice: 

"Until a few weeks ago, PRD did not even have 
procedures for conducting hearings or studies which 
registrants may request as a matter of right before 
cancellation action can become effective. When 
registrants receiving cancellation notices requested 
hearings or studies, prosecution of the cancellation 
action was halted and the product left on the 
market." Ibid. 

B. Respondents Must Issue Section 4 c Notices 
for Economic Poisons Containing DDT 
Because the Evidence Before Them Compels 
a Finding That DDT's Use Should Be 
Discontinued 

As stated above (p. 12), the Respondents have made a 
finding that widespread DDT use should be discontinued. 
In addition, the evidence before the Respondents conclu- 
sively establishes that DDT is out of compliance with 
FIFRA standards and compels such a finding. A Section 
4 c notice must be issued when there is a preliminary 
finding that a pesticide does not comply with FIFRA and 
should be discontinued. In like fashion, Section 4c notices 
must issue where, as in this case, the requisite finding is 
compelled by evidence. 



'^House Report 9\-631, supra at 15-16. 



3985 
15 

As long as ten years ago, Justice Douglas noted the wide- 
spread effect of DDT on birds, wildlife and human health. 
He stated that these effects 

". . . have led to increasing concern in many quarters 
about the wisdom of the use of this and other 
insecticides. The alarms that many experts and 
responsible officials have raised about the perils of 
DDT underline the public importance in this case." 
Murphy v. Butler, 362 U.S. 929, 933-934 (1960), 
dissenting opinion on denial of certiorari. 

Scientists have in the intervening years established that 
DDT is even more damaging than previously believed. 

The facts are, as set out by Petitioners' submissions to 
Agriculture and the Mrak Report (and summarized above, 
pp. 6-7), that DDT is causing widespread harm and injury 
to man, animals and environment. (App. 12-16, 28-31, Mrak 
179, 189, 206-212) In addition, DDT is a cancer-causing agent 
(App. 15-16, 30-31, Mrak 470-472, 481-483, 495) that is now 
a general contaminant of the food and tissue of mankind. (App. 
13, 28-29, Mrak 136-140, 321-341). It is clear that DDT 
does not meet the standards in FIFRA Section 2(z)(2)(c), 
(d) & (g), which protect the "public" and "man, vertebrate 
animals, vegetation and useful invertebrate animals" from 
injury. 

Indeed, if Respondents failed to find that DDT does not 
comply with FIFRA, such failure would constitute an 
abuse of discretion. Respondents seem to suggest that they 
have absolute discretion. (Motion to Reconsider, p. 5) 
The legislative history of Section 4c of FIFRA makes it 
clear, however, that Respondents have a duty to protect 
the public from harmful pesticides (see p. 10, supra). The 
facts in this case are such that all the evidence bearing on 
the relevant factors -carcinogenicity, injury to animals, 
scope of contamination, persistence- compel a finding of 
noncompliance with FIFRA standards. 

In making the finding that DDT is out of comphance 
with FIFRA and measuring any discretion of Respondents, 



36-513 O - 70 - Pt. 6C - 20 



3986 
16 

it must be kept in mind that Congress intended Section 4 c 
procedures to be a mechanism for placing the burden of 
proof on registrants, requiring them to prove to Respond- 
ents that economic poisons comply with FIFRA standards. 
Prior to the 1964 amendments,^^ a manufacturer could 
demand that his product be registered even if the Secretary 
of Agriculture objected. If the Secretary wished to attack 
such a protest registration, he had to file suit and assume 
the burden of proof in establishing that the product did 
not conform to FIFRA standards. The 1964 amendments 
abolished this practice and placed the burden of proving 
compliance on the registrant: 

"The purpose of this bill (H.R. 9739) is to end the 
practice of protest registration whereby the manufac- 
turer of a pesticide can market a product despite 
Department of Agriculture doubts as to its effective- 
ness and safety. 

* * * 

"The principal effect of registration under protest is 
to shift the burden of proof from the registrant to 
the Government. If the product. . .is registered 
under protest, the Government has the burden of 
proving that the product does not comply with the 
Act. 

* * * 

"The bill will correct this situation and afford greater 
protection to the public by repealing the authority 
for registration under protest." ^^ 

Congresswoman Leonor Sullivan of Missouri stated on 
February 17, 1964: 

"... I am strongly in favor of the legislation now 
before you to require industry, rather than the Federal 
Government, to shoulder the burden of proof in 



^^Amendments of May 1 1 , 1964, Pub. Law 88-305, 78 Stat. 190. 

*'^H. Rept. No. 1125 on H.R. 9739, 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., 64 
U.S.C. Cong. & Ad. News 2166-2167. 



3987 
17 

connection with the marketing of pesticides which 
may be unsafe for use as intended. 

* * * 

"We must close any loopholes in the law which 
permit manufacturers to market products they can- 
not prove are safe in use in the manner intended. 
The burden of proof should not rest on the Govern- 
ment, because great damage can be done during the 
period the Government is developing the data neces- 
sary to remove a product which should not be 
marketed."'^ 

Despite the fact, however, that FIFRA places the burden 
of proving pesticides to be safe on manufacturers, Agricul- 
ture does not base its decisions of cancellation on that 
principle. The government Operations Committee stated: 

"A mistaken behef that positive evidence of 
hazard— rather than simply a lack of adequate assur- 
ance of safety— is necessary to support a cancellation 
action appears to have been a factor in PRD's failure 
to initiate such action in cases where it was obviously 
justified.'"^ 

The Committee revealed that Agriculture had registered 
1 ,600 products objected to over a five-year period by the 
Public Health Service because of questions as to their safety. 
The Committee found that Agriculture was: 

". . . in effect demanding that HEW supply scientific 
proof of hazard to support its objections rather than 
asking the would-be registrant to resolve any doubt 



*^110 Cong. Rec. 2948-9, 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1964. Also see 
debate, 1 10 Cong. Rec. 7189. Congresswoman Sullivan appeared be- 
fore the Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee in sup- 
port of the legislation. At that time, she was Chairman of the Sub- 
committee on Consumer Affairs of the House Banking and Currency 
Committee. 

'^House Report 91-637, 5wpra at 16. 



3988 

18 

by providing adequate evidence of the products' 
safety."2o 

Because of its concern with Respondents' misallocation 
of the burden of proof and other deficiencies in enforcing 
FIFRA, the Government Operations Committee urged 
Respondents to " . . . take appropriate steps to insure that 
cancellation proceedings are promptly initiated whenever a 
reasonable question as to the safety of a registered product 
becomes apparent .""^^ 

Petitioners reiterate that the facts in this case are that 
DDT is substantially out of compliance with FIFRA in that 
it is causing substantial injury to man, animals and the 
environment. The evidence in the record of the harm being 
caused by DDT compels Respondents to make a preliminary 
finding that DDT should be discontinued, and that Section 
4c notices should be issued. In such circumstances the bur- 
den is on the registrant to come forward in a Section 4c 
proceeding and affirmatively prove the safety of their 
products. A failure to make a finding that DDT use should 
be discontinued would be an abuse of discretion. ^^ 



^^House Report 91-637, supra at 14; also see pp. 36-37. 

^* House Report 91-637, supra at 19 (emphasis in original). 

^^Petitioners note that several state agencies have recently found 
DDT to be injurious to man, animals and the environment. The 
Michigan Department of Agriculture cancelled, effective June 27, 
1969, Michigan registrations of DDT (with three minor exceptions). 
Cancellation was based in part on the fact that DDT is injurious to 
vertebrates in violation of standards in Section 2(z) (2) of the Michi- 
gan Economic Poisons Act, 286.162 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 2(z) 
(l)(2)a-(2)(h), which are parallel to the standards in Section 2(z) 
(2) of FIFRA. 

California has taken action cancelling DDT registrations under pro- 
visions designed to protect the environment, man, animals and the 
public health and safety. See Sections 12824, 14005, Agricuhure 
Code of California (Orders of October 20, 1969 and December 9, 
1969, of Cahfornia Department of Agriculture). Similar action has 
been taken in Illinois (see Illinois Pesticides Control Law, 5 111. Stat. 



3989 
19 

II 

RESPONDENTS HAVE ERRED IN DENYING PETI- 
TIONERS' REQUEST THAT THEY SUSPEND DDT 
REGISTRATIONS IMMEDIATELY AND FOR THE 
DURATION OF SECTION 4c CANCELLATION PRO- 
CEEDINGS 

Petitioners requested Agriculture to suspend DDT regi- 
strations immediately for the duration of Section 4c 
proceedings because of the. immediacy and widespread nature 
of the harm it is causing. Respondents have denied Peti- 
tioners' request and refused to suspend the registration of 
any economic poison containing DDT. 

The Suspension Clause of Section 4c reads as follows: 

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this sec- 
tion, the Secretary may, when he finds that such 
action is necessary to prevent an imminent hazard 
to the public, by order, suspend the registration of 
an economic poison immediately. In such case, he 
shall give the registrant prompt notice of such action 
and afford the registrant the opportunity to have the 
matter submitted to an advisory committee and for 
an expedited hearing under this section." 

Respondents are compelled by the facts in this case to 
find that DDT is an imminent hazard to the public. The 
evidence in the case established that DDT is a cancer-causing 
agent (App. 15-16, 30-31, Mrak 470-472, 481-483) which is 
being widely dispersed through the environment. (App. 13, 
29, Mrak 99-176), contaminating human food (App. 13, 29, 
Mrak 136-140) and tissue (App. 13, 28, Mrak 321-341). The 
evidence also estabhshes that DDT is causing serious harm to 
fish and wildlife populations (App. 13, 28, Mrak 179, 189, 
206-212), and is bringing some species to the brink of extinc- 



Ann. § 87d.5); Florida (see Florida Law of July 9, 1969, Fla. Stat. 
§ 487.042, Rule Section 7E-2-22 of December 17, 1969); Canada (see 
114 House of Commons Debates 393, 28th Parliament, 2d Sess., Nov. 
3, 1969); and Ontario (see Order-in-Council 3654/69 establishing Reg- 
ulation 386-69 of September 24, 1969). 



3990 
20 

tion. The suspension provision is designed to protect the 
pubhc from such hazards. 

Because of the nature and extreme seriousness of the 
imminent hazard which is estabhshed by the facts of 
record, the Respondents are compelled to suspend DDT 
registrations. 

A. Respondents Are Compelled To Find That 
DDT Is an Imminent Hazard to the Public 

Harm to Wildlife. Justice Douglas noted the concern of 
experts and officials over the harmful effects of DDT on 
wildlife ten years ago.^^ That concern has now grown with 
the ever-increasing evidence that DDT threatens the destruc- 
tion of whole species. 

The evidence submitted by Petitioners to the Respon- 
dents, confirmed by the Mrak Report, is that DDT is caus- 
ing ecological damage across a broad spectrum of life forms. 
As a result, we are in imminent danger of losing many 
species which have suffered catastrophic declines. Examples 
of prominent species which are now threatened are the 
national bird, the Bald Eagle, and the Peregrin Falcon (Mrak 
211-212). Another serious threat is posed to important 
fresh and salt water fisheries. (App. 14, 29, Mrak 208-210). 

The suspension provision was added to FIFRA to protect 
the pubhc in these circumstances and in others. The legis- 
lative history of the suspension provision demonstrates that 
it was designed to protect fish and wildlife. The 1964 
amendments were passed as a result of the concern gener- 
ated by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring}"^ The Senate Agri- 
culture Committee indicated that the suspension provisions 
were intended to encompass protection of fish and wildUfe.^' 



^^ Murphy v. Butler, supra. 

^'*See statement of Senator Ribicoff, 110 Cong. Rec. 7189; State- 
ment of Congressman Sullivan, 110 Cong. Rec. 2949. 

^^p. 3, S. Report No. 573, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). 



