Document 2qvjkYgx1kQkLejRaQKKdE9rg

A Closer Look At The Pesticide Question For Those Who Want The 1 A Closer Look At The Pesticide Question In the minds of pesticide users-- the farmer, the forester, the home gardener-- there is no question about the utility of pesticidal products. We need them in America if we are to continue to feed our own expanding population, let alone millions of less fortunate people in developing nations where starvation is still a frightening reality. We need insecticides to protect our forests from destructive beetles and caterpillars, our homes from ants and termites, our stored foods from a myriad of pests. We need herbicides to reduce the cost of agricultural crops, to renew grass cover on our prairies, to restore the flow of water in once-dry creek beds, to improve the shrinking habitat of our nation's wildlife-- to enhance the quality of our environment. ike many other useful products, pesticides can be hazardous. Fortunately the hazards created by their use can be quantified and evaluated; unfortunately, our lawmakers and the general public, depending on newspapers, magazines and television for most information on current problems, are seldom given quantita tive data on many essential applications of pesticides. The media are expected to keep us informed on subjects involving the public welfare, and we believe they try to do just that. But good news makes bad copy and cold statistics have little news value. In a matter as serious as human survival, however, it can be dangerous to misinform the public and the lawmakers by repeating unsubstantiated claims or by distributing the unsubstantial fruits of wishful thinking. This booklet attempts to publicize some of the less-known facts about pesticides and their uses-- not with bare claims, but with quantitative data from respected impartial sources. It must not be assumed that the use of quotations from writings of leading environmentalists implies their endorsement of our principal theme. We sincerely hope, however, that all readers, even those presently opposed to the use of pesticides, will give the data presented here their thoughtful consideration. -- ! 2 3 "We know that the white man does not understand our ways. ,One portion of the land is the same to him as the next for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. ,The earth is not his brother but his enemy and when he has conquered it he moves on." Chief Seattle addressing President Pierce, as quoted by John Strohm in National Wildlife. T he chief was right of course. In our relatively brief residence in the New World, we have changed the face of the land: we have leveled hills, drained wetlands, straightened wild rivers, removed vast tracts of virgin timber, creating conditions that have led to soil erosion, drought, and even dust storms. The growth of industry and new technologies have provided weapons to acceler ate the attack. Over the years, careless exploitation of the land, prodigal waste of its natural resources, together with the pressures of a burgeoning population, have contributed to the current environ mental crisis. Now we are all learning to accept the earth as our brother. We no longer speak of "taming the wilderness" or "conquering nature." And technological man knows that he must be his brother's keeper. In the words of Senator Henry Jackson writing in 1973, "A new age is dawning. . . . It is the Age of Environment which has pricked America's collective conscience and triggered far-reaching action on many fronts." It is too late, however, to let nature take its course. The mass application of modern technology without sufficient knowledge and coordinated planning has visibly wounded the natural systems. But the wounds are too deep to mend themselves. We are committed to the continued use of the best remedies science and technology can devise, and we must use them wisely, with adequate understanding of the possible consequences. 4 Is It Safe To Eat Or Drink Anything? The world is becoming so over crowded it is already hard to find clean air to breathe and pure water to drink. The Clean Air Act of 1970 has done some good, but the program is behind schedule. Water cleanup has begun, but we still have a long way to go. Ac cording to the National Wildlife Federation, "Conceivably, noth ing less than an effort comparable to the space program will turn the situation around." At the same time, human en croachment continues to reduce wildlife habitat to such an extent that nearly 24,000 species of plants and animals may soon be placed on the endangered species list for lack of adequate cover, water and food. We hear or read almost daily of the dangers of cancer, species mutations and birth defects caused by food additives and farm chemicals -- especially insec ticides and herbicides. W e Americans are deeply concerned about these reports and worried about th future. Assailed as we are by dire predictions of a dismal future or even of the imminent destruction of our great water planet, many Americans may be convinced that the good life we have known is doomed. We tend to worry about whether we and our children will be able to sur vive in the artificial environment science and technology have been creating. What has happened to science and technology? Have they lost the ability to protect us from dis ease and ward off threats to our environment? We think not. Chemicals, properly used, are our most valuable tools for water puri fication and many methods of pollution abatement. Toxic substances released pur posely or inadvertently into lakes and streams, or belched into the atmosphere from chimneys and smokestacks have done fearsome damage to our surroundings and to animal and human health, and only in the past few years have environmental stewards begun to succeed in checking or even re versing the decay. L ik ^ n a n ^ th e j^ Jjg jju g g ^ ro d ucts, pesticides-areJimcJ^ntthpv ^e^^^ied sp ary^gj^t^^^^S ? ,,targets under precisely controlled cond itioS]^^^^^^^^ya2jdenced workers andLalmost_invari^^Wincon^li^r^^jli^Ji gfl^gn m en ^iro v s^^j2gjfications. Thus the American public is protected. If you thoughtfully examine the evidence provided here, we be lieve you will agree that Amer icans risk greater dangers from the possible reduction of our arse nal of pesticides than we do from their continued use. b 7 Cancer-For Some Types, The Rate Is Declining First of all, let us state a significant o th e r s . The m o st d ra m a tic fact about cancer-- it is predomi changes are the nearly twenty nantly a disease of old age. If fold increase in lung cancer for people or animals are kept alive males, and a two-thirds decrease of long enough, their chances of suc stomach cancer in both males and cumbing to this disease are sig females" (emphasis added). nificantly increased. "The increase in lung cancer for The American public's preoc males is primarily attributed to cupation with cancer is m ain heavier smoking, coupled with tained by constant reminders in impacts from other environmen the press, on the radio, and on tal pollutants; the stomach cancer television, of the dangers in decline is understood less, but it volved in eating or drinking com may be linked to diet." mon items of diet -- not only Thus we find that our diet, those containing synthetic dyes or w h ich c o n s is ts la rg e ly of sweeteners, but even such good pesticide-protected foods, maybe old favorites as red meats, bacon, linked to a decrease in cancer over and our morning coffee. the past forty-odd years. The most current thorough study of the relation of cancer to the environment is to be found Let us look a bit further. If pesticides were a cancer threat, we should expect to in The Sixth Annual Report of the see the greatest incidence of the ,Council on Environmental Quality disease down on the farm, where published in December, 1975 and pesticide users are regularly ex available from the U. S. Govern- posed and where runoff from * ment- Printing Office. According fields might enter the waterways. to this publication, "Both mor This is not the case. tality data and surveys on inci What does the U. S. Govern dence conducted by the National ment report tell us about geo Cancer Institute point up three graphical factors? "A n alysis trends w ithin the overall in county by county," it says, "re crease -- a rise in cancer for white veals that a majority of the areas of and black m ales, an approx-, high mortality are located in the im ately steady rate for black large cities. For example, the high females, and a decline for white mortality in Illinois reflects rates females. As indicated . . . cancer in the Chicago area." incidence has remained relatively O ften, exp ert op in ion is uniform for some body sites since abused. For example, in October, 1930 but has changed markedly for 1975, a major television network I 8 Rate per 100,000 population Cancer M ortality Rates, by Site and Sex, 1930-70 (age-adjusted to U.5. 