which characterize the present procedure. The establishment of prompt and fair tolerances promotes the interests of the growers and consumers of our farm production. The bill places authority for determining whether a pesticide is useful for the purpose for which a tolerance is sought in the Department of Agriculture. This accomplishes two desirable purposes. First, it eliminates the necessity for affirmatively proving at a public hearing that a pesticide is required in food production. The advances in farm production and disease prevention within the last decade is an adequate testament that pesticides are necessary. Second, it places the jurisdiction over such questions in the governmental department which is most familiar with the problems involved. One of the more significant features of the bill which is not present in existing law is the provision made for the appointment of advisory committees to advise the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on matters relating to proposed tolerances. These independent advisory committees should be an integral element in the process of determining sound, practicable tolerances. This feature of the bill is a commendable one which accords with the recommendations of many thoughtful persons who have given attention to the problem. Our overall conclusion is that the enactment of H. R. 4277 would enable the establishment of tolerances with greater objectivity, economy, and efficiency than is possible under existing law. This should serve to restore the confidence of the public in the adequacy of laws regulating the use of pesticides on food which has been unnecessarily impaired in recent years by the uninformed criticisms directed against present legislation. H. R. 4277 should provide for an even greater protection of the consumer without unduly hindering the research and development of new products to meet the challenge of an expanded need for an adequate and wholesome food supply. H. R. 4277 does contain a few provisions and clauses which in our opinion could and should be perfected without affecting the substance of the bill. Most of these relate to technical points which we feel sure will be brought to the attention of the committee at the hearings. Two of the more important amendments indicated are as follows: (1) Section 2 of the bill (p. 1, lines 8 through 11; p. 2, lines 1 and 2) defines the term "pesticides" for the purpose of the application of the bill. We suggest that the term "pesticide chemical" would be a more accurate and appropriate term to use. The term "pesticides" has a rather settled meaning which may be confusing. It is often understood to refer to a finished formulated pesticide whereas tolerances under the bill would be established with reference to the ingredients of such formulations. This change in the definition section of the bill would necessitate corresponding changes wherever the word "pesticide” appears. (2) Section 4 (p. 11, lines 3 through 11) provides for the procedure followed by the Secretary of Agriculture in making a certification to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare that a pesticide is useful. There is no procedure specified which would apply in the event that the Secretary of Agriculture determined not to make a certification in whole or in part as requested. We suggest that this contingency should be covered by a provision for a hearing on a record in the event that the Secretary proposes to issue an adverse certification. This would seem to be necessary in view of the importance of the certification proceeding in the tolerance-setting process. Respectfully submitted. H. W. HAMILTON, Secretary. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTION 5 OF THE 1950 MEETINGS, PACIFIC BRANCH, ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Whereas the rapid finding of chemicals which have useful properties in protection of animals and plants shows no sign of lessening; and Whereas it is generally agreed that new pesticide chemicals should not come into general use until restrictions on the amounts remaining on foodstuffs have been established; and Whereas the expensive and time-consuming procedure of showing necessity for use by public hearing cannot be used with sufficient frequency; and Whereas 3 years after a long and expensive hearing, no tolerances have been announced: Be it Resolved, That the Pacific branch of the Entomological Society of America in business session on this 25th of June 1953, urges upon all appropriate agencies and authorities that this unsatisfactory condition be improved as speedily as possible by the adoption of laws or regulations which will provide for any interested party to petition for the establishment of a tolerance for a pesticide chemical, for the Secretary of Agriculture to certify regarding its usefulness for the specified purpose, for the securing of impartial advice from experts in the subject matter, and for the prompt issuance of a tolerance, with the right of any interested party to file objections and to have recourse to the established courts. C. C. CASSILL. L. CHILDS. A. B. LEMON. W. M. HOSKINS, Chairman. UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: H. R. 