3991 
21 

In addition to their obligations under FIFRA, Respond- 
ents were given a special duty to protect wildlife in 1966 
under the Endangered Species Act:^^ 

"It is further declared to be the poHcy of Con- 
gress that the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary 
of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Defense, 
together with the heads of bureaus, agencies and 
services within their departments, shall seek to 
protect species of native fish and wildlife, including 
migratory birds that are threatened with extinc- 
tion." 

The Endangered Species Act calls on Respondents to act 
with special concern when fish and wildlife species are 
threatened with extinction. On the record of this case, 
Respondents are compelled to make the finding that such 
fish and wildlife species are faced with extinction and, 
therefore, that DDT is an imminent hazard. 

Carcinogenicity. The undisputed evidence in the record 
of this cause is that DDT is a cancer-causing agent. (App. 1 5- 
16, 30-31, Mrak 470-472, 481-483). It is also the undisputed 
evidence that DDT is now found in virtually all human food 
and human flesh. (App. 13, 28-29, Mrak 136-140, 321-341). 

Congress has, with the passage of the two Delaney 
Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, declared 
as a national policy that cancer-causing agents are unsafe 
and are to be strictly banned from man's food. The first 
amendment of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 
provides: 

". . . No additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is 
found to induce cancer when ingested by man or 
animal, or it is found, after tests which are appropri- 
ate for the evaluation of safety of food additives, to 
induce cancer in man or animal. "^^ 



2^16 U.S.C. § 668aa et seq., 80 Stat. 926. 

^Section 409(cX3)(A) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 
U.S.C. § 348(c)(3XA), 72 Stat. 1785. The second Delaney clause was 
added as § 706(b)(5)(B) to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1960 



3992 

22 

The Delaney Amendments operate to prevent any amount 
of a food additive or color additive from being added to 
food if such additive is a cancer-causing agent. This princi- 
ple of total exclusion which takes away all discretion from 
officials of the Food and Drug Administration, is based on 
the fact that scientists have never found a threshold level 
for cancer-causing agents. 

Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Arthur S. 
Flemming, in his testimony concerning the color additives 
amendment, which was adopted by the House Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,^^ said: 

"The preponderance of scientific evidence clearly 
dictates our position: Our advocacy of the antican- 
cer provision in the proposed color additives amend- 
ment is based on the simple fact that no one knows 
how to set a safe tolerance for substances in human 
foods when those substances are known to cause 
cancer when added to the diet of animals. 

* * * 

"Unless and until there is a sound scientific basis 
for the establishment of tolerances for carcinogens, 
I believe the Government has a duty to make clear- 
in law as well as in administrative pohcy— that it will 
do everything possible to put persons in a position 
where they will not unnecessarily be adding residues 
of carcinogens to their diet. 

* * * 

"We have no basis for asking Congress to give us 
discretion to establish a safe tolerance for a sub- 
stance which definitely has been shown to produce 
cancer when added to the diet of test animals. We 
simply have no basis on which such discretion could 
be exercised because no one can tell us with any 
assurance at all how to establish a safe dose of any 
cancer-producing substance." 



and IS known as the Color Additives Amendment, 21 U.S.C. § 376 
(b)(5)(B), 74 Stat. 399. 

28h. Rept. No. 1761, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 



3993 
23 

In Bell V. Gooddard, 366 F.2d 177, 181 (7th Cir. 1966), 
the Seventh Circuit stated: 

"The Delaney Clause, 21 U.S.C. § 348(c)(3)(A), 
provides that no additive 'shall be deemed to be safe 
if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man 
or animal,' and is generally intended to prohibit the 
use of any additives which under any conditions 
induce cancer in any strain of test animal." 

The policy of strict ban on cancer agents of the Delaney 
Amendments was applied to pesticides under the pesticide 
regulation law^^ administered by HEW, which is the com- 
panion of FIFRA. In 1959, the Food and Drug Adminis- 
tration seized a large quantity of cranberries sprayed with 
the agricultural poison, aminotriazole.^^ This action was 
based on scientific evidence that aminotriazole caused can- 
cer. Secretary Flemming based his action on his 
administrative determination that the Delaney Amendment 
must be applied to pesticides, even though it was not speci- 
fically directed to them.^* 

Even though the Delaney clauses were not enacted as part 
of FIFRA, they established as policy the principle that car- 
cinogens are to be kept strictly out of food. Even if the 
Delaney Amendments did not exist, however, it would not 
change the proposition that carcinogens in man's diet must 
be considered imminent hazards to the public. The evidence 
in this case compels the finding that DDT is a carcinogen 
which now occurs regularly in man's diet. 



^^21 U.S.C. § 346a, 68 Stat. 511. This section is the subject of the 
companion case before this Court, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 
et al V. Finch, et al, No. 23812. With regard to the discussion of car- 
cinogenicity, see generally Petitioners' Brief in No. 23812. 

^See CCH Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law Reporter, § 59, 109.03. 

^^ See the discussion of the cranberry episode in Brief for Petitioners, 
Environmental Defense Fund v. Finch, No. 23812. 



3994 
24 

B. Because of the Seriousness and Nature of the 
Facts Upon Which Respondents Are Com- 
pelled to Find DDT is an Imminent Hazard 
to the Public, They Are Compelled to Sus- 
pend DDT Registrations 

As we have just shown, the evidence in this case compels 
findings that DDT is an imminent hazard to the public. 
Because of the nature and extreme seriousness of the 
hazards involved, immediate action on the part of Agricul- 
ture to suspend DDT registrations is required. 

Respondents argue to the contrary (Motion to Recon- 
sider, p. 5, note 4) that suspension is within their absolute 
discretion because Section 4(c) says "the Secretary may 
[suspend], when he fmds that such action is necessary to 
prevent an imminent hazard to the public. . ." The word 
may, however, cannot be read to give Petitioners absolute 
discretion under these circumstances. It would make no 
sense to give Respondents discretion to ignore their own 
findings (or findings compelled by evidence before them) 
that a pesticide is an imminent hazard to the public. The 
suspension clause was placed in the Act to protect the 
public from serious injury. Congress did not intend for 
Respondents to sit idly by while that injury occurs.^^ 

It is difficult to justify a claim of absolute discretion in 
light of the fact that the suspension provision was enacted 
to provide immediate relief to the public during Section 4c 
cancellation proceedings.^^ Congress was concerned because 
of the substantial delays built into the Section 4c procedure. 

An uncontested cancellation is effective thirty days after 
service of the Section 4c notice. The registrant may, how- 



•'^"The burden of proof should not rest on the Government, be- 
cause great damage can be done during the period the Government is 
developing the data necessary tq remove a product which should not 
be marketed." Congresswoman Sullivan, 110 Cong. Rec. 2949, 88th 
Cong., 2d Sess., (1964). 

^^109 Cong. Rec. 20079, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). 



3995 

25 

ever, request the matter be referred to an advisory commit- 
tee or file objections and request a public hearing. Without 
going into specifics, which are set out in Section 4c, there 
are 360 days of built-in delay in these procedures, not includ- 
ing the unspecified time needed to form advisory committees, 
to prepare for and hold hearings, and to obtain judicial review. 

The delays inherent in Section 4c have been compounded 
by Agriculture's actual practice. For example, in the Sec- 
tion 4c proceedings initiated for the four uses of DDT, the 
Stouffer Chemical Company requested on December 19, 
1969, that the matter be referred to an advisory committee. 
As of the date of this brief, however, almost two months 
later, no such advisory committee has been appointed. In 
addition, while several other manufacturers requested a 
public hearing with regard to their products on December 
19, 1969, no hearing examiner has been appointed. In fact. 
Respondents have not even filed an answer to the manufac- 
turers' objections which is required by their own rules 
within 20 days (7 C.F.R. 364.23(a), 34 F.R. 13823 (Aug. 
29, 1969)). 

Unlawful delay by Agriculture in Section 4c proceedings, 
the House Government Operations Committee has found, 
is Agriculture's norm.^"^ 

Such delays in cancellation procedures would, perhaps, 
be tolerable to the public if Respondents suspended poisons 
in accordance with the obvious Congressional intent. 
Among the criticisms leveled at Agriculture by the Govern- 
ment Operations Committee, however, was that it failed to 
take action to remove hazardous products from the market. 
(H. Rept. 91-637, 5wpra, at 8-9, 16, 52-54). In fact. Agri- 
culture has only used its suspension power once, and then 
to no effect: 

"PRD has no procedures or criteria for determin- 
ing when a registration should be suspended on the 
ground that a product constitutes an 'imminent 



34 



See p. 13-14, supra. 



3996 
26 

hazard' to the pubhc. Such action has been taken 
only once; but a product containing an identical 
ingredient was allowed to remain on the market 
without even bearing a required warning notice on 
its label." (House Report, p. 16.) 

If the Respondents cannot be made to carry out their 
duty under FIFRA in a case as blatant as this, the suspen- 
sion provision will certainly continue in disuse. And, what 
is worse, the public will have to suffer the havoc of many 
more millions of pounds of DDT waiting for Agriculture to 
act. 

Ill 

PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING 
TO OBTAIN REVIEW 

Generally speaking, those persons whose interests a sta- 
tute is designed to protect have standing under that statute 
to protect those interests. Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 

370 U.S. 1 (1968); Curran v. Laird, App. D.C. , 

F.2d(No. 21,040 D.C. Cir., Nov. 12, 1969 (en banc)). When 
the interest a statute protects is one which is not easily iden- 
tifiable with any particular group, the courts have granted 
standing on behalf of the public to those persons who by 
their activities and conduct exhibit a special interest in the 
area protected by the statute in question. The two leading 
decisions on this point are Office of Communication of the 
United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Com- 
mission, 123 App. D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994 (1966), and 
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power 
Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965).^^ 



^^ Also see Nashville 1-40 Steering Committee v. Ellington, 387 F.2d 
179, 182 (6th Cir. \961); Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment 
Agency, 395 F.2d 920 (2nd Cir. 1968); Road Review League, Town 
of Bedford v. Boyd, 270 F. Supp. 650, 660-61 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); Gt- 
izens Committee for the Hudson Valley v. Volpe, 302 F. Supp. 1083 
(S.D.N.Y. 1969); Powelton Gvic Home Owners Ass'n v. Department 



3997 
27 

FIFRA is designed to protect the public from pesticide 
hazards, and, in fact. Congress intended that pubhc groups 
concerned with those hazards would participate in FIFRA 
proceedings. Petitioners have shown the special interest in 
environmental protection to make their participation proper 
on behalf of the public. 

A. FIFRA Contemplates Public 
Participation in its Proceedings 

FIFRA was originally passed to protect the public from 
harmful pesticides.^^ Section 4d was added to FIFRA by 
the 1964 amendments,^^ the purpose of which was to better 
protect the public from pesticide hazards by closing the 
protest registration loophole and by tightening generally 
administrative procedures, (see pp. \5-\l,supra).^^ The House 
Agriculture Committee Report stated: 



of Housing and Urban Development, 284 F. Supp. 809, 821-828 (E. 

D. Penn. 1968); Parker v. United States, F. Supp. (No. C- 

1368, D.C. Colo., Dec. 24, 1969); Sierra Qub v. Hickel, F. Supp. 

(No. 51464, N.D. Calif., July 23, 1969). Three District Courts have 

upheld the standing of the Sierra Club in environmental suits, includ- 
ing two involving Agriculture. Parker v. United States, supra+; Sierra 
Qub V. Hickel, supra+, and Gtizens Committee v. Volpe, supra. 
(+Copies submitted to Court with Opposition to Motion to Dismiss). 
Scholarly comment on this subject approves the position taken in these 
cases. See Berger, Standing to Sue in Public Actions: Is it a Constitu- 
tional Requirement, 78 Yale L.J. 816 (1969); Rogers, The Need for Mem- 
ingful Control in the Management of Federally Owned Timberlands, 
4 Land & Water L. Rev. 121 (1969); Allen, The Congressional Intent 
to Protect Test: A Judicial Lowering of the Standing Barrier, 41 
Colo. L. Rev. 96 (1969); Jaffee, The Gtizen as Litigant in Public Act- 
ions: The Non-Hohfeldian or Ideological Plaintiff, 1 16 U. Pa. L. Rev. . 
1033 (1968); Reich, The Law of the Planned Society, 75 Yale L.J. 
1227(1966). 