1940 population) Male Female Source: David L. Levin, et al., Cancer Rates and Risks, DHEW Publications, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974, as quoted in Sixth Annual Report. broadcast a special program titled "The American Way of Cancer." The participants were for the most part knowledgeable scientists, and official sanction was implied by the presence of an expert on additives from the EPA. From such a group one might have ex pected an objective analysis of the problem; unfortunately, they chose to overlook basic data. Only once, for example, was it men tioned in passing that the chances of getting cancer are reduced if one stops smoking. The major thrust of the attack was against (a) pesticides, (b) DES, a synthetic hormone used to increase beef production, (c) sodium nitrite, a food preservative, (d) Red Dye No. 2, a food coloring, (e) PVC, a plastic, (f) asbestos, and (g) vari ous chemicals, including poisons such as arsenic. It was implied that cancer is an increasing prob lem and that these are major sources of that disease. It was also claimed that the United States is number one in cancer, when in fact this country stands about midway among the industrialized nations in cancer incidence. Our present discussion is con fined to pesticides and it is not our intention to discuss hazards aris ing from any other possible sources of cancer. We certainly agree that the public should be protected against exposure to any dangerous chemical, toxic emis sion or industrial waste. The TV documentary, however, was seriously flawed. For in stance, the overall rate for many kinds of cancer has been declining for the past 20 years. Lung cancer Rate per 100,000 population continues to become a more sig nificant threat, yet most of the alleged carcinogens discussed in "The American Way of Cancer" have not been implicated as causative agents of that type of cancer. It would have been more enlightening to reveal that lung cancer has accounted for most of the increase. In late 1975, Accuracy in Media, Inc. received a letter from the American Cancer Society con firming that there has probably been a leveling off, if not a de cline, in cancer in the United States if we exclude lung cancer from the picture. Omission of lung cancer from our present dis cussion is justifiable inasmuch as about 80 percent of such cancers are attributed to smoking by the American Cancer Society; items of diet are not considered a major factor in such cancer. T he use of pesticides has had its greatest increase within the past 25 years. During the same period, the life expectancy of Americans has in creased. In this older population we would naturally expect an in crease in stomach cancer if the increased use of pesticides on crops were implicated. We might also expect a significant increase in female cancer, cancers of the esophagus, and cancers of the ab dominal area and colon, yet the U.S. Government statistics show no such trend. Years O f Life Expected At Birth E MALE FEMALE TOTAL m. 1910 1920 1930 1940 195#- 1^60 1970 1974 Based on Death Registration States 1900-1923, and United States 1930-1974, (1) Provisional. Source: Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, 1974 Data. Of Mice And Men A n important function of the kidneys and liver is to detoxify and eliminate body wastes and foreign materials. These organs are primary defenses against the intrusion of toxic substances and, for this reason, among the first organs to show signs of fatigue when called upon to resist repeated stress from the ingestion, inhalation or skin absorption of poisons. In fact, when they are called upon to eliminate excessive quantities of any sub stance for extended periods of time, they eventually lose their capacity to resist oncogenic (tumor-producing) processes. Many chemicalscan beshown to be carcinogenic, mutagenicor teratogenic (that is, they can cause cancer, hereditary changes or birth defects) in prolonged animal experiments. The actual effect depends in part on the species used for the tests and their life expectancy. Strains of mice and rats used in laboratory experiments are generally chosen for susceptibility to the condition under study, and appear to be more subject to the effects of many chemicals than we are. Being short-lived animals, with a life expectancy of about 2 2 years, they can be exposed constantly in the laboratory to relatively large quantities of toxic materials most of their lives and into relatively old age, when their organs, particularly the kidneys and liver, are least resistant to such insult. Under such conditions, some substances normally considered harmless to people can act as carcinogens (cancer producers) or teratogens (producers of birth defects), possi bly even such common foods as table salt. In the hearings conducted in 1963 by Senator Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut and a Senate subcommittee, Dr. Wayland J. Hayes, Jr., Chief of the Toxicology Section, Technology Branch, of the Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta, testified that one form of cancer, leukemia, has been produced in rats by use of a pure feed. In his own words: "We can synthetically produce leukemia in rats by a special purified diet, which we had wished to use for certain experimental reasons. The leukemia was transmissible from rat to rat The appearance of tumors in rodents that are subjected to large amounts of irritants over a major part of their lives is not surprising. Naturally, such testscan indicate the possibility of producing cancer or birth defects in rodents under extreme conditions; they do not prove that the amounts of such chemicals encountered in the human environment will or can produce cancer or birth defects in people or in other animals. An Exercise In Futility -Zero Tolerance The toxic threshold may be defined as the dose level of a test material below which toxic effects are not observed. This is a useful concept. It has an important practical ap plication when scientists are called upon to assess the risks involved in the use of chemical tools that are considered indis pensable for protecting our for ests, our water resources and our food and fiber supplies. This practical concept, which has been used in the d iscu ssio n of teratogens by the World Health Organization and the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, has been seriously challenged by the opposing concept of zero toler ance, which was given legal status in 1958 by the "Delaney clause" of the U.S. Food and Drug Law. T he proof of zero risk is pat ently impossible, both log ically and scientifically, and strict application of the prin^'iple would impoverish the store of chemical toolsyuiw used in the V ontro^fdan^e^^^^^t^m ^r^ ^nWronm^jiJ^^jT^rovement. As our discussio n progresses, we shall have more to say about the practical limits of testing and the validity of the threshold concept. It is no exaggeration to state that any substance may be toxic at some concentration or in some volume, and that laws requiring proof of absolute freedom from toxicity are pointless. Chemists are now able to detect quantities of toxic materials so minute that their findings may be of little more than academic interest. One part per billion, for example, is equivalent to one minute in 1901 years and one part per trillion to about one minute in 1,901,000 years. James G. Wilson, Children's Hospital Research Foundation and Department of Pediatrics and Ana tomv of the University of Cin cinnati College, states that all chemicals will produce birth de fects when applied at a high en ough rate at the proper stage of development, if they do not kill the mother. The important message is this -- if you eat and drink sensi bly, quit smoking, avoid non-prescribed drugs, and exercise moderately, you will be doing just about everything the normal per son can do to protect your health. Home-grown, tree- or vineripened fruits and vegetables, when available, usually look and taste better than those that are mass-produced, picked green, and shipped from distant sources, but Lher^i^Tc^gg^^aMdiiutM^ and with manure rather tha-a. w jj ^ y n t h e H ^ e r t U i z e r s : those offered by your own grocer are as safe as any in the world. 