4277, introduced by Representative Miller, of Nebraska, on March 26, 1953, would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in respect to pesticides. We believe it contains features which are desirable from the standpoint of fruit and vegetable growers who must use chemicals to control insects and plant diseases, and, to a lesser extent, to kill weeds. Pesticides are used by fruit and vegetable growers as a matter of necessity, not choice. Without these chemicals, adequate supplies of fruits and vegetables could not be produced. This situation differs from that in which chemicals are added to food to preserve it or enhance its flavor, and is very different from any situation in the cosmetics field. Therefore, we believe the proposal to treat pesticides in a separate statute is sound and practical. While the use of pesticides is absolutely necessary, it is no less essential that the public health be adequately safeguarded. In this respect we believe the bill is a step forward. Under its provisions, no new pesticide may be used before it has been proved safe. Any person applying under existing law to register a pesticide with the United States Department of Agriculture, may file with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare a petition asking for a regulation to establish a tolerance for the chemical. Certain necessary information must be furnished by the claimant. Within 90 days, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would be required to establish the tolerance, exempt the product from tolerance, or refer the matter to an advisory committee. The advisory committee shall be composed of experts, "particularly qualified in the specific subject matter of the petition." It is made up of an equal number selected by the Secretary, by the petitioner, and by the chairman of the food protection committee of the National Research Council Specific time limits for their action are prescribed. We believe this proposed system provides for a competent appraisal of the toxicity of any pesticide, and that it should adequately protect the public health. There is, moreover, a further provision for a method of court review whereby, if necessary, the findings of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in connection with a tolerance can be judicially evaluated. This seems fair and equitable. The question as to whether the use of a pesticide is necessary is settled by the requirement that this fact be certified by the Secretary of Agriculture. Such certification would be done by him under the established procedure of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act at the time the proponent of the chemical files an application for its registration under that law. As you know, this organization is a national trade association, with headquarters in Washington, D. C. It has approximately 3,000 members who reside in all the States and who are engaged in growing, packing, shipping, and distributing all fresh fruits and vegetables. For the reasons enumerated herein, we recommend the enactment of H. R. 4217, and shall appreciate the inclusion of this letter as a part of your committee's record thereon. Sincerely, C. W. KITCHEN, Executive Vice President. MEMORANDUM ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 4277, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF PESTICIDAL CHEMICALS IN FOODSTUFFS, BY GEORGE L. McNEW, BOYCE THOMPSON INSTITUTE FOR PLANT RESEARCH, INC., YONKERS 3, N. Y., JULY 8, 1953 House Resolution 4277, introduced to the 83d Congress by the Honorable Mr. Miller on March 26, 1953, is a logical solution to the public need for new laws regulating the introduction and use of new pesticides. Its logic is so overwhelming that it deserves the support of the general public, the agriculturists, and members of the chemical industry. Its first asset is that it distinctly differentiates between the intentional additives which are added to foods in prescribed quantities to change their physical, nutritional, processing, or storage properties, and the incidental additives, such as pesticides, that occur fortuitously as a result of indispensable treatments in producing the crop. The intentional additives are used under such conditions that their maximum amount can be prescribed much as for a pharmaceutical or therapeutic chemical. If they serve no substantial function they can be omitted. Many of them are relatively inert to biological systems and can be used safely in relatively high concentrations. The pesticides, on the other hand, are selected primarily because of their biological activities and must be considered potentially poisonous to warm-blooded animals until proved otherwise. The hazard from their use on food crops and animal life, however, can be reduced to negligible proportions by exercising proper precautions. The primary factor in protecting health rests in education of those who apply the materials. If those who use these materials apply them in the proper concentration at the appropriate time and in suitable formulations, very little residue, if any, will remain on the finished food product. The establishment of reasonable tolerances and enforcement of the same as prescribed in H. R. 