^House Report No. 313, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). 

^Act of May 12, 1964, 78 Stat. 190. 

^See, e.g.. Senate Report No. 573 (on S. 1605), 88th Cong., 1st 
Sess. (1963); House Report No. 1125 (on H.R. 9739), 88th Cong., 



3998 
28 

"The bill will. . .afford protection to the pubhc by 
repeahng the authority for registration under pro- 
test."3^ 

Repealing the protest registration provision had the effect 
of requiring: 

". . .industry rather than the Federal Government to 
shoulder the burden of proof in connection with 
the marketing of pesticides which may be unsafe for 
use as intended. '"^^ 

The fact that FIFRA and its 1964 amendments were 
designed to protect the public is sufficient to confer stand- 
ing on those who have a special interest in environmental 
pollution and health. The language of Section 4d of 
FIFRA'** and its legislative history specifically confirm this 
result. 

Section 4d of FIFRA provides judicial review for ''any 
person who will be adversely affected.'"*^ An attempt by 
the National Agricultural Chemical Association to substitute 
the language, "the applicant for registration, or registrant," 
for the term "any person. . .adversely affected," was 
rejected. See p. 49, Hearings, Regulation of Economic Poi- 
sons, August 21 and 22, 1963, Subcommittee on Depart- 
mental Oversight and Consumer Relations of the Committee 
on Agriculture."^^ 



2d Sess. (1964); 110 Cong. Rec. 7189, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964); 
109 Cong. Rec. 20079, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). 

^House Report No. 1125 (on H.R. 9739), 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 
64 U.S. Code, Cong. & Ad. News 2167. 

'*^Leonor K. Sullivan, 110 Cong. Rec. 7189, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 
(1964). 

'**7U.S.C. § 135b(d). 

'^^ (Emphasis added) In addition, the Administrative Procedure Act, 
5 U.S.C. § 702, provides review for anyone "adversely affected or ag- 
grieved by agency action under the meaning of a relevant statute." 

'*^88th Cong., 1st Sess., Aug. 21-22, 1963. 



3999 
29 

The colloquy which occurred when the amendment was 
offered shows conclusively that Congress intended that the 
proper representatives of the public were intended to have 
standing: 

Parke C. Brinkley (President of the National Agri- 
cultural Chemical Association): "It refers to the 
appeal and lets anybody who wants to do it, where- 
as this amendment would confine it to the person 
whose company is actually involved. 

* * * 

Congressman Hagen: "Your amendment excludes 
The American Medical Association, for example, 
from requesting public hearings? 

Robert L. Ackerly (counsel with Mr. Brinkley): 
"Yes; that is true. 

Hagen: "It is merely a matter between the Depart- 
ment and the Company? 

Ackerly: "That is correct. . . . 

Hagen: "But the public, in effect, would be excluded 
from participating? 

Ackerly: "The public would be excluded from par- 
ticipating in this procedure; that is correct. 

* * * 

Congressman Harvey: "1 think it is generally com- 
mon knowledge that many of the trade-named pes- 
ticides have come about as a result of work by the 
research division of the Department of Agriculture. 
They have made research findings available to the 
companies who, in turn, have marketed them under 
trade names. 
"It would seem to me. . .if such a condition is set 
up in which the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Company in question are in this situation, that they 
would be both on the same side of the issue." 
(Hearings, pp. 49-51) 



4000 
30 

In addition to the legislative history, the language in 
FIFRA, which provides jurisdiction for "any person. . . 
adversely affected," is very close to the language involved 
in United Church of Christ and Scenic Hudson Preservation 
Conferences^ In those two cases, the Court held that this 
language conferred standing on organizations representing 
the public. Petitioners believe this Court's statement on 
standing in United Church of Christ is in fact even more 
suitable to this case: 

"The theory that the Commission can always effec- 
tively represent the listener interests in a renewal 
proceeding without the aid and participation of 
legitimate listener representatives fulfilling the role 
of private attorneys general is one of those assump- 
tions we collectively try to work with so long as 
they are reasonably adequate. When it becomes 
clear, as it does to us now, that it is no longer a 
valid assumption which stands up under the realities 
of actual experience, neither we nor the Commis- 
sion can continue to rely on it. The gradual expan- 
sion and evaluation of concepts of standing in 
administrative law attests that experience rather than 
logic or fixed rules has been accepted as the guide. 
359 F.2d at 1003-1004. 

B. The Petitioners Have 
Exhibited the Requisite Interest in DDT 

The Petitioners have, by their activity and conduct, 
exhibited the proper interest in the problems involved in 
this case to represent the public. The Petitioners are four 
national organizations and one local organization with active 
programs in the areas of environmental protection and wild- 
life conservation. Together, Petitioners represent, among 
their members alone, two hundred thousand concerned citi- 
zens. They have shown a strong interest in pesticide 
problems in general and DDT problems in particular. They 
have taken various legal and administrative actions dealing 



44 



Also see the cases and authorities cited in note 35, p. 26, supra. 



4001 
31 

with DDT. (App. 1-3, Motion to Intervene of Izaak Wal- 
ton League) 

In United Church of Christ, the Church was held to 
represent the interest of the listening public. In Scenic 
Hudson, conservation groups, including Petitioner Sierra 
Club, were held to represent the interests of the pubhc in 
scenic beauty and wildlife conservation. So equally here 
Petitioners represent the interest of the public in the pro- 
tection of man, animals and the environment from the 
hazards of pesticide pollution. 

The Respondents contend that environmental protection 
groups have no place in the decision-making process con- 
cerning pesticides. They contend that Department of Agri- 
culture and the pesticide companies should be left to safe- 
guard the nation's environment. Judicial review would be 
limited to the aggrieved manufacturer if the Respondents 
ever cancelled a pesticide registration. Petitioners submit 
that this view of the scheme of pesticide regulation and of 
the administrative process must be rejected. 

IV 

THERE IS A FINAL ORDER BEFORE THE 
COURT FOR REVIEW 

Petitioners requested Agriculture to do two things: (1) 
issue Section 4c notices to begin cancellation proceedings 
for all economic poisons that contain DDT; (2) suspend all 
DDT registrations immediately and for the duration of § 4c 
cancellation proceedings. Agriculture granted partial relief 
with regard to the Section 4c notices by issuing such a 
notice for four uses, but denied the relief sought for all 
other uses. Agriculture denied all relief as to suspension, 
refusing to suspend DDT or any use thereof. 

Respondents' denial of Petitioners' request is embodied 
in an order of December 1 1 , 1969, which takes the form of 
a letter. This letter incorporates by reference other docu- 
ments of which the most important are the Section 4c 
notice regarding the four uses and the Federal Register 



36-513 O - 70 - Pt. 6C - 21 



4002 

32 

Notice for all other uses. (App. 34-45; see pp. 6-1 , supra.) 
These documents together embody Respondents' finding and 
decision, and refer to the evidence upon which they rely. 
They deny the relief Petitioners seek. Indeed, Respondents 
admit (Motion to Reconsider, p. 5, note 4) that they have 
made a decision not to suspend. 

Respondents' order denying the relief sought is a final 
order which is subject to review by this Court because 
Petitioners have no further steps they can take in the 
administrative process. Denial of review will leave Peti- 
tioners to await the whim of the Respondents who, in their 
view, will have no legal obligation to advance the matter to 
another stage. 

The fact that this final order does not come at the end 
of a Section 4c proceeding is of no consequence. Section 
4d of FIFRA provides for review "[in] case of actual con- 
troversy as to the validity of any order." The Administra- 
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551(b), defines "order" as: 

". . .the whole or a part of a final disposition, whether 
affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in 
form, of an agency in a matter other than rule- 
making but including hcensing." 

Respondents' order makes a final disposition of Petitioners' 
requests. 

In their motion papers, Respondents seem to raise four 
issues with regard to their order: (1) that the order does 
not come at the end of a Section 4c proceeding; (2) that 
the order is not based on a record that would be developed 
by the end of a Section 4c proceeding; (3) that Section 4c 
proceedings are underway for four uses; and (4) that the 
order involves, in part, a letter. 



i 



4003 
33 

A. Respondents' Order Is a Final Reviewable 
Order Even Though It Does Not Come at the 
End of Section 4c Proceedings 

The requirement of "finality" is to be interpreted in "a 
pragmatic way." Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 
136, 149 (1967). "Whether or not the statutory require- 
ments of finality are satisfied in any given case depends. . . 
upon a realistic appraisal of the consequences of such 
action." Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States, 93 App. D.C. 
293, 21 1 F.2d 51, 55 (1954). Of key importance is the 
principle stated in Cities Service Gas Co. v. F.P.C., 255 
F.2d 860, 863 (10th Cir. 1956), that: 

"An order of an administrative body is reviewable 
when action taken in advance of hearings or adju- 
dication result in setting legal consequences.""^^ 

It is of no consequence that an order is issued prior to 
the end of the proceedings."^^ Courts of Appeals may 
review final orders which do not come at the end of formal 
proceedings, but which determine legal rights at an earlier 
stage. In Cities Service Gas Company v. F.P.C., supra. Trail- 
ways of New England, Inc. v. C.A.B., 412 F.2d 926 (1st 
Cir. 1969), and Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States, supra, the 
courts reviewed as a final order the failure of agencies to 
suspend rate schedules prior to hearing. Also see Trans- 
Pacific Freight Conference of Japan v. F.M.B., 302 F.2d 
875 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (order to a shipping conference to 
cease collecting fines pending final decision held a final 
order and was reviewed by the Court of Appeals); Phillips 
Petroleum Co. v. F.P.C., 227 F.2d 470 (10th Cir. 1955), 
cert, denied, 350 U.S. 1005 (1955) (order maintaining the 
status quo by suspending a rate schedule pending investiga- 
tion and hearing reviewed by the Court of Appeals); and 
Algonquin Gas Transmission Company v. F.P.C., 201 F.2d 



^^See Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 316 U.S. 407, 

425. 

'^Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States, supra, at 55. 



4004 
34 

334 (1st Cir. 1953) (denial of application for a temporary 
emergency permit during proceedings reviewed). In the 
words of the Tenth Circuit: 

"The orders sought to be reviewed here do not 
deal with the merits of the proceedings before the 
Commission in the sense that they were entered 
upon evidence concerning the reasonableness of the 
rates. They do not purport to finally determine 
Phillips wholesale rates. That matter is left to a 
conventional hearing in these proceedings. But the 
orders do purport to estabUsh with finality the 
wholesale rates which Phillips was authorized to 
charge Michigan on June 7, 1954 and thereafter 
until changed by order of the Commission pursuant 
to hearing." Phillips Petroleum Co. v. F.P.C., 227 
F.2d 470 at 475. 

Despite the fact that the order was not the final rate order, 
the Court of Appeals granted review. 

While it does not follow a formal Section 4c proceeding, 
it is clear that the order denying Petitioners' requests is 
final except for the four uses.'*'' At the end of Section 4c 



'^^Petitioners also note that neither the language of Section 4d of 
FIFRA nor anything in its legislative history prohibits review of such 
a final order. In this regard, Section 4d of FIFRA should be read to- 
gether with the Administrative Procedure Act, under which a right to 
review must be presumed. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 
136 at 140. Section 10b of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 703, provides that 
"the form of proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory re- 
view proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by 
statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form 
of legal action ... in a court of competent jurisdiction." Section 4d of 
FIFRA provides such a special statutory review procedure and is ade- 
quate. 