12 If zero risk were required in the products of all industries, every company manufacturing motor vehicles would be shut down im mediately and permanently, all physicians and surgeons would inevitably be deprived of their tools, and most other tools, ma chinery and chemical agents would be banned. 13 Accidental Poisonings Attributed To Pesticides. PRODUCT GROUP T he hazards involved in the use of pesticides are well recog nized and documented. Like all tools, they must be handled properly to prevent injury to production workers and to farmers, foresters and other users. Pesticides, as commercial poi sons, might be expected to represent a major source of injury. 'Assuming this to be the case, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actually established a pesticide "hotline/' with a tollfree number in Washington to receive reports of pesticide misuse or accidents. According to the EPA, "misuse of pesticides annually injures hundreds of thousands of farm workers and hundreds of these workers die." What are the facts? First, what about the hundreds who allegedly die? According to statistics for the years 1971-73 published by the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, there were 13 fatalities from pesticides in 1971,17 in 1972 and 10 in 1973. Of these, nine were from agricultural herbicides in 1971, five in 1972 and four in 1973. Of course, not all poisonings result in death and not all are accidental. The following two tables prepared by the National Clearinghouse for Poison Control Centers show the incidence of poisonings from various causes. According to the same source, children up to four years of age account for the greatest number of pesticide poisonings. In addition, most reports of ingestion of agricultural pesticides involve insec ticides and rodenticides. Generally the hazard appears to be com parable to that of common household poisons. The greatest hazard is not to the user and not to the innocent bystander, but to children who should not be allowed access to the materials. To a large extent, the problem is to teach people to keep all poisons in their original containers in a safe place out of reach of children and to observe all label precautions. Most farm workers treat pesticides with respect, applying them as directed. Medicines Cleaning & Polishing Agents Petroleum Products Cosmetics Pesticides Gases & Vapors Plants Turpentine, Paints, Etc. Miscellaneous Unknown Total PRODUCT GROUP Medicines Cleaning & Polishing Agents Petroleum Products Cosmetics Pesticides Gases & Vapors Plants Turpentine, Paints, Etc. Miscellaneous Unknown Total 1 \ i (1) Unknown intent; gesture; suicide intent. 14 TABLE 1 -Poisonings -A ll Products By Year And Number Of Incidents ACCIDENTAL 1971 1972 1973 SELF POISONING (1) 1971 1972 1973 1971 OTHER (2) 1972 1973 1971 TOTAL 1972 1973 45,921 54,223 52,206 15,388 19,798 18,601 4,792 5,711 5,739 6,748 9,306 9,327 5,370 6,260 5,958 117 204 162 5,801 6,739 7,599 5,819 7,111 6,680 7,875 10,670 9,746 911 1,411 895 98,742 121,433 116,913 20,953 338 43 52 170 7 45 73 128 746 22,555 20,634 355 56 54 219 28 47 78 188 681 22,340 24,080 357 60 72 208 10 50 89 258 701 25,885 8,298 773 186 115 906 857 469 458 2,008 733 14,803 9,275 1,099 315 105 1,175 1,046 601 562 2,407 900 17,485 11,331 75,172 84,132 87,617 1,250 16,499 21,252 20,208 446 5,021 6,082 6,245 216 6,915 9,465 9,615 1,336 6,446 7,654 7,502 1,113 981 1,278 1,285 813 6,315 .7,387 8,462 827 6,350 7,751 7,596 2,772 10,011 13,265 12,776 692 2,390 2,992 2,288 20,796 136,100 161,258 163,594 TABLE 2 -Poisonings- All Products (Percent Of Annual Total Incidents) ACCIDENTAL 1971 1972 1973 SELF POISONING (1) 1971 1972 1973 OTHER (2) 1971 1972 1973 1971 TOTAL 1972 1973 46.5 15.6 4.9 6.8 5.4 0.1 5.9 5.9 8.0 0.9 100.0 44.8 16.5 4.7 7.8 5.2 0.1 6.4 5.5 8.3 0.7 100.0 44.7 15.9 4.9 8.0 5.1 0.1 6.5 5.7 8.3 0.8 100.0 92.9 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.8 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 3.4 100.0 92.3 1.7 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 3.1 100.0 93.0 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.8 <0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 2.8 100.0 56.1 5.2 1.3 0.8 6.0 5.8 3.2 3.1 13.5 5.0 100.0 53.3 6.2 1.8 0.6 6.7 6.0 3.4 3.1 13.8 5.1 100.0 54.6 5.9 2.2 1.0 6.4 5.4 3.9 4.0 13.3 3.3 100.0 55.1 12.2 3.7 5.2 4.7 0.7 4.6 4.6 7.5 1.7 100.0 52.3 13.3 3.8 6.0 4.7 0.8 4.6 4.8 8.2 1.5 100.0 53.5 12.4 3.8 5.9 4.6 0.8 5.2 4.6 7.8 1.4 100.0 (2) Kick trips; inhalation; unknown; miscellaneous. Source: National Clearinghouse for Poison Control Centers 15 The following table prepared by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) gives the number of deaths by age due to accidental poisoning by pesticides, fertilizers and plant foods. The apparent discrepancies between the following data and those quoted earlier are to be attributed to the varying definitions of what constitutes a pesticide. As in the other charts, the category "pesticides" includes rodenticides. AGE 1970 1971 1972 1973 Under 5 ............................. 14 5 - 1 4 .................................. 6 1 5 - 2 4 .................................. 5 2 5 -4 4 .................................. - 5 4 5 - 6 4 .................................. 4 65 and over ..................... Not Stated ....................... 10 -- Total.................................... 44 14 18 10 7 23 6 45 545 5 44 6 65 -- ---- 43 38 32 The number of deaths due to pesticide poisonings was relatively moderate even before the new generation of pesticides became available and arsenicals were still in common use. Carrying the data back to 1965, we find that the total at that time was 65. In 1946, it was 77. Thus there has been improvement, possibly due to better safety education. I t is to the credit of the EPA that the "hotline" was promptly discontinued and that the exaggerated report of deaths of farm workers was repudiated. The fact that the incident occurred, however, is an indication of how widespread the unreasoning fear of pesticides has become and how easily false information can affect the responses of government agencies. 16 The World Food Crisis It is difficult for the average Amer ican to comprehend the magni tude of the world food crisis. Even in these times of high unemploy ment, poor Americans are far bet ter fed than their counterparts in most of the world. The population of the United States accounts for no more than six percent of the world's human inhabitants, yet this relatively minor group con trols roughly half the income and produces about 60 percent of the food supply. A ccording to Food and Pop ulation: The Next Crisis, by Douglas N . Ross, more than two billion people in the least industrialized regions of South Asia, Central Africa, and South America live at subsistence food levels, and "som e begin nings of mass starvation are likely to appear before 1985 if there are any falterings in crop yields." American agriculture, like that of other technologically advanced nations, has made great strides in productivity over the past 20 or 30 vears. In the United States, mil lions of people have left the farm, yet those remaining have man aged to raise enough food to nour ish a rapidly growing population and export enormous quantities of wheat and other farm c o m modities to less productive areas. The figure on page 17 clearly shows the enormous increase in the American population since 1910, the increase in crop acreage between 1910 and 1930, and the subsequent significant decrease in crop acreage. The figure on page 18 shows the dramatic increase in yields per acre of several crops since approx imately 1940 after many decades of almost constant productivity. In Nairobi, during the third an nual meeting of the United Na tions Environmental Program, one of the delegates asked (per haps rhetorically) whether pesticidal contamination through efforts to grow' more food would be better or worse than malnutri- 17 Effect O f Increased Yields On Ratio O f Crop Acreage H arvested To Population: United States, 1910-70. 