Document NGqwmqnQdjmjGm5YJL9L7K3o8

STATEMENT BY CHARLES C. EDWARDS, M.D . . KB PRESS BRIEFING SEPTEMBER 29, 1971 - We have eallad this briefing to try to help establish perspective on PCI's, the extent of their presence In the food supply, the Implication this "has for human health and what the government la doing to define and control the problem generally. . There Is today considerable public and some obvious press confusion, gone of this confusion is due to the intense complexity of the PCB Issue and to deficient knowledge about the aubstances In terms of effect on huian health. ' . The confusion Is compounded by a few alarmists seeking heedlines. Their efforta have in aome few cases been sided and abetted by unbalanced reporting. '' . Public confusion has created public alarm and a feeling of still another crises In the food eupply. '. ' X know the confusion Is unnecessary and X believe the alarm Is greater than the facta will Justify. * And this Is the reason we have asked you here -- to try to give you the facts that va have, to there with you the limits of our knowledge, ' to tell you what we are doing with the Information we have, what we are doing to gat more Information and, finally,, to answer any questions you may have. . The KB problem Is one which cannot be easily defined. This family of Industrial chemicals has been used In countless useful and beneficial ways for more chan 40 years. Nevertheless, they have no place In the food / MOMS 0899 7b # apply. . i >2< FDA, other agencies of government, and Industry Itself have been . looking at FCB's since at least 1966 to try to keep the chemical out of foods and to try to assess what if anything It means if it should be found fa food. - He still have as many questions as answers but we do have some answers. Hs do know that as a toxic substance FCB's are a potential but not Immediate health; IlMard. We do know that Its background level In the environment Is not high. But we do not know how long term exposure to FCB might effect human I health and we cannot yet explain the Inconsistent presence of the chemicals fa certain areas of the environment. . We do know there are certain strong reasons for continued use of these chemicals. For example they have important flame resistant properties and properly used, directly assist government and Industry In protecting the consumer against fire. Wo do not know If a requirement for substitute chemicals In some cases might not prove more of a health threat than FCB's. . In recent months we have been faced with FCB adulteration of foods from an Industrial accident In North Carolina, from recycled paper packaging and from untraeeable environmental causes. 1 given the length and variety of uses and given the present Intensity f tbs present search we con be confident that other problems will bo found ad reported In the weeks and months ahead. But ths overall problem Is not new to FDA or to government. FDA developed 1 the technology to Identify and measure FCB content la foods and other substances. Iho Agency at least throe years ago established a 5 ppm guide line for FCB in fish. The Agency has consistently backstopped USDA la gosling with ths problem whenever It occurred in the poultry lndusery. MONS 089977 ' . -3- 'J ' The PCB Issue, like HTA and mercury for example, points up the need for Congressional passage of the Administration's Toxic Substances Control Bill. The ultimate solution to tho PCB problem, lies, at least In pare. In restricting uses to those pieces vhere the substances can be safely bad Beneficially employed. Cood progress Is being made toward this goal^ But the Toxic Substances Control Bill would clarify and strengthen our authority In this area. Furthermore, It seems clear we will have mora KB "Incidents" until a system for pre-testing of such chemicals Is established. The Toxic Substances Bill would establish such a system. In fact, the Council on Environmental Quality, In Its report of last April entitled "Toxic Substances" used KB's as one of the examples of substances which the proposed legislation la designed to'control. On another tack I want to remind you that the FDA In full recognition at the fact .that the problen of FCB's Is broader than any single agency of government,, recently took the lead In calling together six major Agencies of the Federal Government. The result was establishment September 1, 1971 of an Inter-Departmental Task Force to coordinate government activities, to facilitate the exchange of Information and to do all else possible to bring government resources to beer In defining and dealing with the problem as ceded. .* Z urge your additional attention to the joint press release Issued on Bepteaber 5 about this Task Force. Coplas are available. ' In a Moment I want to ask Deputy FDA Corals* loner Grant to give specific citations of actions that FDA and others have taken to wet and raduca health dangers or unwanted adulterations from PCB'a; ' . - Before I do, however, I want to make three further and very brief points: ' ' MONS U89978 1. We are taking specific, adequate and positive steps to deal Vtth'whatever problem or potential problem that FCB'a are likely to peao to human health. t 2. We reject the need and In fact the feasibility as some have proposed for an outright ban on the subatancea. Although the use of FCB's requires control, an outright ban la not feasible and would not be In the best Interest of the consumer. 3, He further reject the Idea that crisis headlines and demands for national health alerts are justified or needed to meet the situation as we know it today. Science does not support such actions and we In FDA will continue to abide by the dictates of science In making regulatory judgments in behalf of tha American consumer. . Thank You-- . ' ' i MONS 089979