The alternative is a bifurcation of review in which some FIFRA 
final orders are reviewed in the Court of Appeals and others in Dis- 
trict Courts. The Supreme Court has rejected this approach in another 
area. Foti v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 217 
(1963) (also see Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 422, 
where bifurcation of review is criticized). The Court noted in Foti 
that the special Court of Appeals review procedure involved was added 



4005 
35 

proceedings for the four uses, presumably all that can be 
reviewed is a decision regarding those uses. There is no 
FIFRA proceeding in progress for cancellation of other DDT 
uses or suspension of DDT. 

B. Respondents' Order Is a Final Reviewable 
Order Even Though It Is Not Based on a 
Record Developed During a Section 4c Pro- 
ceeding 

Since a final order need not necessarily come at the end 
of a formal administrative proceeding, it follows that it need 
not necessarily be based on a record developed during such 
proceeding. In fact, the cases cited above on finality (p. 33, 
supra) all involved situations where there was no record 
developed from a formal hearing. (See the quote from Phil- 
hps Petroleum at p. 34, supra.) There will obviously never 
be the kind of record in this cause which Respondents insist 
is needed for review if review is not available now. Indeed, 
there are no proceedings underway that would create such 
a record. 

In the case of suspension, it is difficult to conceive of 
the kind of record Respondents insist on. Suspension is 
designed as a remedy which is operative while such a record 
is being made. After such a record is made and acted on, 
the time for suspension is past. 

In fact, of course, there is an adequate record (pp. 4-6, 7- 
8, supra). It consists of the Petition, the related submissions, 
the Mrak Report and Respondents' Order. (App. 1-45). 
Nothing additional is needed for review of the decision and 
order before the Court. The evidence which was before 
Respondents was sufficient to compel the determination 



to the Immigration and Nationality Act because of Congressional dis- 
satisfaction with the legal delays in deportation cases, 375 U.S. at 
225, 84 S. Ct. at 312. This echoes the situation with regard to the 
1964 amendments to FIFRA which were added because of Congress- 
ional dissatisfaction with the Court's difficulties in getting hazardous 
pesticides off the market (see pp. 15-18, 24, supra). 



4006 
36 

and findings that DDT is causing harm to man, animals and 
the environment and that it is an imminent hazard to the 
public.^^ 

C. The Fact That Respondents Have Initiated 
Section 4c Proceedings For Only Four Uses 
of DDT Supports Petitioners' Contention 
That There Is a Final Order 

As discussed earlier, Agriculture has issued Section 4c 
notices for four uses— but only four uses. This means, of 
course, that the Section 4c proceedings in progress only 
relate to the four uses and will result in a decision that only 
affects those four uses. Conversely, it means there are not 
proceedings underway for all other uses. Petitioners are 
not seeking review at this time of the cancellation of the 
four uses, but only of the decision not to issue Section 4c 
notices and inaugurate administrative proceedings for other 
uses and of the decision not to suspend any use at all. 

Agriculture's statement in their Motion to Reconsider 
(p. 2, note 2) that administrative procedures are underway, 
citing the procedure for the four uses, is perhaps intended 
to suggest that this cause is not ripe for review. The main 
purposes of the ripeness doctrine is to prevent the courts 
from making decisions in the abstract, and more impor- 
tantly, to protect agencies from interference while they are 
in the middle of proceedings. Abbott Laboratories v. Gard- 
ner, supra, at 148-49. However, in this case, except for the 

'^^If, however, the Court believes the record is deficient, we note 
that Section 4d provides in part: 

"If application is made to the court for leave to adduce add- 
itional evidence, the court may order such additional evidence 
to be taken before the Secretary, and to be adduced upon 
the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and con- 
ditions as to the court may seem proper, if such evidence is 
material and there were reasonable grounds for failure to ad- 
duce such evidence in the proceedings below." 

This provision obviously gives the Court all the authority it needs to 
deal with any deficiency. 



4007 
37 

four uses, there are no FIFRA proceedings with which the 
Court can interfere and Petitioners bring before the court a 
concrete problem for which there are specific remedies. 
The denial of the request for suspension and the request to 
issue Section 4c notices for all other uses of DDT is ripe 
for review. 

D. The Fact That Respondents' Order Was In 
Part In Letter Form Is Irrelevant to Final 
Order Question 

The fact that Respondents' order was in part in letter 
form is irrelevant to the final order question. The form of 
an order or its label does not determine whether it is an 
order. Isbrandtsen v. United States, supra, at 55. A tele- 
gram, Phillips Petroleum Co. v. F.P.C.. supra, at 474, or a 
letter. United States v. Bass, 215 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1954), 
can serve as an order, even if the Court finds it "obscure" 
and "ambiguous." Schenley Industries, Inc. v. Fowler, 275 
F. Supp. 356 (D.C. D.C. 1967). 



CONCLUSION 

For all the reasons stated herein. Petitioners respectfully 
request that this Court grant the following relief: 

(a) that the Order of December 11, 1969, in response 
to the Petition of October 31, 1969, be set aside; 

(b) that the Respondents be ordered to follow statutory 
procedures, issuing Section 4c notices to commence the pro- 
cedures by which the registrations of all economic poisons 
that contain DDT could be cancelled; and 



4008 
38 

(c) that the Respondents be ordered to immediately 
suspend the registrations of all economic poisons that con- 
tain DDT during Section 4c proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JAMES W. MOORMAN 

CHARLES R. HALPERN 
2008 Hillyer Place, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20009 

Attorneys for 
Environmental Defense 
Fund, Incorporated, 
Sierra Club, 

West Michigan Environ- 
mental Action Council, 
National Audubon Society, and 
Izaak Walton League of America 



EDWARD BERLIN 

Berlin, Roisman and Kessler 
1910 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

A ttorney for 
Environmental Defense 
Fund, Incorporated 
February 13, 1970 



4009 
1 App. 

Before the 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Environmental Defense Fund. 

Incorporated, 
Sierra Club, 
West Michigan Enviornmental 

Action Council, and 
National Audubon Society. 
Petitioners 

TO: Honorable Clifford M. Hardin, 
Secretary of Agriculture 

PETITION REQUESTING THE SUSPENSION AND 

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF 

ECONOMIC POISONS CONTAINING DDT 

Petitioners request the Secretary of Agriculture to exer- 
cise his authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act, 61 Stat. 163, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 
§§ 135-1 35k, to take immediate action to ban the use of 
DDT. Scientific evidence which has been accumulating at 
an accelerating rate clearly establishes that DDT is causing 
irreparable damage to the environment, and present scien- 
tific information establishes that DDT is a cancer- causing 
agent. Many other jurisdictions, in this country and abroad, 
have banned or severely restricted the uses of DDT. The 
Federal Government, charged with responsibility for pro- 
tecting the health and welfare of its citizens and the protec- 
tion of the nation's natural resources, must take appropri- 
ate action to stop the use of DDT. The Department of 
Agriculture has the power to suspend the registration of 
DDT and economic poisons containing DDT. The Depart- 
ment should exercise that authority at once. 

I. PETITIONERS 

[2] Petitioner Environmental Defense Fund, Incorporated 
(hereinafter "EDF"), is a non-profit, tax-exempt member- 
ship corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
New York. EDF is made up of scientists and other citizens 



4010 
2 App. 

dedicated to the protection of man's environment, employ- 
ing legal action where necessary. EDF has, through litiga- 
tion, sought to protect the environment from various forms 
of pollution. Its Scientists Advisory Committee, with more 
than 200 members, including some of the world's foremost 
environmental scientists, assures that positions taken are 
thoroughly supported by scientific evidence. An extensive 
bibliography on DDT has been compiled by EDF. The 
articles on DDT which are cited in this petition are listed 
in Appendix A, attached hereto.^ In its activities, EDF 
does not concern itself with the pecuniary interests of indi- 
viduals; rather, it seeks to assure the preservation or restor- 
ation of environmental quality on behalf of the general 
pubhc. 

Petitioner Sierra Club is a non-profit membership corpo- 
ration organized under the laws of the State of California 
with membership of 80,000. The Sierra Club has been in 
existence since 1892. Among its stated purposes is the 
preservation of scenic resources, forests, waters, wildlife and 
wilderness. In furtherance of its purposes, the Sierra Club 
engages in many educational activities, including an exten- 
sive publishing program and wilderness [3] outing program. 
In addition, the Sierra Coub has participated in several legal 
actions to preserve the environment and maintains staff 
offices and membership chapters in all regions of the 
country. 

Petitioner National Audubon Society (hereinafter "Audu- 
bon") is a non-profit membership corporation organized 
under the laws of the State of New York. Audubon has as 
its purposes the protection of wildlife and the natural 
environment, and the education of man regarding his rela- 
tionship with and his place within the natural environ- 
ment as an ecological system. Audubon has over 80,000 
members and a history of 65 years devoted to these pur- 



'AIso attached to the copy of the petition filed with the Secretary 
is a copy of the entire EDF bibliography, with reprints of the articles 
which are of special relevance. 



4011 
3 App. 

poses. Audubon owns and operates 40 wildlife refuges, five 
nature interpretation centers and three adult ecological 
summer camps, and maintains a lecture program that 
reaches 200 cities annually. Audubon supports important 
research on endangered species and publishes papers on 
ecological research. 

Petitioner West Michigan Environmental Action Council 
(hereinafter "the Environmental Action Council") is an 
unincorporated association. Its membership consists of 25 
civic organizations and 300 individual members, primarily 
in West Michigan. Among the Environmental Action Coun- 
cil's stated purposes is assisting and coordinating the efforts 
of individuals and organizations to protect and restore the 
quahty of the environment and to take necessary and 
appropriate action in furtherance thereof, including the dis- 
semination of information through newsletters, lectures, 
seminars, participation in official hearings, and preparing 
and promoting model legislation. 

[4] II. DEFINITIONS 

"DDT," sometimes called dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, 
is a mixture of substances which has as its major ingredient 
the chemical compound l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chloro- 
phenyl) ethane. DDT is widely used, in a variety of eco- 
nomic poisons, as a pesticide. 

"DDT residues" include DDT; DDE, l,l-dichloro-2,2- 
bis (p-chlorophenyl)ethylene; DDD, also known as TDE, 
1, l-dichloro-2, 2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)ethane; and several 
other closely related chemical compounds derived from DDT 
by conversion processes within the environment. 



4012 
4 App. 

III. OTHER RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS 

A. Petition to the Secretary of Health, Education 
and Welfare Requesting Repeal of Tolerances 
for DDT 

On October 7, 1969, a petition was filed by six indi- 
viduals and EDF with the Secretary of Health, Education 
and Welfare requesting the repeal of the tolerances for DDT 
on raw agricultural commodities. The petition, a copy of 
which is attached hereto as Appendix B, was based upon 
evidence that DDT is a carcinogenic or cancer-causing agent. 
(See, infra, pp. 16-1 7.) Five of the individual petitioners 
therein are nursing mothers or are expecting to give birth 
in the very near future. The petition has not been acted 
upon as of this date. 

On this day, said six individuals and EDF have requested 
the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare immediately 
to repeal the existing tolerances for DDT on raw agricul- 
tural commodities and to set such tolerances at zero. In 
addition, Secretary Finch has been requested [5] to take all 
further steps to protect the health and welfare of the 
nation by banning the use of DDT on the ground that it is 
a carcinogen or cancer-causing agent. A copy of this peti- 
tion was attached to the request addressed to the Secretary 
of Health, Education and Welfare. A copy of the request 
to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare is 
attached to this petition as Appendix C. 

B. Requests for Information on DDT from the 
Department of Agriculture 

The Petitioners have made diligent efforts to obtain from 
the Department of Agriculture documents relating to the 
registration of DDT and economic poisons containing DDT, 
and information in the Department's files relating to 
damage to the environment and to living man caused by 
DDT and such economic poisons. 



4013 
5 App. 