4277 is the logical answer to safe use of pesticides. The second attribute of H. R. 4277 is that it assigns essential functions to the appropriate Government agencies. The potential usefulness of a material is to be accertained by the United States Department of Agriculture, which has the qualified experts to pass upon the value of a material before it is registered. The responsibilities for establishing tolerances and policing them reside with the Food and Drug Administration. Although the writer believes that establishment of tolerances might be better assigned to the Public Health Service, and thereby leave the Food and Drug Administration free to spend all its time enforcing tolerances, the proposed arrangement is not without its merits. The FDA is competent and can handle both the establishment and enforcement of tolerances. The third commendable and essential attribute is that the petitioning company is to submit toxicological data when requesting registration and a precise procedure for evaluating toxicity and establishing tolerances is established. One of the great handicaps imposed on agriculture and industry under the existing regulations is that procedures were not clearly defined and were conducive to protracted delay in establishing tolerances. The proposed law establishes machinery for assuring toxicity tests before the material is used commercially. The fourth, and to me a very essential, feature of the bill is that it provides for provisional tolerances while materials are under limited registration for field evaluation. Many agricultural scientists in State and Federal institutions have been seriously concerned that legislation might be so restrictive that it would seriously handicap research and field evaluation. If all toxicological tests had to be completed before the materials were submitted to large-scale testing under practical conditions, industry would have been discouraged from initiating research programs. Too many materials fail at this stage of development to justify prolonged feeding tests before tests on effectiveness are begun. This would have been a most unfortunate development, since there still is great need for new, better, and more diversified pesticides in spite of all the progress made in the past 15 years. Finally, H. R. 4277 provides a relatively simple and direct procedure for handling grievances between petitioners and Government agencies according to long established procedures. The courts are to serve judiciously without bias from previous administrative decisions. This permits recourse to the courts, with its legal binding effect, which should be more satisfactory than the informal liaison understandings so often used in recent years. The only feature of the bill that obviously may offer future difficulty is the proposed committee of disinterested experts to be appointed by the Administrator (sec. 407 (g), on p. 7, lines 1 to 22). Such an advisory committee can serve many useful functions and help interpret debatable data for petitioners and enforcing agencies, and thereby avoid recourse to the courts later on. However, the appointment of such special committees presents a definite problem. The food protection Committee of the National Research Council has no continuing program and may be terminated on a year's notice. The committee may very well feel that it should not participate in quasi-judicial affairs, since it has announced its intention to remain as aloof as possible from direct controversies on chemical additives in foods. It might be more appropriate, if this section is to be retained, to have nominees to the committee to be named by the National Research Council itself, since this is an established perpetuating body. The council could refer such requests to its food protection committee if it saw fit. If the food protection committee was no longer in operation, direct nominations could be made from the council or the chairman of either its food and nutrition board or the agricultural board. The proposed legislation appears to provide definite protection to the public without unnecessarily penalizing initiative, inventiveness, and commercial development. We see no reason why it should not operate smoothly, provided proper liaison is maintained between the agencies responsible for registering new material and those responsible for establishing and enforcing tolerances. FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Re H. R. 4277-New Miller bill Hon. CHARLES WOLVERTON, Chairman, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: We understand that hearings are scheduled by your committee on the above-mentioned bill for July 14, 1953, at 10 a. m. Since we are unable to attend, we wish to present the following statement in support of the bill: We believe it is sound in dealing with pesticides per se as separate from chemicals in cosmetics and as additives. We believe that it will provide means for clarifying and definitizing status quo of all concerned and their products. We believe that it tends to more clearly specify the duties and responsibilities of the two major United States offices having to do with the general subject, as per the bill; each in its respective fields, and