250 200 ACRES (MIL) ACRES POPULATION Source: The Food In Your Future, Keith C. Barrons, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975. 150 100 50 Production Per Harvested Acre O f Select Crop Bp Year In The United States (48 States) 18 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics 1972. United States Government Printing Office, 1972. 19 tion due to inadequate food. It is not certain whether his query was motivated by a wish to express traditional conservatism or by a genuine hunger for objective facts. His delegation was from In dia. Indira Gandhi, on the other hand, in the 1975 Book Of The Year of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, wrote: "The scarcity of pesticides may strike developing countries with even more severity than the fertilizer shortage." N aturally the yield revolu tion in the United States cannot be attributed sole ly to the use of pesticides. Credit must also be given to better man agement practices, better fertili zation, genetically improved crop varieties and increased mecha nization. Pesticides, however, are essential to our continued success in increased food production, and probably account for about 20 per cent of the increase since 1940. An executive report to Presi dent Nixon in 1970 stated: "It is believed that one of the most eco nomical and effective ways to fur ther increase the food supply involves more intensive agricul ture on lands already under cultivation. This course probably will necessitate greater use of ag ricultural chemicals. For example, it has b een es tim a te d that the world use of pesticides may need to increase from the 120 thousand metric tons used in 1966 to 700,000 metric tons to double food production." Estimates based on current usage of phenoxies suggest that banning these herbicides alone might result in a loss of 290 mil- 20 lion dollars a year in farm produc tion, even at 1970 prices. Labor requirements would possibly be increased by 20 million m an hours, and 5.7 million acres now in use for recreation or wildlife habitat might have to be put back into food production. American farmers would cer tainly forego the sizeable outlay of funds for pesticides if they dared. They realize, however, that the output of their farms without pesticides would be reduced im mediately by about 25 percent and the price of their products in creased some 50 percent. It is esti mated that American farmers spent nearly three billion dollars in 1974 for pesticides and their application-- a tremendous sum, but a necessary expenditure. In spite of an increase of some 42 percent in food prices in the United States between 1972 and 1975, the percentage of income spent on food has been estimated to be lower in 1975 than it was in 1930. Between I960 and 1973, the percentage dropped from 20 per cent to an estimated 16.4 percent. Inflation has taken its toll dur ing the past few years, but the overall record is a good one, made possible only by the efficiencies of modern agricultural methods, in creased materials costs due to overregulation and the depletion of the farmer's arsenal of agri cultural tools, particularly pesti cides, would certainly change that record drastically. Worse vet, the next food crisis could be our own. The question could well be: "Which 50 million Americans will suffer or die of malnutrition?" Food Expenditures And Income Trends, 1960-73 YEAR 1960 ................. 1 9 6 1 ................. 1962 ................. 1963 ................. 1964 ................. 1965 ................. 1966 ................. 1967 ................. 1968 ................. 1969 ................. 1970 ................. 1 9 7 1 ................. 1972 ................. 19732 ................. INDEX, 1960 = 100 Disposable Personal Income Food Expenditures1 Food Expenditure; as Percentage of Income 100.0 104.1 110.1 115.6 125.2 135.2 146.2 156.1 168.8 181.2 197.6 213.1 227.7 251.1 100.0 102.8 106.1 109.1 114.9 122.4 131.2 134.0 142.3 148.5 159.9 167.6 178.3 205.0 20.0 19.8 19.3 18.9 18.4 18.1 18.0 17.2 16.9 16.4 16.2 15.7 15.7 16.4 ' Excluding alcoholic beverages. Source: Handbook of Agricultural Charts. 2Estimated. Based on data of Department of Commerce. 21 The 2,4,5-T Rumble - What Is It All About? Few herbicides have been as highly praised or thoroughly maligned as 2,4,5-T. The phenoxy herbicides, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, which have been widely used for some 25 years, are two of the most highly respected, trusted tools of the farmer and forester. Their use was never seriously challenged until the U. S. forces in Vietnam began defoliating the jungles with Agent Orange, a herbicidal mixture containing 2,4,5-T. Suddenly, in newspapers and magazines and on the air, the familiar farm chemical 2,4,5-T was being denounced as a war material, dangerous to man and beast-- a destroyer of wood lands and a threat to humanity that probably caused abortions and birth defects, possibly even cancer. F or example, in September 1974, the Moscow correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, after interviewing a North Vietnamese doctor, wrote a scathing denunciation of the herbicide, which began: "While American authorities continue to debate whether the chemical herbicide 2,4,5-T is too deadly to use, hundreds of Viet namese are developing liver cancer almost certainly as a result of the defoliant's widespread use in Indo-China for a decade." Science magazine reported that Vietnamese mothers were giving birth to monstrous babies and that many mothers had to be deliberately aborted of the "bundle-like" fetuses to avoid bleeding to death. Many newspapers have carried emotion-charged reports charac terizing brush .control with 2,4,5-T by the U. S. Forest Service as "biological warfare." These charges against 2,4,5-T, and others too numerous to report here, have been given wide publicity. Less well-known are the results of investigations reported in 1975 by a task force created by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, a taxexempt national organization composed of 15 scientific societies related to agriculture and forestry. The report of this task force offered the following conclusions: "The committee could find no conclusive evidence of association between exposure to herbicides and birth defects in humans. "Claims that the herbicides have rendered the soil permanently sterile; that is, unfit for any plant growth are not supported by chemical and biological studies of herbicide persistence in the soils of South Viet nam and are contrary to worldwide experience with the herbicides used. 22 "The safe and effective use of herbicides on agricultural forest and .industrial lands in the United States has been amply demonstrated "The atypical military usage in South Vietnam has no relation to, and no bearing on, the peaceful uses of herbicides in the United States and throughout the world." The National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the Con gress also conducted a study on the effect of herbicides in South : Vietnam. The committee consisted of17 scientists from six countries, representing a broad spectrum of disciplines. This committee found no damage to soils. There were herbicide