On September 18, 1969, a request for access to such 
information was made by Petitioner Environmental Action 
Council. On October 14, 1969, Petitioner Environmental 
Action Council renewed its request of September 18, 1969, 
and sought some related information. On October 24, 
1969, Petitioners EDF and Sierra Club joined in the above 
request of Petitioner Environmental Action Council. 

As of this date, the Department of Agriculture has failed 
to respond to any of these requests and has failed to give 
Petitioners Environmental Action Council, EDF, or Sierra 
Club access to any records of the Department of Agricul- 
ture. As a result, petitioners are unable to identify with 
particularity those economic poisons containing DDT that 
have been registered by the Department of Agriculture. As 
a further result, petitioners have been unable to determine 
the extent to which the matters presented herein have been 
considered by the Department of Agriculture. 

[6] C. Recent Actions by Administrative Agencies 
Against Carcinogenic Substances and Other 
Substances Posing Substantial Risks to Public 
Health 

1 . Cyclamates 

A recent precedent was set by Secretary of Health, Edu- 
cation and Welfare Robert Finch for immediate administra- 
tive action to protect the public where there is evidence 
that a substance on the market and in common use has 
carcinogenic qualities. On October 18, 1969, the Secretary 
acted to remove cyclamates from the market only five days 
after learning of scientific evidence of their carcinogenicity. 
His action was based on "recent experiments conducted on 
laboratory animals which disclosed the presence of malig- 
nant bladder tumors after these animals had been subjected 
to strong dosage levels of cyclamates for long periods." 
See statements of Secretary Robert H. Finch and Jesse L. 
Steinfeld, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health and Scien- 
tific Affairs, October 18, 1969, attached hereto as Appen- 
dix D. 



4014 
6 App. 

Secretary Finch emphasized "in the strongest possible 
terms that we have no evidence at this point that cycla- 
mates have indeed caused cancer in humans." However, he 
stated that he felt it "imperative to follow a prudent course 
in all matters concerning pubhc health." Appendix D, 
Statement of Secretary Finch, p. 1 . 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Steinfeld added: 

"We can in no way at this time extrapolate the 
new data from rat experiments to human beings. 
Nevertheless, we in this Department— whether from 
a legal or from a scientific point of view— cannot 
afford to ignore any possibility of the rat data being 
applicable to the human population. As long as this 
possibility exists, a prudent concern for the health 
of the pubhc [7] dictates that precautionary action 
be taken." Appendix D, Statement of Deputy Assist- 
ant Secretary Steinfeld, p. 6.^ 

2. The Herbicide 2,4, 5-T 

Dr. Lee A. DuBridge announced this week that the Fed- 
eral Government will shortly initiate a coordinated series of 
actions to restrict the use of the herbicide 2,4,5 -T. Among 
other actions, he stated that the Department of Agriculture 
would cancel the registration of the herbicide for use on 
food crops unless a basis can be found for establishing 
a safe legal tolerance before January 1, 1970. Office of 
Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, 
Press Release, October 29, 1969. 



^In an action in 1959, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare 
Flemming made it clear that the strong policy against permitting 
cancer-causing agents in the market applies to pesticides as well as 
other products. By administrative interpretation, he ordered the 
seizure of all cranberries found to have residues of the pesticide 
aminotriazole, which had been found to cause cancer in mice. See 
CCH, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law Rptr., 54,109.03. See Bell 
V. Goddard, 366 F. 2d 177, 181 (7th Cir. 1966) (use of food additive 
barred where it caused cancer in animals notwithstanding small quan- 
tities ingested by man. 



4015 
7 App. 

The Department of Agriculture's cancellation of the 
registration was based on a finding that the herbicide 
caused deformities in rats and mice. The data relied upon 
did not establish that the herbicide would have deleterious 
effects in man. The measure was explained as having a 
prophylactic purpose: to "assure safety of the public while 
further evidence is being sought."^ 

D. Actions in Other Jurisdictions 

The Michigan Agriculture Commission cancelled, effective 
June 27, 1969, the registrations of DDT except for control 
of bats, mice and head lice. Cancellation was based [8] on 
the facts that DDT is injurious to vertebrates and that there 
are safer alternative modes of pest control; thus DDT violated 
§ 2z(2)(g) of the Michigan Economic Poisons Act. 1 2 Mich. 
Stat. Ann. § 352(2)(z)(2)(g). This standard is substantially 
identical to a parallel provision of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 61 Stat. 163, as amended, 
7 U.S.C. §§ 135-1 35k (hereinafter "FIFRA"). 

On October 29, 1969, the Director of the California 
Department of Agriculture issued a regulation cancelling the 
registration of DDT for use in that State on 47 field crops. 

On March 27, 1969, Sweden announced a moratorium on 
the use of DDT and several other chlorinated hydrocarbons. 

In Canada, several of the provinces have taken action to 
ban DDT. Ontario, by Order-in-Council 3654-69, issued 
on September 24, 1969, banned all uses of DDT, effective 
January 1, 1970, with hmited exceptions. Several other 
provinces have taken action regarding DDT or announced 
that action is impending. The Federal Government in 
Ottawa will shortly adopt stringent measures limiting the 
use of DDT. 



^It was also reported that research evidence showed that the herbi- 
cide increased the incidence of cancer. Los Angeles Times, October 
30, 1969, part I, p. 11. 



4016 
8 App. 

IV. APPLICABLE LAW: FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, 
FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT 

A. Economic Poisons 

The Secretary of Agriculture regulates economic poisons 
under FIFRA. "Economic poisons," as defined in FIFRA 
§ 2a, 7 U.S.C. § 135(a), include the various mixtures which 
have DDT as their active ingredient and appear on the 
market under trade names. 

19] B. Registration Requirements 

Section 4a of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 135 b (a), requires that: 

"[E]very economic poison . . . which is shipped or 
delivered for shipment from any State, Territory or 
the District of Columbia to any other State, Terri- 
tory or the District of Columbia, or which is 
received from any foreign country shall be regis- 
tered with the Secretary [of Agriculture]." 

C. Suspension of Imminent Hazards 

Under § 4c of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 135b(c), the Secretary 
of Agriculture has the duty to suspend by order the regis- 
tration of an economic poison "when he finds that such 
action is necessary to prevent an imminent hazard to the 
pubhc." See also 7 C.F.R. § 364.4(c), published at 34 Fed. 
Reg. 13822. 

Either the fact that an economic poison is a cancer- 
causing agent or the fact that it is destructive of fish, wild- 
life and useful animals would be sufficient in itself to qual- 
ify it as an "imminent hazard to the public." 

1 . Carcinogenicity 

Proof that an economic poison is a carcinogen is a prime 
example of the kind of showing which establishes that it 
poses "an imminent hazard." The rapid response of HEW 
in banning cyclamates and the announced actions against 



4017 
9 App. 

the herbicide 2,4,5 -T by the Department of Health, Educa- 
tion and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture (see 
pp. 6-7 supra) confirm the Federal pohcy of banning cancer- 
producing agents by immediate action. 

Congress has evinced special concern about carcinogenic 
or cancer-causing agents, declaring in the Food Additives 
Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, 
21 U.S.C. § 348(c)(3)(a): 

[10] *'[N]o additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is 
found to induce cancer when ingested by man or 
animal, or it is found, after tests which are appro- 
priate for the evaluation of the safety of food addi- 
tives, to induce cancer in man or animal ..." 

In 1960, Congress passed the Color Additives Amendments 
to that Act and included a similar anticancer clause. 21 
U.S.C. § 376(b)(5)(B). 

Arthur S. Flemming, the Secretary of Health, Education 
and Welfare at the time of the passage of the Color Addi- 
tive Amendments, summarized the philosophy embodied in 
the anticancer provisions in testimony before the House 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: 

"The preponderance of scientific evidence clearly 
dictates our position: Our advocacy of the anti- 
cancer proviso in the proposed color additives 
amendment is based on the simple fact that no one 
knows how to set a safe tolerance for substances in 
human foods when those substances are known to 
cause cancer when added to the diet of animals. 
I should like to underline again one statement in 
particular which I read earlier from the summary of 
Dr. [G. Burroughs] Mider's review of the role of 
certain chemical and physical agents in relation to 
cancer. It is this: 

'"No one at this time can tell how much or 
how little of a carcinogen would be required to 
produce cancer in any human being, or how long 
it would take the cancer to develop.' 

"This is why we have no hesitancy in advocating 
the inclusion of the anticancer clause. 



4018 
10 App. 

"Unless and until there is a sound scientific basis 
for the establishment of tolerances for carcinogens, 
I believe the Government has a duty to make clear- 
in law as well as in administrative policy— that it 
will do everything possible to put persons in a posi- 
tion where they will not unnecessarily be adding 
residues of carcinogens to their diet." (See House 
Rpt. No. 1761, June 7, 1960, 2 U.S.C. Cong. & 
Admin. News, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 2887 (I960)) 
(Emphasis supplied) 

2. Damage to Fish, Wildlife and 
Useful Animals 

Congress intended to include the hazard of destruction 
of fish, wildlife and useful animals as an "imminent [11] 
hazard." The "imminent hazard" provision was added by 
the 1964 amendments to FIFRA (78 Stat. 190). The 
Senate Committee Report, in discussing the imminent 
hazard concept, stated that damage to fish and wildhfe 
should be given due consideration. See Senate Report No. 
57 on S. 1605, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). 

D. Cancellation of Economic Poisons Not 
in Compliance with FIFRA 

In addition to immediate suspension of an economic 
poison as an imminent hazard, the Secretary of Agriculture 
has the duty to issue a notice of cancellation of the regis- 
tration of an economic poison when it appears that the 
economic poison, its labeling, or other material do not 
comply with the provisions of FIFRA. FIFRA § 4 c, 7 
U.S.C. § 135b(c). Any economic poison which is "mis- 
branded," as the term is defined, FIFRA § 2z(2), 7 U.S.C. 
§ 135(2)(z)(2), is not in compliance with the Act. The 
Section 2z(2) definition of "misbranded" products states, 
in relevant part: 

"The term 'misbranded' shall apply ... (2) to 
any economic poison . . . (c) if the labeling accom- 
panying it does not contain directions for use which 



4019 
1 1 App. 

are necessary and if complied with adequate for the 
protection of the pubhc; (d) if the label does not 
contain a warning or caution statement which may 
be necessary and if compHed with adequate to 
prevent injury to living man and other vertebrate 
animals, vegetation, and useful invertebrate animals 
. . . (g) if in the case of an insecticide, nematocide, 
fungicide, or herbicide when used as directed or in 
accordance with commonly recognized practice, it 
shall be injurious to living man or other vertebrate 
animals, or vegetation, except weeds to which it is 
applied, or to the person applying such economic 
poison; ..." 

An economic poison is necessarily "misbranded" when it 
cannot be used in a manner which protects the public and 
prevents injury to man and animals. Where that is the case, 
a notice of cancellation should be issued. 

[12] The regulations of the Department of Agriculture re- 
flect the above standards in several provisions. See, e.g., 7 
C.F.R. §§ 362.6, 362.9, 362.10 (k), 362.105 (c), 362.105(h) 
362.106 (f)(4)(v), 362.108(c)(6), 362.121(g). 

E. Burden of Proof 

The suspension and cancellation procedures of § 4c of 
FIFRA, discussed above, were added to FIFRA by amend- 
ment in 1964 (78 Stat. 190). 

The purpose of the 1964 amendment was to give the 
Secretary full authority to remove hazardous and unlawful 
economic poisons from the market and to shift the burden 
of proving their safety to the registrant. House Report No. 
1125 on H.R. 9739, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 64 U.S.C. Cong. 
& Admin. News, 2166-2167. 



4020 
12 App. 

V. THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY DDT TO MAN 
AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

The Secretary must take account of the weight of scien- 
tific evidence which estabhshes that the continued use of 
DDT is inconsistent with the scheme of FIFRA. The Act 
presupposes that no economic poison will be registered, or 
where already registered that such registration will be sus- 
pended by the Secretary, if the economic poison poses an 
imminent hazard to the pubhc or if it is injurious to man, 
animals or the environment. The hazards of DDT are now 
well documented and require immediate action. 

In this section petitioners will describe the damage which 
DDT has caused to the environment and the threats it poses 
to human health. Because of the technical character of the 
issue and the numerous citations to scientific materials, 
petitioners have attached to this petition a hst of leading [13] 
authorities. The numbered references in this section corre- 
spond to numbers in the hst of authorities. See Appen- 
dix A. 

The Affidavit of Charles F. Wurster, attached to this 
petition as Appendix E, also provides support for the 
propositions set out in this section. Dr. Wurster, the Chair- 
man of the Scientists Advisory Committee of petitioner 
EDF, is a leading environmental scientist. 

DDT, a pesticide which has been in common use since 
World War II, performed a useful function at a time when 
alternative pesticides were unavailable. Alternative pesti- 
cides and procedures that are of equal effectiveness but 
cause less damage are now available. (267, Appendix E, H 
17). The time has come for the Federal Government to 
act against the use of DDT. Because it is an imminent 
hazard to the environment and to human health, such 
action should be taken immediately. 

DDT combines in a single molecule the properties of 
broad biological activity, chemical stability, mobility, and 
solubility, characteristics (139) that cause it to be accumu- 



4021 
13 App. 

lated by living non-target organisms, thus presenting dangers 
that are unusual among major pollutants (268). DDT not 
only enters food chains from the inorganic environment, it 
is increasingly concentrated toward the top of food chains, 
thereby posing a particular threat to carnivores (90, 155, 
156, 161, 208, 209, 214, 260). 

Because DDT residues are mobile (4, 20, 21, 22, 41, 157, 
181, 201), chemically stable (60, 137, 201), nearly insol- 
uble in water (20) but quite soluble in lipid or fat-hke 
materials (139), DDT cannot be used and released in the 
environment under any circumstances, whether or not in 
accord with any label or directions, without the eventual 
contamination [14] of food chains (86, 90, 106, 131, 155, 
156, 161, 208, 209, 214, 252, 260), including human foods, 
and the tissues of non-target organisms, including man (50, 
149, 223, 258). 

The entire biosphere has, in fact, become contaminated 
with DDT residues, including such seemingly unlikely places 
as air (1, 2, 9, 157), rainwater (181, 205), birds living 
hundreds of miles at sea (155, 214), Arctic and Antarctic 
animals (71, 174, 182, 220, 225), and cosmetics, and 
human milk (148, 221). DDT residues are regular contami- 
nants of human foods, including many foods never treated 
with the material, and contaminate the tissues of virtually 
all human beings (50, 149, 223, 258). 

DDT residues retain their broad biological activity long 
enough to be hazardous to contaminated non-target organ- 
isms, most of which are far removed by both time and 
space from the original site of the DDT apphcation. 
(Appendix E, 1l7). 

The relationships between DDT residues and hazards to 
bird populations, by both direct mortality and reproductive 
failure, have been particularly well documented. DDT 
causes carnivorous birds, including birds of prey, sea birds, 
and many other species, to lay eggs with abnormally thin 
shells (88, 150, 211, 233). These eggs break prematurely, 
resulting in sharply reduced reproductive success (105). 



4022 
14 App. 

Populations of these species have in many cases undergone 
catastrophic declines, in some cases approaching extinction 
(7, 87, 154, 214). The decline in eggshell thickness 
occurred shortly after the large scale introduction of DDT 
into the world environment in the late 1940's (88, 150). 
Controlled feeding experiments with DDT and its metabo- 
Htes have established the causal relationship between DDT 
residues [15] in the environment, the production of eggs with 
abnormally thin shells, and greatly reduced reproductive 
success (218, 232, 256). 

DDT causes direct mortality of large numbers of birds. 
This has been especially true where attempts were made to 
control Dutch elm disease with DDT, but has also occurred 
under many other circumstances (89, 191, 213, 236). 

DDT inhibits reproduction in fish, with abnormal mortal- 
ity of the fry following the contamination of the adult fish 
and their eggs. This has occurred in several freshwater situ- 
ations, with mortalities of 1 00 percent of the fry in some 
instances (28, 47, 235). Controlled experiments confirmed 
that DDT residues were the causative agents (244, 245). 
Many fish from other areas, including commercially impor- 
tant fish from marine waters, show concentrations of DDT 
residues in their tissues that approach those that caused this 
abnormal fry mortality (8, 156, 224, 241). Important 
freshwater and marine fisheries are seriously threatened by 
present and anticipated future concentrations of DDT resi- 
dues in the tissues of the fish. DDT also causes the direct 
mortality of large numbers of fish, a phenomenon that has 
occurred under a variety of circumstances (46, 62, 198). 

DDT residues do great damage to useful invertebrates of 
many species. Insect communities are frequently disrupted 
by the killing of beneficial predatory and parasitic insects, 
thereby frequently aggravating the insect pest problem DDT 
was intended to control (100, 267). It kills pollinating 
insects. It damages various crustaceans such as crabs and 
shrimp (77, 1 17, 168, 253). Even the base of oceanic food 
chains, the phytoplankton, can have their photosynthetic 



4023 
15 App. 

activity reduced by a few parts per billion of DDT in the 
water (215). 

[16] By eliminating certain organisms, especially carni- 
vorous organisms, from biotic communities, DDT residues arc 
causing widespread ecological damage (208). Such eco- 
system simplification contributes to population explosions 
of certain organisms lower in the food chain and normally 
controlled by the carnivores. Proliferation of herbivorous 
insect pests or herbivorous birds like blackbirds are exam- 
ples of this phenomenon (267). The stability of ecosystems 
is thereby reduced by the disruptions caused by DDT. 

DDT and its residues cause these serious environmental 
effects by virtue of the great variety of their biological 
activity within living systems. These residues are nerve 
toxins (49, 217), induce hydroxylating enzymes in the liver 
(42, 112, 145, 229), inhibit certain other enzymes, and 
interfere with the photosynthetic process (215). They also 
are known to induce estrogenic activity (17, 264). 

DDT residues exhibit this broad range of biological activ- 
ity within a great diversity of animals and even some plant 
species; their activity extends to all five classes of verte- 
brates—amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals. With 
these non-target organisms serving as warning signals or 
monitors, showing the great and diverse biological activity 
of DDT within a broad range of animals, it is hardly 
surprising that DDT has now been shown to operate by 
yet another biological mechanism— it is a carcinogenic or 
cancer-causing agent. (Appendix E, 1112.) 

In a definitive study supported by the National Cancer 
Institute, DDT was added to the diet of mice and compared 
with both positive and negative [17] control groups of mice 
(238). The frequency of tumors of the liver, lungs and 
lymphoid organs was four times greater in mice fed DDT 
than those in the negative control group. The carcino- 
genicity was clearly established because DDT caused cancer 
of the same kind and at approximately the same frequency 
as did known cancer-causing agents (the positive controls) 
(238). 



4024 
16 App. 

The National Cancer Institute study confirmed earlier 
evidence indicating the carcinogenicity of DDT. As early 
as 1947, a study by the Food and Drug Administration 
showed that when DDT was fed to rats there was an 
increased incidence of liver tumors (226). Similar results 
were obtained using rainbow trout, where DDT in the food 
of the fish caused the formation of hepatomas (231). 
Other experiments with mice carried through five genera- 
tions showed that the DDT mice had a substantially higher 
incidence of leukemia and of tumors than the non-DDT 
mice (262). 

In studies done at the University of Miami School of 
Medicine, human victims of terminal cancer were found to 
contain more than twice the concentration of DDT residues 
in their fat as did victims of accidental death (223, 258). 
The accident victims carried 9.7 parts per million in their 
fat, about average for Americans, while the cancer victims 
contained 20 to 25 parts per million. 

Evidence that DDT causes cancer in human beings is not 
conclusive, but DDT is clearly carcinogenic in test animals. 
The evidence on DDT is similar to the evidence of the car- 
cinogenic activity of the cyclamates. The Secretary of 
Health, Education and Welfare promptly withdrew cycla- 
mates from the market on the basis of such evidence. The 
Secretary of Agriculture should do no less with DDT. 

Alternative integrated control techniques, including the 
use of chemical, biological, and other pest management [18] 
procedures are available that are as effective as DDT (37, 65, 
251, 267). Alternative techniques would not cause the 
injury to the environment nor pose the threat to human 
health described above if substituted for all of DDT's uses. 
(Appendix E, 1117). DDT is a highly disruptive material 
in the environment and causes outbreaks of mites, aphids, 
and scale insects by killing their natural enemies (267). It 
has been stated by a leading authority in the field that 
DDT has no place in an integrated pest control system 
(267). 



4025 
17 App. 

VI. CONCLUSIONS 

The overwhelming scientific evidence estabUshes that 
DDT is a cancer-causing agent, is injurious to animal, bird 
and fish populations, and is causing serious ecological 
damage. For these reasons, the continued use of DDT 
poses an imminent hazard to the public, threatening human 
health and environmental resources. Petitioners have long 
been concerned with the interrelationship of a wholesome 
environment and human welfare. Further introduction of 
DDT into the environment is entirely inconsistent with the 
values which the Secretary of Agriculture is bound to 
preserve. 

Specifically, petitioners have shown that DDT does not 
comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roden- 
ticide Act in the following respects: 

(1) DDT is an imminent hazard to the pubhc under 
section 4c of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 135b(c), and the registra- 
tion statements of all economic poisons containing DDT 
should be immediately suspended. 

(2) DDT does not comply with the provisions of section 
2z(2)(d) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 135(2)(z)(2)(d) since it is 
causing serious, permanent and irreparable injury to [19] en- 
tire populations of non-target vertebrate and useful inverte- 
brate animals. No warning or caution statement contained 

in any label is or would be adequate if complied with to pre- 
vent this injury. The injury is occurring under the commonly 
recognized practices for the use of DDT. 

(3) DDT does not comply with Section 2z(2)(c) of 
FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 135(2)(z)(2)(c), for the reasons that it 
is causing serious, permanent and irreparable damage to the 
public in that it is causing injury specified above in the pre- 
ceding paragraph and that it (a) is causing serious, perma- 
nent and irreparable damage to the fish and wildUfe 
resources of the United States; (b) is causing serious, per- 
manent and irreparable ecological damage; (c) is a carcino- 
gen, and (d) is causing serious, permanent and irreparable 



4026 
18 App. 

damage to large numbers of diverse non- target organisms 
essential or beneficial to the public. No directions con- 
tained in any written material would be adequate if com- 
plied with to prevent said damage. The damage is occurring 
under the commonly recognized practices for the use of 
DDT. 

(4) DDT does not comply with Section 2(z)(2)(g) of 
FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 135(2)(z)(2)(g), since when used as 
directed or used in accordance with commonly recognized 
practice it is injurious to living man and other vertebrate 
animals to which it is applied and to persons applying such 
economic poison. 

(5) Alternative integrated control techniques, including 
the use of chemical, biological, and other pest management 
procedures are available that are substantially as effective 
as DDT and that do not presently cause the injury and 
harm set forth above and would not cause such harm if 
substituted for substantially all of DDT's uses. 