with practical liaison and coordination between them, that much good should result. We believe that this good should come to the public as a whole whether as taxpayers; consumers or producers of agricultural items; or whether as users or manufacturers of pesticides. We feel that the provision for setting up impartial panels of qualified persons is a desirable approach to any questions or differences that might arise from time to time. As to economic importance of agricultural crops produced in Florida in connection with which pesticides are of primary importance: published reports of the Florida State Marketing Bureau show total annual value of approximately $600 million. While practically all depend on pesticides to some extent, it is significant that horticultural crops represent approximately two-thirds of the total value of agricultural crops produced in Florida; and the use of pesticides is of primary importance to the production of these horticultural crops. We understand that Director Willard Fifield, of the Florida agricultural experiment stations, expects to attend your committee hearings and appear as a witness. We have great confidence in Director Fifield's knowledge of the subject and his ability to speak for Florida agricultural interests, including research and other public agencies; manufacturers and users of pesticides. Our statement is made in behalf of both cooperative and commercial manufacturers of pesticides that are members of this organization. Respectfully, FRANK L. HOLLAND, Manager. Hon. CHARLES WOLVERTON, FLORIDA CITRUS COMMISSION, STATE OF FLORIDA, Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. 0. DEAR SIR: The Florida Citrus Commission respectfully requests that the following statement be placed in the record of your committee hearing on H. R. 4277, also known as the new Miller bill: "The Florida Citrus Commission is an agency of the State of Florida and as such represents all portions of the citrus industry in Florida. This industry produced over 111 million boxes of oranges, grapefruit, and tangerines during the past season, about 68 percent of total United States production. "The Florida Citrus Commission favors in principle H. R. 4277, and has publicly adopted the following resolution: "Be it resolved by the Florida Citrus Commission in open meeting held on June 3, 1953, That it go on record as approving in principle the purposes and contents of H. R. 4277, popularly called the new Miller bill, and its companion bill S. 1542 introduced in the Senate by Senator Aiken; and it is further 66 'Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to prepare a proper form of this resolution and transmit copies of same to the Florida congressional delegates, to Representative Miller and to Senator Aiken.'" Respectfully yours, ROBERT C. EVANS, STATEMENT OF ERNEST FALK ON H. R. 4277, MILLER BILL, GOVERNING PESTICIDE CHEMICALS, JULY 10, 1953 I am the manager of the Northwest Horticultural Council, with offices at 704 Larson Building, Yakima, Wash. The council is composed of the following organizations of fruitgrowers and shippers in Washington and Oregon: Washington State Apple Commission Rogue River Valley Traffic Association The Washington State Apple Commission represents all commercial apple growers in the State of Washington. The Winter Pear Control Committee represents all commercial winter pear growers in the States of Washington and Oregon. The four Traffic Associations are composed of growers, packers, marketers, and shippers of deciduous fruits in their respective districts. Thus, the council represents the growers of practically 100 percent of the apples and in excess of 90 percent of other deciduous fruits grown commercially in the 2 States. There are more than 9,000 growers in the area. These growers annually produce in excess of 25 million boxes of apples and 42 million boxes of winter pears. Annual production of Bartlett pears ranges from 150,000 to 200,000 tons which are utilized both for fresh consumption and for canning; this is equal to approximately 71⁄2 million boxes. Our growers also annually produce several million boxes of cherries, apricots, prunes, and peaches which are sold for both fresh consumption and for canning. Without efficient pesticides, the industry could not survive. Therefore, the Miller bill and its reasonable enforcement is vital to our fruitgrowers. The fruitgrowers in the Northwest recognize the necessity for rules and regulations which prohibit the unrestricted use of any and all pesticides. Of necessity, the public health must be protected. Regulations and tolerances must be intelligently prescribed and administered to protect the public health without unnecessary hardship on the fruitgrowers. In the past, officials of Food and Drug Administration have established tolerances which were neither reasonable nor practicable and under which the industry could not live. Tolerances were fixed far below any possible danger point, thereby inflicting an unnecessarily severe and impossible burden on fruitgrowers. For example, the tolerance for fluorine was originally fixed at 0.01 grain per pound and was ultimately increased to 0.05 grain per pound, without the slight |