traces in the soil, but not sufficient to retard plant growth. They estimated that cultivated areas on which crops had been destroyed could be replanted within one year. It was also concluded that the death of vegetation has not had lasting effects on plant nutrients within the ecosystem, with the possible exception of potassium. The NAS study group also found no evidence of soil hardening serious enough to render the areas barren. And, in their words, 'T he Committee could find no conclu sive evidence of association between exposure to herbicides and birth defects in humans/' According to Dr. Boysie E. Day, Professor of Plant Physiology at the University of California, Berkeley, scientists are " in general agreement that 2,4,5-T is a plant killer, not an animal killer." According to Dr. Day, 2,4,5-T has less potential for causing birth defects than such everyday chemicals as aspirin, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, and common table salt. Speaking at the 27th annual California Weed Council, Dr. Day stated, "After five years of agonizing, over 2,4,5-T, the EPA has withdrawn all proceedings against this cormpound. The EPA is right about this. They have seen the scientific evidence for this move, but they are taking terrific abuse from uninformed people." According to Dr. R. G. Harvey, University of Wisconsin agrono mist, there is an 8000-fold safety factor in normal use of 2,4,5-T over the amount necessary to cause embryonic effects in rats. If a 130-lb woman ate 3.3 lbs of food every day that contained 0.2 parts per million of 2,4,5-T, her total consumption would be 0.3 mg/day, which is more than 8000 times less than the levels shown to cause birth defects in six animal species, including rats, mice, sheep and monkeys. The average woman is not likely to encounter the her bicide in her diet in any amount, even occasionally. And if by some rare chance she came into contact with traces of 2,4,5-T, it is unlikely that they would amount to as much as 0.2 parts per million. A survey of food samples collected over a period of 13 years showed only three samples that contained any traces of the herbicide. In those three, the levels were 0.001,0.008 and 0.19 parts per million. The 8000-fold safety factor is obviously conservative. Referring to silvex or 2,4,5- 7 23 TP, a relative of 2,4,5-T also containing dioxin, Dr. Harvey stated that the 130-lb woman would have to drink 48,000 gallons a day of the material as applied to get the minimal effect. Actually 2,4,5-T itself is not a particularly hazardous herbicide. The great controversy rages over the presence of minute traces of a very toxic chemical, 2,3,7,8-tetrachIorodibenzo-p-dioxin, better known as TCDD, or simply dioxin, an impurity formed in the process of manufacturing the herbicide. The average amount of dioxin in Agent Orange, as used by the U. S. Air Force, was approximately 1.91 parts per million on a weight basis. By contrast, the dioxin content of the farm herbicide currently used is much lower. A 1975 survey of ten lots of a commercial formulation containing 2,4,5-T showed dioxin contents in 9 samples ranging from 0.01 to 0.02 parts per million. The content of the tenth was 0.04 parts per million. We have noted that Agent Orange, which was literally dumped on Vietnam, has not been implicated in any observed cases of cancer or birth defects by the scientific task force investigating its use. Unlike the Air Force chemical, the farm herbicide, 2,4,5-T, is used carefully in limited controlled quantities and in accordance with EPA-approved label instructions. According to Dr. Philip C. Kearney, Laboratory Chief, Pesticide Degradation Laboratory, Agricultural Environmental Quality In stitute at Beltsville, Maryland, whose laboratory received the USDA Superior Service Award in 1974 for dioxin research, science knows the following about dioxin in the environment: "TCDD does not leach vertically in soils/' "Significant amounts of TCDD are not taken up by plants and none could be found in harvested grain or soybeans." "TCDD disappears slowly from soils and about half is lost after 1 year. It is less persistent than most chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, but more persistent than 2,4,5-T." "TCDD is not translocated from the point of application on the leaf surface to other parts of the plant. Some of it is washed off with rainwater. " "TCDD destruction may be caused by sunlight in water, but not on soil surfaces." "TCDD is not made from the breakdown products of 2,4,5-T in soils or in sunlight." "Large amounts of TCDD fed in animals' diet can be eliminated in the urine and feces, although there are some residues in the liver." "TCDD was accumulated from water by fish in laboratory studies. Recent field monitoring data suggests this may not be a problem." S tated briefly, TCDD (dioxin) is not likely to accumulate in the soil. Moreover, the herbicide, 2,4,5-T, does not create further quantities of dioxin as it decomposes. Most scientists believe (and Dr. Kearney is apparently one of that number) that 2,4,5-T can be used safely with dioxin contents as high as 0.1 part per million, a much higher rate than that found in commercial formulations as they are currently applied. 25 False Rumors Never Die -They Don't Even Fade Away D espite the weight of evidence to the contrary, the shrillest opponents of 2,4,5-T still claim that it was developed as a weapon of war, that its impurities are building up in the environment and slowly poisoning the population, that it provokes cancer and birth defects, that it is little used by farmers, and that its social values are slight compared to its hazards. These charges are heard again and again at hearings, principally in the testimony of laymen. The attackers choose to ignore the herbicide's extensive use in agriculture and forestry for more than a quarter of a century; they misquote government reports to alarm the public about the increase in cancer, failing to acknowledge that the major increase is in lung cancer and that rural dwellers are generally less subject to cancer than city dwellers are. They also spread unfounded allegations of human poisonings and birth defects which, without evidence, they at tribute to the use of 2,4,5-T. New horror stories appear from time to time, make the rounds of the newspapers and some magazines, achieve wide publicity and leave poisonous residues that build up and persist in the public's mind long after belated publication of the retractions and corrections. For example, in late 1974, spectacular news stories appeared in many papers denouncing the herbicide 2,4,5-T as the source of dioxin which was implicated in human poisonings and in the deaths of 63 horses, 12 cats, 5 dogs, and hundreds of wild birds in eastern Missouri. Bold, strident headlines denounced the herbicide, and the most spectacular of the reports rehearsed many of the familiar but unjustified charges against 2,4,5-T. But it was eventually discovered, long after these inflammatory accusations had made their rounds, that the dioxin in question had been released in relatively high concentrations, not from the use of a herbicide, but as a contaminant in waste oil that had been spread on three horse arenas and one road in 1971 to control dust. Nor were herbicides even the original source of the poison: it had been created as an impurity in the production of hexachlorophene, a chemical formerly used as an antibacterial cleanser. But one of the most damaging reports arose in 1975 from the premature publication of inaccurate test results by the EPA itself, although in the past that agency consistently resisted efforts by opponents of 2,4,5-T to ban the herbicide. This unfortunate an nouncement was prompted by a letter from 21 congressmen to the i EPA Administrator urging that use of 2,4,5-T be suspended or that hearings be resumed. In the words of the congressional group, "the risk to public health from the use of 2,4,5-T on rice is unequivocally greater than any social value derived from such u se/' The reference to rice is surprising, since water and fish from a reservoir in Arkansas, in