[20] VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Petitioners request that the Secretary: 

By order, immediately, (1) suspend the registration of all 
economic poisons that contain DDT; and (2) issue Notices 
of Cancellation for all registered economic poisons that 
contain DDT, affording petitioners an opportunity to par- 
ticipate fully in any administrative proceedings held follow- 



4027 
19 App. 

ing the issuance of notices of cancellation including the 
right to adduce evidence, to rebut and to cross-examine. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JAMES W. MOORMAN 
CHARLES R. HALPERN 

1752 Swann Street, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20009 
Attorneys for Environmental 
Defense Fund, Sierra Club, 
West Michigan Environmental 
Action Council, and National 
Audubon Society 

EDWARD BERLIN 

Berlin, Roisman and Kessler 

1910 N Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Attorneys for Environmental 
Defense Fund 

October 31, 1969 



4028 

20 App. 

Appendix A to Petition Requesting the Suspension 

and Cancellation of Registration of Economic 

Poisons Containing DDT 

LIST OF AUTHORITIES 

Reference numbers cited in Section V of this 
petition correspond to the numbers in the more 
extensive Bibliography, one copy of which was sub- 
mitted to Secretary Hardin, entitled "A Bibliography 
on the Effects of DDT on Non-Target Organisms." 

1 Abbott, D C, R B Harrison, J O'G Tatton, J Thomson, 

Organo chlorine pesticides in the atmospheric envi- 
ronment, NATURE 208, 1317-8 (1965) 

2 Abbott, D C, R B Harrison, J O'G Tatton, J Thomson, 

Organochlorine pesticides in the atmosphere, 
NATURE 2ii. 259-61 (1966) 

4 Acree, F, M Beroza, M C Bowman, Codistillation of 
DDT with water, J AGR FOOD CHEM 11, 278-80 
(1963) 

7 Ames, P L, DDT residues in the eggs of the Osprey in 

the North-eastern United States and their relation 
to nesting success, J APPL ECOL 3 (Suppl), 87-97 
(1966) 

8 Anderson, R B, W H Everhart, Concentrations of DDT 

in land-locked salmon {Salmo Salar) at Sebago Lake, 
Maine, TRANS AM FISH SOC 95, 160-4 (1966) 

9 Antomaria, P, M Corn, L DeMaio, Airborne particu- 

lates in Pittsburgh: Association with p,p'-DDT, 
SCIENCE 150, 1476-7 (1965) 

17 Bitman, J, H C Cecil, S J Harris, G F Fries, Estrogenic 
activity of o,p'-DDT in the mammalian uterus and 
avian oviduct, SCIENCE 162, 371-2 (1968) 

20 Bowman, M C, F Acree, M K Corbett, Solubility of 
carbon-14 DDT in water, J AGR FOOD CHEM 8, 
406-8 (1960) 



4029 
21 App. 

21 Bowman, M C, M S Schechter, R L Carter, Behavior 

of chlorinated insecticides in a broad spectrum of 
soil types, J AGR FOOD CHEM 13, 360-5 (1965) 

22 Bowman, M C, F Acree, C S Lofgren, M Beroza, Chlor- 

inated insecticides: Fate in aqueous suspensions 
containing mosquito larvae, SCIENCE 146, 1480-1 
(1964) 

28 Burdick, G E, et al. The accumulation of DDT in lake 
trout and the effect on reproduction, TRANS AM 
FISH SOC 93, Ml -36 (1964) 

37 Chant, D A, Integrated control systems, NAT ACAD 
SCI NAT RES COUNCIL PUBL 1402, 193-218 
(1966) 

41 Cole, H, D Barry, D E H Frear, A Bradford, DDT 

levels in fish, streams, stream sediments, and soil 
before and after DDT aerial spray appHcation for 
fall cankerworm in Northern Pennsylvania, BULL 
ENVIRON CONTAM TOXICOL 2, 127-46 (1967) 

42 Conney, A H, Pharmacological implications of micro- 

somal enzyme induction, PHARMACOL REV 19, 
317-66 (1967) 

46 Crouter, R A, E H Vernon, Effects of black-headed 

budworm control on salmon and trout in British 
Columbia, CANADIAN FISH CULTURIST 24, 1-18 
(1959) 

47 Currier, J P, J A Keith, E Stone, Problems with DDT 

in fish culture operations, NATURALISTE CAN 94, 
315-20 (1967) 

49 Dale, W E, T. B. Gaines, W J Hayes, G W Pearce, Poi- 

soning by DDT: Relation between clinical signs and 
concentration in rat brain, SCIENCE 142, 1474-6 
(1963) 

50 Dale, W E, G E Quinby, Chlorinated insecticides in the 

body fat of people in the United States, SCIENCE 
142, 593-5 (1963) 

^K-P,13 O - 70 - Pt. 6C -23 . _._ 



4030 
22 App. 

60 Edwards, C A, Insecticide residues in soils, RESIDUE 
REVIEWS 13, 83 (1966) 

62 Elson, P F, Effects on wild young salmon of spraying 
DDT over New Brunswick forests, J FISH RES BD 
CANADA 24, 731-67 (1967) 

65 Fleming, W E, Biological control of the Japanese beetle 
TECHNICAL BULL NO 1383, U S DEPT AGR 

71 George, J L, D E H Frear, Pesticides in the Antarctic, 
J APPL ECOL 3 (Suppl), 155-67 (1966) 

77 Grosch, D S, Poisoning with DDT: Effect on repro- 
ductive performance of Anemia, SCIENCE 755, 
592-3 (1967) 

86 Herman, S G, R L Garrett, R L Rudd, Pesticides and 

the western grebe, FIRST ROCHESTER CONE 
TOXICITY, UNIV OF ROCHESTER 4-6 June 1968 

87 Hickey, J J (Ed), Peregrine falcon populations: their 

biology and dechne, UNIV OF WISCONSIN PRESS, 
MADISON (1969) 

88 Hickey, J J, D W Anderson, Chlorinated hydrocarbons 

and eggshell changes in raptorial and fish-eating 
birds, SCIENCE 162, 271-3 (1968) 

89 Hickey, J J, L B Hunt, Initial songbird mortahty fol- 

lowing a Dutch elm disease control program, J WILD- 
LIFE MANAGEMENT 24, 259-65 (1960) 

90 Hickey, J J, J A Keith, F B Coon, An exploration of 

pesticides in a Lake Michigan ecosystem, J APPL 
ECOL 3 (Suppl), 141-54 (1966) 

100 Ide, F P, Effects of forest spraying with DDT on 
aquatic insects of salmon streams in New Brunswick, 
J FISH RES BD CANADA 24, 769-805 (1967) 

105 Keith, J A, Reproduction in a population of Herring 
Gulls (Larus argentatus) contaminated with DDT, 
J APPL ECOL 3 (Suppl), 57-70 (1966) 



4031 
23 App. 

106 Keith, J O, E G Hunt, Levels of insecticide residues in 
fish and wildUfe in California, TRANS 31st NORTH 
AMERICAN WILD NATURAL RESOURCES CONF, 
150-77 (March 1966) 

[3] 112 Kupfer, D, Effects of some pesticides and related 
compounds on steroid function and metabolism, 
RESIDUE REV 19, 11-30 (1967) 

1 17 Lowe, J I, Chronic exposure of blue crabs, Callinectes 
sapidus, to sublethal concentrations of DDT, ECOL- 
OGY -^6, 899-900 (1965) 

131 Moore, N W, J O'G Tatton, Organochlorine insecticide 
residues in the eggs of sea birds, NATURE 207, 
42-3 (1965) 

137 Nash, R G, E A Woolson, Persistence of chlorinated 
hydrocarbon insecticides in soils, SCIENCE 157, 
924-7 (1967) 

139 O'Brien, R D, Insecticides, Action and Metabolism, 
ACADEMIC PRESS, N Y (1967) 

145 Peakall, D B, Pesticide-induced enzyme breakdown of 
steroids in birds, NATURE 216, 505-6 (1967) 

148 Quinby, G E, J F Armstrong, W F Durham, DDT in 

human milk, NATURE 207, 726-8 (1965) 

149 Quinby, G E, W J Hayes, J F Armstrong, W F Durham, 

DDT storage in the U S Population, J AMER MED 
ASSOC 191, 175-9 (1965) 

150 Ratcliffe, D A, Decrease in eggshell weight in certain 

birds of prey, NATURE 215, 208-10 (1967) 

1 54 Ratcliffe, D A, The peregrine situation in Great Britain 

1965-66, BIRD STUDY 14, 238-46 (1967) 

155 Risebrough, R W, D B Menzel, D J Martin, H S Olcott, 

DDT residues in Pacific Sea birds: a persistent insec- 
ticide in marine food chains, NATURE 216, 589-91 
(1967) 



4032 
24 App. 

156 Risebrough, R W, Chlorinated hydrocarbons in marine 
ecosystems, FIRST ROCHESTER CONF TOXICITY, 
UNIV OF ROCHESTER, 4-6 June 1968 

157 Risebrough, R W, R J Huggett, J J Griffin, E D Gold- 

berg, Pesticides: trans-Atlantic movements in the 
norti^iast trades, SCIENCE 159, 1233-6 (1968) 

161 Robinson, J, A Richardson, A N Crabtree, J C Coulson, 
G R Potts, Organochlorine residues in marine organ- 
isms, NATURE 214, 1307-11 (1967) 

168 Sanders, H O, O B Cope, Toxicities of several pesti- 
cides to two species of Cladocerans, TRANS AMER 
FISH SOC 95, 165-9 (1966) 

174 Sladen, W J L, C M Menzie, W L Reichel, DDT resi- 
dues in Adelie penguins and a crabeater seal from 
Antarctica: Ecological impUcations, NATURE 210, 
670-3 (1966) 

181 Tarrant, K R, J O'G Tatton, Organochlorine pesticides 

in rainwater in the British Isles, NATURE 219, 
725-7 (1968) 

182 Tatton, J O'G, J H A Ruzicka, Organochlorine pesti- 

cides in Antarctica, NATURE 215, 346-8 (1967) 

[4] 191 Wallace, G J, Insecticides and birds, AUDUBON MAG 
61, 10-12 (1959) 

198 Warner, K, O C Fenderson, Effects of DDT spraying 
for forest insects in Maine trout streams, J WILD- 
LIFE MANAGEMENT 26, 86-93 (1962) 

201 Weaver, L, C G Gunnerson, A W Breidenbach, J J 
Lichtenberg, Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in 
major U S river basins, PUBL HEALTH RPTS 80, 
481-93 (1965) 

205 Wheatley, G A, J A Hardman, Indications of the 
presence of organochlorine insecticides in rainwater 
in central England, NATURE 207, 486-7 (1965) 

207 Woodwell, G M, Persistence of DDT in a forest soil, 
FOREST SCI 7, 194-6 (1961) 



4^3 
25 App. 

208 Woodwell, G M, Toxic substances and ecological cycles, 

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 216, 24-31 (1967) 

209 Woodwell, G M, C F Wurster, P A Isaacson. DDT resi- 

dues in an East Coast estuary: A case of biological 
concentration of a persistent insecticide, SCIENCE 
156, 821-4 (1967) 

21 1 Wurster, C F, Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and 
avian reproduction: how are they related?, FIRST 
ROCHESTER CONF TOXICITY, UNIV OF 
ROCHESTER, 4-6 June 1968 

213 Wurster, D H, C F Wurster, W N Strickland, Bird mor- 

tality following DDT spray for Dutch elm disease, 
ECOLOGY 46, 488-99 (1965) 

214 Wurster, C F, D B Wingate, DDT residues and declin- 

ing reproduction in the Bermuda petrel, SCIENCE 
159, 979-1 (1968) 

215 Wurster, C F, DDT reduces photosynthesis by marine 

phytoplankton, SCIENCE 159, 1474-5 (1968) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY SUPPLEMENT 

217 Anderson, J, M Peterson, DDT: Sublethal effects on 

brook trout nervous system, SCIENCE 164, 440-1 
(1969) 

218 Bitman, J, H Cecil, S Harris, G Fries, DDT induces a 

decrease in eggshell calcium, NATURE 224, 44-6 
(1969) 

220 Cade, T J, C M White, J R Haugh, Peregrines and pes- 

ticides in Alaska, CONDOR 70, 170-78 (1968) 

221 Curley, A, R Kimbrough, Chlorinated hydrocarbon 

insecticides in plasma and milk of pregnant and lac- 
tating women, ARCH ENVIRON HEALTH 18, 
156-64 (1969) 

223 Deichmann, W B, J L Radomski, Retention of pesti- 
cides in human adipose tissue -preliminary report, 
IND MED SURGERY 37, 218-9 (1968) 



4034 
26 App. 

