the Department has. We have several people selected because of special knowledge about and interest in the problems of hired workers on farms. One of these is Dr. Von D. Mizell, of the Mizell Medical Clinic, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Dr. Mizell has had extensive experience with the problems of migrant farmworkers. He is a member at the Migrant Rural Health Committee, and has worked closely with community action migrant programs in Pompano Beach. He assisted in compilation of data for the Worker's Defense League on migrant health problems in the Belle Glade area. He operated a medical clinic in the sugarcane and vegetable area west of Palm Beach County for migrant workers from 1960 to the present. He has assisted in compilation of data on migrant health problems, living conditions, and general economic well-being. He recently participated in the White House Conference on Aging, and was appointed by the Governor of Florida as one of the medical advisors on migrant labor health problems. Another person with special interests in farm workers is Joe M. Herrera, Delano, Calif. He has worked for several large farming corporations. He has been a foreman and supervisor for the farm labor crews; he is a member of the United Farm Workers Union. George Houck of La Junta, Colo., is director of the Otero County Health Department. Mr. Houck is a professional licensed sanitarian, and has worked extensively with migrant farmworkers and farmowners in a constructive program to provide sanitary and safe working conditions for the workers. Mr. Houck is presently director of the Otero County Health Department and has held this position for the past 17 years. He is a member of the Southeastern Colorado Council of Governments, president of the Southeastern Colorado Family Guidance Center, and a member of Migrant Coalition of Southeastern Colorado. He has served on many Governors' committees related to health and safety, and is active in the fields of labor, housing, and facilities. These are the people selected because of special competencies and interests in the farm labor problems. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Davis, let me start off by saying that I think these three persons you have appointed to represent the interests of workers are probably admirably qualified for that and I say that with respect to Mr. Herrera, although he is a foreman and supervisor, and I say that with respect to Dr. Mizell and Mr. Houck, though neither is a hired farmhand. But I think that three out of 31 does not seem to be a very large representation. I also note that we don't have any actual workers other than the foreman on the committee, and I would urge you again to broaden the worker representation on that committee as I have in the past. How often has the advisory committee met, Mr. Davis? Mr. DAVIS. It has met twice so far. It was appointed a year ago and it met in December and again in June, I believe. Mr. O'HARA. Have the farmworker members been in attendance, do you know? Mr. DAVIS. They were not appointed until after the first meeting. My memory is not clear as to whether all three were at the last meeting or not. I think, however, that only two out of three were there. I would have to check. Mr. O'HARA. Do you have any account of these meetings? Are there transcripts or minutes or what have you available? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; we have a summary of the meeting. We have not kept verbatim records of the discussions, but we have a summary. Mr. O'HARA. Would it be appropriate to furnish the committee with copies of these summaries? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; I would be glad to.1 Mr. O'HARA. We would appreciate having them. Have you suggested to the Advisory Committee particular areas in which the Department thinks it might be wise to concentrate their effort? Mr. DAVIS. Concentrate the work of the Department? Mr. O'HARA. The work of the advisory committee. Mr. DAVIS. As we have met with the Advisory Committee, we have reviewed the programs of the Department, such as those I have mentioned here, as well as the work of OSHA; and we have had officials from OSHA there to review this with them. We have so far not selected a particular phase of this for concentrated attention. We have been reviewing the broad range of programs and seeking the Advisory Committee's advice. Mr. O'HARA. Let me ask if you consulted the Advisory Committee in any way with respect to the decision of the Secretary to stop posting placards warning the public and workers about parathion spraying on fields that have been sprayed with parathion? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. The committee was not involved in discussions of that. Mr. CARLSON. Would the chairman yield at this point? Mr. O'HARA. Yes. Mr. CARLSON. I would like to ask Mr. Davis just two related questions. In your experience with the advisory committees, this is not loaded, but have they been really effective in accomplishing your safety and health objectives? Mr. DAVIS. This committee is a group of dedicated people who are much concerned about the accident situation. Their recommendations so far have been useful in directing our efforts within the Department. They have made additional recommendations that are now receiving careful consideration. Mr. CARLSON. If you had your option, would you continue to lean on the advisory committees or would you prefer to develop your objectives with your own staff with comments and suggestions from people in the agricultural field? Mr. DAVIS. I feel that in the administration of all of our programs we have to have consultation with the people affected. Advisory committees are not the only way by which to do this, but it is an important way. I think we do need advisory committees in programs such as this. Mr. CARLSON. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. That decision to stop posting the placards on the fields near the entrances to the fields, where parathion had been spread, could you tell us more about that? How did that come about and what were the reasons for it? 1 See p. 203. Mr. DAVIS. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I am not sufficiently informed on that decision to respond. Mr. O'HARA. Something that very much disturbed me and it seemed to me that it was, as I suggested when I had Mr. Guenther before us, that there was a need, an urgent need for standards with respect to occupational health and safety in the pesticide area, and when I learned that you were going to stop posting these fields or that they were no longer going to be required to post the fields, it seemed to me that was a step in the wrong direction. I would appreciate it if you could supply the committee with a fuller statement of how that decision was arrived at. Mr. DAVIS. We will provide that, sir. Mr. O'HARA. And the reasons for it. Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. Without objection, the staff will be given unanimous consent to insert in the record of this hearing today certain documents relating to the subject matter under discussion. (The information referred to follows:) Hon. JAMES G. O'HARA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION STAFF, Washington, D.C., September 28, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. O'HARA: As per your request at the September 25 hearings, I have obtained some additional information on the ethyl parathion safety program and the omission of field posting in 1972. Perhaps a brief history on the ethyl parathion safety program would be helpful in understanding our decision. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has long been concerned with the safe and effective use of pesticides, including the effect of these chemicals on the environment. The Extension Service of this Department has had, for a number of years, an active program in this area. In the fall of 1970, at which time the Pesticides Regulation Division was a part of this Department, we consulted with State and industry officials to explore ways to expend our efforts in this area, including a revision of pesticide labels. Based on these discussions, voluntary agreements were entered into with State officials calling for a coordinated industry and StateFederal Departments of Agriculture safety program with the pesticide ethyl parathion. This pesticide was selected after a review of available data on pesticide accidents. The 1971 program was designed to emphasize the need for closer coordination between the medical profession and officials recommending pesticides and to expand efforts to personally acquaint purchasers of ethyl parathion with the safeguards which should be followed in handling the chemical. This program, as initially designed, recommended the use of placards for posting fields which had been treated with ethyl parathion. The basic manufacturers of ethyl parathion agreed to furnish postage-paid prepurchase acknowledgment cards. These cards served as evidence that the seller had informed the purchaser of the safeguards to be followed with this material. They also were used as a basis for informing the medical profession of areas of expected high usage of this chemical. The basic manufacturers also furnished through their channels placards which could be used in posting fields. At the end of the 1971 season, the program was reviewed with officials of the Environmental Protection Agency, State Departments of Agriculture, and industry representatives to determine what adjustments should be made, if any, in this program or whether the program should be discontinued. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that efforts should be made to expand activities in working with the medical profession and those designed to assure that purchasers of parathion were adequately and personally informed about the proper use of this 86-911 O 733 chemical. It was concluded that placards for posting fields would not be utilized in the 1972 Federal-State-industry program. The reasoning in back of this decision was as follows: 1. Placards were not being removed from fields, even though the hazard no longer existed. A complacency by the public regarding the placards display was in evidence. 2. Climatic and physical conditions vary too extensively from one area to another to allow proper handling from a national viewpoint. It was felt that this activity could best be handled by individual State officials. 3. The national program was in conflict with the requirements of some State laws, notably Ohio and California. 4. When analyzing accident information, there was no evidence indicating the general public had been injured by entering fields treated with ethyl parathion. Individual purchasers are informed of safeguards which should be followed by personnel engaged in applying this pesticide and involved in tending or harvesting the crops. 5. Finally, the Department has no legal authority to require that industry, the States, dealers, or the user comply with this program. It is entirely a cooperative endeavor to foster the safe use of pesticides. The 1972 program was expanded to include a forecasting system indicating areas where this chemical was likely to be used. The objective of this system is to alert the medical profession of areas of potential use even before purchases were made or treatments applied. This was based on contemplated insect outbreaks an called for close coordination between State and local health officials with the pest survey officials in the States. The 1972 program also enlisted the assistance of all available personnel in efforts to expand contacts with pesticide dealers to be assured that purchasers are adequately informed of the safeguards which should be followed. It was concluded that the program for 1972 would again be restricted to the pesticide ethyl parathion with the thought that, as the program was refined, it could be expanded to other chemicals. The 1972 program is a joint recommendation of representatives of industry, State and Federal Departments of Agriculture, and EPA. Sincerely, LLOYD H. DAVIS, Director, Science and Education Staff Mr. O'HARA. The subcommittee will stand in adjournment subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned). |