which irrigation water is collected from rice fields protected for 20 years with 2,4,5-T, have been tested by use of the most refined and sensitive equipment currently available and found to contain no traces of dioxin, even though the average detection limit is below 10 parts per trillion. The EPA responded to the congressm en by reporting incomplete results of residue tests on beef fat samples from cattle grazed on rangeland that had been treated with 2,4,5-T. The EPA noted that 34 of 100 beef fat samples had been analyzed and that about one-half of the 34 showed positive dioxin residues. In a memorandum to the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs, the agency wrote that the dioxin residues in about onehalf of the 34 samples "m ay be above the normal margin of safe dietary exposure." The memo.further explained that "studies in cluding teratogenic and other toxicity effects indicate" that these levels "may present a health hazard to man based on the application of normal margins of safety." This message was promptly picked up and reported throughout the country: "EPA has found unsafe levels of TCDD in half of beef fat samples derived from cattle grazed on rangeland previously treated with the herbicide 2,4,5-T." Opponents of the pesticide naturally enlarged upon this damaging statement. The truth is that the material was not properly identified, since the equipment used in these preliminary analyses was limited in its ability to discriminate among the various components being stud ied. In chemical analysis, such indefinite readings are commonly referred to as "noise" or "background." Subsequent studies using the technique of high-re solution mass spectrometry have disproved these erroneous allegations. At the present writing, 90 percent of the samples have been thoroughly studied without any finding of dioxin content. EPA scientists agree. The remaining ten percent cannot be proven to have a dioxin content. But, when all the facts are in, it will be difficult to undo the damage created by the erroneous reports. Another false report was put into circulation in February and March 1976 in testimony before the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the Minnesota House of Representatives by supporters of a bill to ban the use of 2,4,5-T in that state, who stated that the herbicide is already banned in British Columbia. This statement has been contradicted by Dr. Alexander B. Morrison, Director of Health Protection in Canada. Dr. Morrison, who de- 26 r 27 scribed the hazard from 2,4,5-T as unbelievably low, stated that the production and sale of 2,4,5-T in Canada is permissible with a maximum dioxin content of 0.1 part per million, the same limit that is in effect in the United States. "I believe/' he said, "that there is not the slightest evidence that the dioxin content of 2,4,5-T preparations available for sale in this country has caused the slightest bit of harm. There's just not any evidence of that at all. "If we were to go back and accept discredited American work, which we're not prepared to do, but if we did that and took the level of 20 parts per trillion in animal fat, as the Americans thought they had, we would find that in order to achieve a teratogenic dose you would have to eat a thousand pounds of fat a day. "Now that represents in turn about 10 steers. So, ifyoucaneatlO steers a day you might get enough dioxin to give you a teratogenic dose. You'll die long before the teratogen gets to you if you try and eat 5,000 pounds of beef a day." Enough said about 2,4,5-T. The story of this one herbicide has been given in some detail because it is under severe attack now. Loss of such herbicides to the farmer and the forester through misunder standing of their value and their hazards, would be a great loss to the public. Saving The Environment S cien ce Holds The Key "We are today w itn e ssin g the inevitable im p act o f the tidal w ave created by the scientific revolution m ore than a ce n tu ry old. It is s im p ly too late to declare a m oratoriu m on th e p ro gre ss o f scien ce. " T h e real question is not whether we sh o u ld use ou r n e w kno w le d ge , but how to use it . " Barry Commoner, Science In Survival 29 ^ Herbicides Help Reduce Erosion, Conserve Water; And Improve Wildlife Habitat u )ov-\c( v>i\VW Z* c3rv | Bulldozing and earthmoving can contribute to erosion. Brush that crowds in and takes over the open spaces is of little value since it has limited ability to anchor the soil; in fact, many sp ecies, such as mesquite, are almost as efficient as blotters in robbing the soil of moisture and nutrients. The best protection against erosion is a good thatch of grass, which can be established without difficulty when selective herbicides are used properly for brush control. In the southwest, vast areas have been returned to native grasses " as high as a horse's belly," where mesquite and other undesirable brush, seeded long ago in the ma nure of cattle and droppings of birds, or sprouted from fence posts, had formerly grown un wanted but unchecked. In the re gion between the Rocky Moun tains and the Sierras, similar re sults have been obtained by eliminating sage and chaparral. In both areas the result has been to return the land to its original con dition after long years of misuse. I n West Texas, a 20-mile-long stream, Rocky Creek, which had dried up early in the 1930's was recently restored to life by cutting brush and spraying 2,4,5-T herbicide. This is not sur prising. People in various coun tries who are concerned with water conservation and water shed management have long ap preciated the importance of chem ical brush control in pro grams to increase available sur face and ground waters. Why is a large pine forest so quiet? Possibly because its carpet of needles and the overtopping shade provide too sterile an en vironment for many animals. En lightened wildlife management people provide clearings in both pine and hardwood forests, where deer, rabbits and other ani mals can find browse. The least disruptive way to accomplish this is to use herbicides. Such clear ings have been created suc cessfully in northern Wisconsin, for example, by Department of Natural Resources crews using TORDON Rbrush killer. Firebreaks must be maintained to control forest fires, and rightof-w ay areas must be kept cleared. Long experience has shown that chemical control of vegetation in right-of-way cor ridors and firebreaks is the most effectiv e way to prevent re growth. Chemical control also re duces the need for repeated mechanical disturbance of the soil: the result is far less erosion. By selective spraying, leaving low desirable shrubs such as rhodo dendron and berry bushes, rightof-way areas have been made at tractive to deer and other wildlife. In Pennsylvania, a 15-year study on a utility right-of-way showed that the sprayed area was taken over by original ground cover plants such as bracken, sedges, herbs and blueberry. These studies, which were re ported in 1967 in the Purdue Uni versity Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin, also in dicated that rabbits, grouse and wild turkeys actually preferred the sprayed corridor to the adja cent woods. Summarizing five-year find ings on stump control in which fenuron and 2,4,5-T were used following timber clearcutting, Dr. Robert Shipman of Pennsylvania State University reported that no harmful effects had been o b served on non-target organisms such as insects, wildlife and man. The treatment improved tree re production and increased the availability of browse for deer. According to Lancaster Farming, January 25, 1975, "Soil organic matter, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus increased during the five-year period. The findings in dicated that nutrients are recycled rapidly in cutover mixed oakhickory stands. Concern over de terioration of the forest eco system from a n u trien t-lo ss standpoint was minimal under these soil and site conditions." Properly used in forestry, her bicides can help restore America's natural resources. The increased food production resulting from their use on farms also permits reforestation of land that other wise would be cultivated for food production in a hungry world. 