224 Duffy, J R, D O'Connell, DDT residues and metabo- 

lites in Canadian Atlantic coast fish, J FISH RES 
BD CANADA 25, 189-95 (1968) 

225 Enderson, J H, D D Berger, Chlorinated hydrocarbon 

residues in peregrines and their prey species from 
northern Canada, CONDOR 70, 149-53 (1968) 

[5] 226 Fitzhugh, O G, A Nelson, The chronic oral toxicity 
of DDT [2, 2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) -1,1,1 -trichloro- 
ethane], J PHARMACOL EXP THERAP 89, 18-30 
(1947) 

229 Gillett, J W, "No effect" level of DDT in induction of 
microsomal epoxidation, J AGR FOOD CHEM 16, 

295-7 (1968) 

231 Halver, J, Crystalline aflatoxin and other vectors for 

trout hepatoma, BUR SPORT FISH WILDL RES 
REPT 70, 78-102 (1967) 

232 Heath, R G, J Spann, J F Kreitzer, Marked DDE im- 

pairment of Mallard reproduction in controlled 
studies, NATURE 224, 47-8 (1969) 

233 Hickey, J J, DDT and birds: Wisconsin, 1968, ATLAN- 

TIC NATURALIST 24, 86-92 (1969) 

235 Hopkins, C L, S Solly, A R Ritchie, DDT in trout and 

its possible effect on reproductive failures, NEW 
ZEALAND J MARINE FRESHWATER RES 3, 
220-9 (1969) 

236 Hunt, L B, R J Sacho, Response of robins to DDT 

and methoxychlor, J WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 
33, 336-45 (1969) 

238 Innes, J R M, e/ al, Bioassay of pesticides and indus- 
trial chemicals for tumorigenicity in mice: A pre- 
liminary study, J NATL CANCER INST 42, 1101- 
14 (1969) 

241 Jensen, S, et al, DDT and PCB in marine animals from 
Swedish waters, NATURE 224, 247-50 (1969) 



4035 
27 App. 

244 Macek, K J, Reproduction in brook trout {Salvelinus 

fontinalis) fed sublethal concentrations of DDT, 
J FISH RES BD CANADA 25, 1787-96 (1968) 

245 Macek, K J, Growth and resistance to stress in brook 

trout fed sublethal levels of DDT, J FISH RES BD 
CANADA 25, 2443-51 (1968) 

251 Miller, H C, S B Silverborg, R J Campana, Dutch elm 

disease: Relation of spread and intensification to 
control by sanitation in Syracuse, New York, 
PLANT DISEASE REPORTER 53, 551-5 (1969) 

252 Modin, J C, Residues in fish, wildhfe and estuaries, 

PESTICIDES MONITORING JOURNAL 3, 1-7 
(1969) 

253 Odum, W E, G M Woodwell, C F Wurster, DDT resi- 

dues absorbed from organic detritus by fiddler crabs, 
SCIENCE 164, 576-7 (1969) 

256 Porter, R D, S N Wiemeyer, Dieldrin and DDT: 
Effects on sparrow hawk eggshells and reproduction, 
SCIENCE 165, 199-200 (1969) 

258 Radomski, J, W B Deichmann, E E Clizer, FD COS- 
MET TOXICOL 6, 209-20 (1968), Pesticide concen- 
trations in the liver, brain, and adipose tissue of ter- 
minal hospital patients. 

[6] 260 Risebrough, R W, et al. Poly chlorinated biphenyls in 
the global ecosystem, NATURE 220, 1098-1102 
(1968) 

262 Tarjan, R, T Kemeny, Multigeneration studies on DDT 
in mice, FD COSMET TOXICOL 7, 215-22 (1969) 

264 Welch, R M, W Levin, A H Conney, Estrogenic action 
of DDT and its analogs, TOXICOL APPL PHARMA- 
COL 14, 358-67 (1969) 

267 Wurster, C F, DDT goes to trial in Madison, BIO- 

SCIENCE 19, 809-13 (1969) 

268 Wurster, C F, Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides 

and the world ecosystem, BIOL CONS 1, 123-9 
(1969) 



4036 
28 App. 

Appendix E to Petition Requesting the Suspension 

and Cancellation of Registration of Economic 

Poisons Containing DDT 

AFFIDAVIT 

The undersigned, Charles F. Wurster, being duly sworn, 
deposes and says: 

1. I presently reside at Oldfield, New York, My address 
is Department of Biological Sciences, State University of 
New York, Stony Brook, New York 1 1790. 

2. I am a professional environmental scientist. My pro- 
fessional credentials, background and bibliography are 
attached to this Affidavit as Appendix A. [Not reprinted 
in this Appendix! 

3. Whenever I use the term DDT herein I mean the 
mixture of substances commonly known as DDT, which 
stands for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, and which has 
as its major ingredient the chemical compound 1,1,1- 
trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane. Whenever I use 
the term "DDT residues," I mean DDT as defined above, 
and DDE, l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethylene, and 
several other closely related chemical compounds derived 
from DDT by conversion processes within the environment. 

4. DDT is a broad-spectrum, persistent chemical biocide 
with an extremely low water solubility, and a high solubil- 
ity in lipids. Because of these properties and a variety of 
mechanisms that transport DDT, it leaves its original site 
of appHcation, eventually contaminating the food chains 
and tissues of non-target organisms. 

5. More than 100,000,000 pounds of DDT is manufac- 
tured and released into the environment each year. It is 
apphed in a wide variety of pest control situations by many 
different techniques. Because DDT residues are mobile, 
chemically stable, slightly soluble in water, and quite 
soluble in lipid or fat-like materials, DDT cannot be used 
and released in the environment [2] under any circumstances, 
whether or not in accord with any label or directions, 
without the eventual contamination of food chains, includ- 



4037 
29 App. 

ing human foods, and the tissues of non-target organisms, 
including man. 

6. The entire biosphere has, in fact, become contami- 
nated with DDT residues, including such seemingly unlikely 
places as air, rainwater, birds living hundreds of miles at sea, 
Arctic and Antarctic animals, cosmetics, and human milk. 
DDT residues are regular contaminants of human foods, 
including many foods never treated with the material, and 
they contaminate the tissues of essentially all human beings. 

7. DDT residues retain their broad biological activity 
long enough to be hazardous to contaminated non-target 
organisms, most of which are far removed by both time 
and space from the original site of the DDT apphcation. 

8. DDT has long been known to be an extremely serious 
environmental hazard, although the extremity of the situa- 
tion has become more obviously apparent in recent years. 
DDT causes carnivorous birds, including birds of prey, sea 
birds, and many other species, to lay eggs with abnormally 
thin shells. These eggs break prematurely, resulting in 
sharply reduced reproductive success. Populations of these 
species have in many cases undergone catastrophic declines, 
in some cases approaching extinction itself. Controlled 
experiments confirm that DDT residues were the causative 
agents. DDT also directly kills large numbers of birds. 

9. DDT also inhibits reproduction in fish, with abnormal 
mortahty of the fry following the contamination of the 
adult fish and their eggs. This has occurred in several fresh- 
water situations, with mortalities of 1 00 percent of the fry 
in some [31 instances. Controlled experiments confirmed that 
DDT residues were the causative agents. Many fish from 
other areas, including commercially important fish from 
marine waters, show concentrations of DDT residues in 
their tissues that approach those that caused this abnormal 
fry mortality. I conclude that important freshwater and 
marine fisheries are seriously threatened by present and 
anticipated future concentrations of DDT residues in the 
tissues of the fish. DDT also directly kills large numbers 
of fish. 



4038 
30 App. 

10. DDT residues do great damage to useful inverte- 
brates of many species. Insect communities are frequently 
disrupted by the killing of beneficial predatory and para- 
sitic insects, thereby frequently aggravating the insect pest 
problem DDT was intended to control. It kills pollinating 
insects. It also damages various crustaceans such as crabs 
and shrimp. Even the base of oceanic food chains, the 
phytoplankton, can have their photosynthetic activity 
reduced by a. few parts per billion of DDT in the water. 

11. By eliminating certain organisms, especially carnivo- 
rous organisms, from biotic communities, DDT residues are 
causing widespread ecological damage. Such ecosystem sim- 
plification contributes to population explosions of certain 
organisms lower in the food chain and normally controlled 
by the carnivores. Outbreaks of herbivorous insect pests or 
herbivorous birds like blackbirds are examples of this phe- 
nomenon. The stabihty of ecosystems is thereby reduced 
by the disruptions caused by DDT. 

12. DDT and its residues cause these serious environ- 
mental effects by virtue of the great breadth of their bio- 
logical activity within living systems. These residues are 
known to be estrogenic, to be inducers of hydroxylating 
enzymes in the [4] liver, to be inhibitors of certain other 
enzymes, and to interfere with the photosynthetic process. 
DDT residues exhibit this broad range of biological activity 
within a great diversity of animals, and even some plant 
species; their activity extends to all five classes of verte- 
brates—amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals. With 
these non-target organisms serving as warning signals or 
monitors— with great and diverse biological activity occurring 
within a broad range of animals- it is hardly surprising that 
DDT has now been shown to operate by yet another mech- 
anism—it is a carcinogenic or cancer-causing agent. 

13. DDT causes cancer in test animals. While we do not 
have conclusive evidence that DDT causes cancer in human 
beings, DDT must be labelled carcinogenic. 



4039 
31 App. 

14. In studies done at the University of Miami School 
of Medicine, human victims of terminal cancer were found 
to contain more than twice as much DDT residues in their 
fat as did victims of accidental death. The accident victims 
carried 9.7 parts per million, which is about average for 
Americans, while the cancer victims contained 20-25 parts 
per million in their fat. 

CONCLUSIONS 

15. DDT is causing serious, permanent and irreparable 
injury to entire populations of non-target vertebrate and 
useful invertebrate animals. No warning or caution state- 
ment contained in any label would be adequate if complied 
with to prevent said injury. Said injury is occurring under 
the commonly recognized practices for the use of DDT. 

16. DDT is causing serious, permanent and irreparable 
damage to the public in that it is causing the injury speci- 
fied above and that it (a) is causing serious, permanent and 
irreparable damage to the fish and wildlife resources of the 
United 15] States; (b) is causing serious, permanent and irrepa- 
rable ecological damage; (c) is a carcinogenic or cancer- 
causing agent; and (d) is causing serious, permanent and 
irreparable damage to large numbers of diverse non-target 
organisms essential or beneficial to the pubhc. No direc- 
tions contained in any written material would be adequate 

if complied with to prevent said damage. Said damage is 
occurring under the commonly recognized practices for the 
use of DDT. 

17. Alternative integrated control techniques, including 
the use of chemical, biological, and other pest management 
procedures are available that are substantially as effective as 
DDT that do not presently cause the injury and harm set 
forth above and would not cause said harm if substituted 
for substantially all of DDT's uses. 

18. My above-stated opinions are based upon my knowl- 
edge of the research of many scientists as communicated 



4040 
32 App. 

personally and by publication in recognized scientific 
journals, and, in part, upon my own research investigations. 

For all the reasons set forth herein, DDT is an imminent 
hazard to the public and its use should be immediately 
suspended. 

/s/ Charles F. Wurster 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of 
October, 1969. 

/s/ Dorothy M. Kern 
Notary Pubhc 

My Commission Expires: 1/14/74 



4041 

Senator Mondale. We stan'd in recess. 

(Wliereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, subject 
to call of the Chair.) 

o 



I 



I 



AMHERST COLLEGE LIBRARY 
DATE DUE