30 31 Regulation And The Danger Of Overregulation " K now ledge w ill forever govern ignorance, and a people that m ean to be their o w n go ve rn o rs m ust arm them selves w ith the pow er that know ledge b rin g s/ ' James Madison It would appear obvious from the evidence just presented that insecticides and herbicides, properly used, are not among the most hazardous elements of our environment. Medicines, motor cars, machinery of every description, all present greater threats to our lives and well-being. This is not due to any virtue of the pesticides themselves, but rather to the care used in their production, distribu tion and use. Environmental awareness in the 1960/s produced a spate of new laws along with agencies committed to their enforcement. On the whole, the laws and agencies, including the Environmen tal Protection Agency, can serve the public well. It is doubtful whether further complications and red tape will improve perform ance. On the other hand, it can be demonstrated that revisions and restrictions requiring further expenditures of time and money would not only discourage the development of new, sorely needed products, but would increase the ultimate cost of pesticides to the farmer, forester and homeowner, and the prices of foods and other commodities in the marketplace. A Brief History Of Regulation P esticides have been under government regulation since 1910, following enactment of the Federal Insecticide Act, which was administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). With the revised Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, accountability was shifted to the Food and Drug Administra tion, and that agency was made responsible for testing materials to prove them "poisonous or deleterious" to the satisfaction of the court when action was desired to remove them from the market. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), enacted in1947, extended the scope of the 1910 act to include rodenticides and herbicides. Premarketing registration was required for products to be shipped interstate, and a system of label claims and registration was established. The act was enforced by the USDA. In 1954, The Pesticide Chemicals Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act provided for a system of fees to support the procedures involved and established better procedures for obtaining tolerances to be used in determining possible exemptions for pesticides. It was administered by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The Food Additive Amendment of 1958 expressly excluded pesticidal chemicals, pesticidal residues on crops and in processed foods when such residues had resulted from legal uses of pesticides on crops. This amendment included the "Delaney clause" on carcinogens, which stated that no additive shall be deemed safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animals. The Federal Environmental pesticide Control Act of 1972 significantly amended the FIFRA of 1947. It is administered by the EPA. This act does the following: R e q u ire s all U .S . pesticides to be registered o r ap p ro ve d b y the Federal Governm ent; Classifies pesticides for general or restricted u se -th o se that are restricted to be applied o n ly b y or u n d e r the su p e r v isio n o f certified a p p licators due to h a za rd to the in d ivid u a l or to the en viro n m en t; Establishes state applicator certification program s (in w hich farm ers m a y be certified as private applicators) and cooperative enforcem ent program s; 33 ^^^ju n n esidj^rreddu e exceed fgg^lu ^ol^^ adds civil to increased crim in a l penalties, and otherw ise stre n g th e n sJenforcem ent; Shortens administrative review procedures; R e q u ire s p e sticid e -p ro d u cin g establishm ents to be registered and to subm it information regularly on production and sales volum e; A uthorizes indem nification of certain ow ners of pesticides that are suspended, then cancelled; and A u th o rize s the E P A A d m in istra to r to establish pesticide p a ck a g in g standards, regulate pesticide and container disposal, issue experimental use permits, conduct research on pesticides and alternatives and m onitor pesticide use and presence in the environm ent. It is obvious that the pesticide producers and users are already operating under regulations which can serve and have served to minimize the hazards of pesticide products. The requirements for testing and providing data for registration, re-registration and application of these products are stringent and costly. We feel that the pesticide industry and the public are both amply protected. The low number of poisonings attributed to these products and the overall good health enjoyed by farmers and rural dwellers testifies to the success of the current measures. As we have seen, despite frightening headlines and impas sioned oratory against the use of herbicides and insecticides, Americans can eat freely of the bounty of their land without fear of being poisoned. They are already witnessing a slow but positive cleansing of the air and water. But not all the credit belongs to the enforcers. The producers of agricultural chemicals can boast of a long, but unpublicized history of concern for the consumers of their products. In fact, the most refined techniques of purification and testing were developed by industry, and industrial laboratories still perform most of the elaborate tests required to ensure the purity and safety of their products, often performing investigations for the United States Government, under contract. It should be kept in mind that all uses of pesticides and all methods of pesticide application that are now permitted in this country are registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any practice resulting in high residues or hazards to public health could result in withdrawal of the registration. The Cost Of Developing Pesticides Making a new agricultural chemi cal available is a costly, time-con suming process. After a new product is discovered, it is usually not ready for market for at least eight or ten years. The costs are enormous. Inflation has contrib uted greatly to the increase, but growing registration costs are also an important factor. Part of these costs result from the larger staff required for the increased regis tration activities. At The Dow Chemical Company, for instance, Estimated Cost O f D eveloping An Agricultural Chem ical MILLIONS OF DOLLARS -- ' ------ ' CHANCE FOR A NEW CHEMICAL TO BECOME A PRODUCT (Estimated) Source: Proceedings of the 30th North Central Weed Control Conference, Mil waukee, December 1975. From a paper presented by Dr. Wendell Mullison. 35 there was nobody engaged full time in registration work in 1956. Today, Dow has 18 full-time pro fessional and support people working on registration pro cedures, aided by personnel from other departments. The increased cost, partly owing to increasing stringency of tests, has had an adverse effect on the number of major pesticides introduced within the past few years. Actually many unnecessary regulations are proposed by members of the legal staff of the agency, people who have only a minimal practical knowledge of agriculture. As a result, scientists are often unable to comply fully with the requirements. In such instances, industry must operate under doubtful rules which have the force of law but go far beyond the intent of the lawmakers. The next table indicates what has been happening to new developments since 1970, compared to similar activities in the years between 1941 and 1970. The following table shows how our research dollars are being spent as a result of increased reg istration requirements: T he present law has been costly, but it has provided a wide margin of safety to the public. New regulations, however, and excessively expan sionist interpretations of existing legislation, would increase the bureaucracy almost beyond com prehension, drastically increasing the cost of producing pesticides and the ultimate cost to the con sumer. These would grant broad discretionary banning powers to Number O f Major Pesticides Introduced In The U.S.A. From 1931 To Date 1931- 1941- 1951- 1961- 19711940 1950 1960 1970 Date Source: Proceedings of the 30th North Central Weed Control Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 1975. From a paper presented by Dr. Wendell Mullison. Recent Trend In Percentage O f Research Dollars For Discovering And Developing Pesticides At The 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 (Est.) DISCOVERY RESEARCH COMMERCIALIZATION AND REGISTRATION Compiled by Dr. C. A. I. Goring, The Dow Chemical Company. A verage Time N ecessary For D o w To Obtain Pesticide Registration O r Tolerances In The United States, 1970-1975 TYPE OF REGULATORY ACTION NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TIME IN WEEKS Minor label or formulation change 175 New relatively minor use 61 Obtaining tolerances and registration of a new product or a major new use 40 Compiled by Dr. C. A. I. Goring, The Dow Chemical Company. 18 51 131 the EPA Administrator and estab lish banning as the primary policy for eliminating potential hazards, a measure that ought to be em ployed only when there is proof of imminent hazard to man or his environment. The Administrator could also restrict usage and es tablish production quotas, and he could arbitrarily force any pesticide producer to carry out prescribed testing to prove zero risk, an exercise we have already characterized as futile. Innovation would be further stifled at a time when we need every possible use ful tool for feeding a crowded hungry world. If the risk-benefit concept as originally proposed by the Con gress were adhered to, the Amer ican people would be more than adequately assured of safety and abundance. The intent of legisla tion currently in force is good, and Congress is to be lauded for the enactment of needed pesticide legislation. However, the EPA has progressively expanded its au thority. In fact, that agency has created for itself a combined legist lative-judicial structure, and its actions go far beyond the au thority Congress had proposed for it. Knowledge of this situation should be made more readily available. If such knowledge can be provided to enough of the American taxpayers, we are confi dent that they will reject further com plications of the already costly pesticide regulations and will make their opinions known to Congress. At stake are the pres ent fairly reasonable costs of food and the assurance that the food supply will continue to be ade quately produced and protected by the developm ent of tech nological improvements. 37 A Time For Activists "This land is ours to enjoy, ours to preserve, ours to transmit." Abraham Lincoln Recent efforts to preserve or restore the American environment have begun to yield visible results. We all want clean air, clean water, and uncluttered wholesome surroundings. We also want to preserve our land's natural beauty for our own enjoyment and that of the generations to come. This is not the time to sit back and congratulate ourselves on our successes; we still must look for ways to conserve and increase our supplies of food and energy to keep pace with the growing demand, but we must learn to proceed carefully and deliberately so as to avoid the mistakes of the past and to preserve the delicate balance of our ecosystems. We need all our knowledge, all the resources of science, to avoid a conflict between these goals. And, it is not enough simply to preserve the balance of nature; the balance has to be tilted ever so gently in our favor if we plan to survive. We must remember that man has always been and will continue to be an integral part of nature. Land conservation and preservation of wildlife habitat are usually not taken seriously in nonindustrial areas of the world, where the pressures of starvation often overshadow most other problems. But the most urgent need for land conservation is here in this most industrialized of all countries, where new highways constantly nibble away at available farm and forest lands, where housing developments are expanding in all directions, and where opulent vacationers flock by the millions to lakes, parks, and wilderness areas. We Americans must continue to protect our wildlife heritage for the sake of our children-- constantly strive to increase and improve habitat for wild animals and birds. In many states, the populations of deer, game birds, and fish have increased dramatically -- in most cases as a result of deliberate manipulation of the environment. This situation could be reversed if our agricultural efficiency were reduced and we were forced to return the new forests to food production. 39 There are encouraging signs. For example, in a recent issue of N ational Wildlife, Paul R. Ehrlich, Professor of Biology, Stanford University, stated that population growth in the United States can possibly be brought to a halt within 50 years if we can hold the net reproductive rate about where it is and hold down immigration. If Professor Ehrlich's goal is achieved, our problem will be less acute, but before we reach equilibrium we may have to feed 40 or 50 million more people. To do that, the farmer will need every refinement in improved cultural practices and tools-- including an adequate array of effective pesticides. O ur pollution control laws are gradually having their effect, and industry has been making great strides towards reduc ing contamination of the atmosphere and waterways. In dustrial technology is busy devising new pollution controls and safer products. There are still glaring exceptions, but most industries are already significantly reducing and attempting to eliminate environmental pollution, a few, to be sure, somewhat reluctantly. Unsafe processes are being abandoned and safer substitutes are being developed for toxic substances. To meet government (OSHA) standards, new technologies are now being used to minimize toxic emissions. Flocculants and other new chemical treatments are being used more universally to purify industrial wastewaters. According toN ational Wildlife, February-March 1976, there has been progress in air cleanup since 1970 in many areas. For example, sulfur dioxide levels in the air have been reduced by some 25 percent. According to the same publication, the "EPA contends that motor vehicles are'the primary source' of smog in urban areas." Pollution and the dangers to our health are gradually being brought under control at their source -- in the great industrial centers. Much has been done and much remains to be done. Now, more than ever, we need activists to see that the job is finished, but these activists (if they are to be constructively active) need essential tools, and their tools must come from science and technology. Too many of the people who feel concern for the future of our environment think only in terms of blocking any new activity. Programs that may have profound effects on the environment need to be studied thoroughly. Sometimes they have to be blocked to protect the general welfare, but many tried and proven management practices deserve public approval and support. The laboratory or field scientist who discovers ways to reduce erosion, selectively control dangerous insects and other disease carrying pests, restore wildlife habitat or check the advance of plant pests introduced by man, is not fighting nature; he is doing his best to undo the damage created by decades of mismanagement, careless ness and ignorance. He is truly an environmental activist. 41 This booklet is the first in a series prepared by The Dow Chemical Company to acquaint the public with little known facts about sub jects of paramount importance to everyone who eats to live or other wise uses products of the farm and forest. The text was written and edited by Henry V. Lewert, Senior Technical Editor for Dow's Agricultural Products Depart ment. Most of the nature photo graphs are the work of Eugene E. Kenaga, Associate Scientist, Health and Environmental Re search, The Dow Chemical Company. v